Contents
- Discussion (after 8/27)
- Confluence (through 8/27)
Discussion
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:47:01 -0400
From: "Myers, John F." <myersj@union.edu>
To: "ALCTS Committee on Cataloging\: Description and Access" <ala-ccda@ala.org>
I would very much like to hear more from our colleagues serving
religious communities, even if there is not consensus within them as we
heard from Daniel Lovins regarding AJL's thoughts. For instance, how
does CLA feel about the continued deuterocanonical treatment of the
Apocrypha under the framework of the Authorized Version with respect to
UTs? With what I assume is fairly broad representation amongst North
American denominations, does ATLA have more to bring to the discussion?
From LC's extensive analysis of the various options and the diversity of
opinions which have been expressed to date, it is clear that a perfect
solution is unattainable in human hands, as suggested by Daniel Lovins.
It seems that the best that be attained is a solution which is least
problematic. To that end, it would seem that the Bible UTs must be
formulated in reference to some reference source. Given the complexity
of the situation, this selection may perforce be arbitrary, and so might
as well devolve to that of long standing practice, which is to say the
Authorized Version. Within that context then, the alternatives seem to
be the retention of the entire existing system or of the slight
modification of eliminating "O.T." and "N.T." from the UT strings, that
is, the main thrust of LC's proposal.
Retention of the existing system would sustain the most glaring instance
of Protestant Christian bias in the headings, but would preserve the
investment in a system which, disliked by some, is nominally understood
by most. Alternatively, the worst of the bias would be alleviated
through the dropping of "O.T." and "N.T.", but resulting in a degree of
bibliographic file maintenance in the short term the issue of how to
refer collectively to those collections formerly identified as the Old
and New Testaments, and the not entire elimination of bias. It could be
easy to say in the face of diverse opinions that the effort for change
is not worth it, to exchange one unsatisfactory system for another, but
that is an easy call to make when one is not the object of the bias in
question. Without having "walked the mile", I in no way support the
making of "easy calls" however, but of making the best, considered
decision. FWIW, I think dropping "O.T." and "N.T." are reasonable (I am
particularly appreciative for Thomas Duszak's sharing of the reference
to Nostra Aetate) and worth the resulting consequences to file
maintenance and collective terminology.
I cannot see the Alternative under 25.17 as being a workable solution in
our _current_ cataloging context. As expressed by several, the negative
consequences for record sharing are too great. It seems most attainable
in a future context where 1) access points are not entered as such but
are pointed at in the corresponding authority record and 2) profilable
displays of the authorized heading or its "legitimate" alternatives a la
the vision of universal authority control expressed in several FRBR
presentations. To facilitate that end however, the maintenance of a
consistent and coherent authority structure in the present is required.
Still afraid that I'm asking more questions than I'm answering and
hoping this hasn't gone on too long (and too repetitively) from one who
has a fair but admittedly only avocational interest in the topic.
John
John Myers, Catalog Librarian
Schaffer Library, Union College
Schenectady NY 12308
518-388-6623
myersj@union.edu
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:06:35 -0400
From: "Duszak, Thomas" <tduszak@state.pa.us>
To: "ALCTS Committee on Cataloging\: Description and Access" <ala-ccda@ala.org>
The proposal to eliminate Christian bias in Bible uniform headings is consistent with the teaching of Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
The Catholic Library Association supports the Library of Congress proposal dated June 1, 2006.
Thomas Duszak, Catholic Library Association liaison
State Library of Pennsylvania
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:17:51 -0400
To: "ALCTS Committee on Cataloging\: Description and Access" <ala-ccda@ala.org>
From: Daniel Lovins <daniel.lovins@yale.edu>
John,
Thanks very much for providing this summary.
As the liaison from the Association of Jewish Libraries (AJL), I need to make sure I've accurately represented those who took the trouble to send me their comments. With that in mind, I'm not sure I can honestly say that AJL endorses or even "supports" this proposal. This is because (1) I failed to obtain a quorum of votes on the Cataloging Committee, and (2) because the votes that did come in (i.e., from those both on and off the committee) were equivocal.
