[RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2)

2013-05-16 Thread Heidrun Wiesenmüller
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

Re: [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2)

2013-05-16 Thread James Weinheimer
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

Re: [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2)

2013-05-16 Thread Malcolm Jones
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

Re: [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2)

2013-05-16 Thread Heidrun Wiesenmüller
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,

Re: [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2)

2013-05-16 Thread John Hostage
(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

Re: [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2)

2013-05-16 Thread Kelleher, Martin
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

Re: [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2)

2013-05-16 Thread Charles Croissant
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

Re: [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2)

2013-05-16 Thread Kevin M Randall
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

Re: [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2)

2013-05-16 Thread Paradis Daniel
[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

Re: [RDA-L] Authorized Version (6.23.2.9.2)

2013-05-16 Thread Laurence S. Creider
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