RDA 6.23.2.9.2 says: For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon,
record the brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a
subdivision of the preferred title for the Bible.
Is my interpretation correct that Authorized Version here is not meant
in a general sense of some standard
On 16/05/2013 14:21, Heidrun Wiesenmüller wrote:
snip
RDA 6.23.2.9.2 says: For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon,
record the brief citation form of the Authorized Version as a
subdivision of the preferred title for the Bible.
Is my interpretation correct that Authorized Version here
and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Sent: 16 May 2013 13:21
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2)
RDA 6.23.2.9.2 says: For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon, record
Malcolm Jones wrote:
In England, the expression Authorised Version, often simply AV. certainly
means the version published in 1611,
(also known as the King James Bible) irrespective of the religious
denomination of the speaker/writer.
Others more familiar than I can speak of N. American usage,
(fax)
-Original Message-
From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Heidrun
Wiesenmüller
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2013 08:21
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2
Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Malcolm Jones
Sent: 16 May 2013 14:07
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2)
In England, the expression Authorised Version, often simply AV. certainly means
the version published
Certainly, Authorized Version in the context of RDA 6.23.2.9.2 is a
specific designation for the King James Bible, not a generic term -- this
usage in cataloging rules predates RDA and goes back through AACR to the
ALA rules of 1949 and presumably further.
As Heidrun notes, this is an
Martin Kelleher wrote:
Personally, I'd consider 'Authorized Version' to be a relative term, and
always understood the generic, universally recognizable term for the 1611
translation to be the King James Bible. I presume there's an academic
(and presumably C of E) understanding of 'Authorized
[mailto:RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca] De la part de Heidrun Wiesenmüller
Envoyé : 16 mai 2013 08:21
À : RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca
Objet : [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2)
RDA 6.23.2.9.2 says: For books of the Catholic or Protestant canon,
record the brief citation form of the Authorized Version
Authorized Version makes no sense in the USA, except as authorized by a
particular non-governmental body. The Jefferson Bible was published by
the GPO in 1904, but this was not an authorization.
The term Authorized Version does work in the UK. According to the
Wikipedia article you cite, it was
10 matches
Mail list logo