In fact, most of the respondents were non-committal.
A few were strongly supportive, welcoming the ability to describe resources according to the categories used by their readers (e.g., using "Tanakh" instead of "Bible. O.T.").
Others were more pessimistic. One wrote that the proposal, if adopted, “would introduce a wild and random variable into the quality … of records available for copy cataloging.” Another wrote that the proposed change would cause “absolute chaos.” These AJL members believe the system works well as it is, and that it's better not to try to have a God's-eye (i.e., unbiased) perspective, since this is anyway unattainable by mortals, and that the current Protestant-based system goes a long way toward facilitating inter-denominational scholarship and comparative study of Biblical literatures.
I don't mean to put a monkey wrench into your summary, but I feel like these caveats needed to be stated for the record.
Thanks.
Daniel Lovins
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:22:32 -0400
From: John Attig <jxa16@psulias.psu.edu>
Subject: [ALA-CCDA:5662] 5JSC/LC/8: Bible uniform titles
Summary: There was general agreement with LC's attempt to remove the Christian bias from the rules. Both the American Theological Library Association and the Association of Jewish Libraries were supportive. There was one dissenting voice (from Hebrew Union College) that argued that "uniformity and ease of access should 'trump' all other considerations. Adoption of the proposed revisions would probably cause more problems than it solves.
The major concern was over the optional approach in 25.17. Various ways of dealing with this, both in the rules and in MARC applications were suggested.
John Myers presented two comments that are worth noting: (a) The identification of the Authorized (King James) version of the Bible as the authority for names of books of the Bible is itself biased towards the Protestant canon, and perhaps a more neutral source could be suggested. If anybody would like to suggest a specific source, I would like to include that in the draft response. (b) The different canons of the Bible can become quite technical, more technical than most catalogers and most users could easily cope with. If anybody wishes to challenge the accuracy of John's statements, please say so during the discussion; I think these comments should be included in the ALA response.
There were other suggestions that do not strike me as controversial.
Motion: I move that CC:DA approve a response to 5JSC/LC/8 that expresses our general support for the proposal, but indicates our concerns about the optional approach of the alternative rule in 25.17 and about the complexity of distinguishing different canons of the Bible; and that conveys other comments made in Confluence or during discussion on this motion.
Request (for the draft response): I noted above some questions for the experts. If anybody has any comments about the accuracy of comments posted in Confluence or other suggestions, please contribute them during the discussion.
The American Theological Library Association held an extended discussion of this proposal and came to the conclusion that we are sympathetic to the concerns of the Jewish community and recognize the Christocentric nature of the rules are they are currently constructed. We feel that LC has come up with the best solution given the tremendous amount of labor intensive work required to implement the other possible solutions. To switch to Bible (Jewish) and Bible (Christian), which would be preferable would require a detailed analysis of all Old Testament resources, in many cases including retrieving the resource. ATLA/Knop, 8/26/06
The new 25.18A1 maintains the identification of the Authorized (aka King James) Version as the reference source for the names of Biblical books. Is this not a tacit (and perhaps unavoidable) elevation of one version and canon over the others (Hebrew, Catholic, etc.)? In which case, being unavoidable, is it worth agonizing over religious sensitivities? I?m posing, not answering, that question. But the comment from Hebrew Union College seems to indicate that to one affected institution it is not. After all, an agency choosing Hebrew Bible or Tanakh as the root element is not offered the subsequent alternative of identifying the "Writings" group of books as Ketuvim over Hagiographia, nor of referring to specific books by their Hebrew titles; it is perforce required to conform to King James Version terminology. Myers 8/27/2006
-------------------------
Further, I am concerned that the alternative addresses the situation in an inaccurate fashion. The historical development of the biblical canons is complex. (My comments below are those of a tolerably well-informed lay person (who nonetheless had to bone up on some details) and subject to stringent correction by our specialists.) I am thinking of the development of the Septuagint, which as a Greek text could be argued to be distinct from the "Hebrew Bible" but nonetheless was the version of Sacred Scriptures available to Hellenized Jews. It is the re-establishment of the Masoretic canon for the "Hebrew Bible" in the earlier centuries of the Common Era which lies at the root of the differences between the Catholic and Protestant canons. The fact that the current UT structure separates out the Apocrypha (the books which make up the difference between the Masoretic and Septuagint versions) indicates not just a Christian bias but a Protestant bias (which is perhaps unavoidable with the Authorized (aka King James) Version identified as the reference source in 25.18A1 (renumbered)). The absence of this kind of discussion from 5JSC/LC/8 is telling as is the Confluence comment for 25.18A2 which erroneously supposes that the differences between the Catholic and Protestant canons reside in the 'New Testament' rather than the 'Old Testament'. Not everyone therefore is well versed in the history of the development of the various canons (and I have not broached the possibility that various minor, early but still extent Christian sects might have other canons nor of the differences in structure between the Masoretic text and the King James Old Testament). This all argues for simplification, not the inclusion of poorly understood alternatives. It is possible that for situations requiring further elaboration that the rules for language and version under 25.18A10 and 25.18A11 may suffice, especially if Tanakh is identified as a version. Myers 8/27/2006
------------------------
Members of the Association of Jewish Libraries (AJL) deeply appreciate efforts by LC to remove Christian bias from RDA. We believe the current proposal is well reasoned and contains excellent suggestions, but question whether we have a sufficiently clear understanding of emerging authority record models to foresee how it would be implemented.
There was uncertainty within the AJL community about whether the proposal envisions: (1) multiple established headings for a single Biblical entity within the same authority file, or (2) individual libraries given the option to (a.) assign variant forms to bibliographic records or alternatively (b.) invoke established headings from non-U.S. authority files. The latter possibility suggests use of a VIAF.
In fact, several of us felt that the VIAF might offer a better solution to the problem of bias, without disrupting the powerful collocation and navigation on which many of our readers have come to depend. Perhaps variant Bible headings and even entire hierarchies could be managed through MARC authority "context markers" and the VIAF, i.e., similar to what has been recommended in Model C of MARBI discussion paper 2001-05 (2001-DP05).
While the focus of 2001-DP05 is on non-Roman script parallel headings, the idea behind Model C is generalizable to include multiple cultural aspects. The authors of this DP suggest three such aspects (though leave open the possibility of more), namely: (1) the body of rules under which heading was formulated, (2) the language of catalog in which heading will be used; and (3) the audience for whom the heading is intended.
A research-level cataloging agency in the U.S. could formulate a 1XX heading in the context of RDA cataloging rules, and specify an English-language, academic audience. Cross-references could be provided from variant forms, irrespective of script, that were established according the same rules (in which case they would be tagged 4XX) or within other contexts (in which case, 7XX, and linked to parallel authority records through the VIAF).
Here's an illustration of how the technique might be applied in the case of sacred scriptures:
008/10 (Cataloging rules code): a (AACR2)
008/11 (Subject system/thesaurus): a (LCSH)
040 $b (Language of cataloging): eng (English)
130 0 $a Bible. Old Testament
430 0 $a Bible. O.T.
430 0 $a Hebrew Bible
730 4 $a Tanakh $7 local/judaic/eng $0 abc1234
730 4 $a 
$7 JNUL/academic/heb $0 xyx789
where the 130 field is the preferred form, the 430s are non-preferred references, and the 730s are alternate preferred forms, linked to other authority files through a control number in subfield $0. A 730 could then be flipped to a 130 if the context indicated in subfield $7 were deemed culturally appropriate to the host catalog.
Lovins for AJL 8/27/06