[Heb-NACO] Preliminary Response to Elhanan Adler's Query Regarding Apocrypha

Tue Apr 1 02:58:12 EDT 2014

Shalom Aaron

Thank you very much for your input on this.

The context of my raising this question was Israeli practice. As you know, Israeli practice regarding 'Bible" is already different from that of the Anglo-American library world in that we use 'Bible' for 'Tanakh' (what you call 'Old Testament') and treat the New Testament as an independent work of Christian holy scripture ($aNew Testament, $aNew Testament.$pMark, etc.)

Dividing apocryphal works into canonical and non-canonical ones makes no sense in Jewish tradition where there is no canon at all (previous Israeli practice has been to treat the works in the Hebrew Kahana compilation as 'canonical', but this hardly qualifies as canonization, and the Kahana edition includes works such as Aristeas Letter which was never considered part of any Apocryphal canon).

I do not expect American practice to change, but in redefining Israeli practice I think it makes sense to establish each work independently. Since we are already entering Bible and New Testament differently from AACR/RDA rules there is already no international uniformity.

I am working on a list of major Judaica preferred title headings (what we used to call 'Anonymous classics') to replace an old list we once had. This list will included preferred terms (Hebrew and English) for Bible, Apocrypha, Talmudic literature, Midrashim, Dead Sea Scrolls, early Kabbalistic works, Liturgy, etc. I hope to have this list completed in a few weeks and after it is checked and approved by the national cataloging committee we will make it public. There are some major changes in the list which will bring many of the headings closer to American practice: Encyclopedia Judaica forms rather than systematic romanization, un-canonizing the Dead Sea Scrolls, and adopting some changes which go back to AACR but were never fully adopted in Israel. I will keep you informed and would be glad for any input.

Best wishes

Elhanan

Elhanan Adler
Email: elhanana at savion.huji.ac.il
Mobile tel.: 972-54-6829657
Tel. (home) 972-2-6515977
Fax (home): 972-2-6517129

From: Taub, Aaron [mailto:atau at loc.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 12:07 AM
To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
Cc: 'Joseph Galron-Goldschlaeger'; Elhanan Adler; 'etreesh at atla.com'
Subject: Preliminary Response to Elhanan Adler's Query Regarding Apocrypha

Dear Elhanan and Colleagues,

Thank you, Elhanan, for raising the issue of Jewish view of the Apocrypha (Heb-NACO, 11/25/2013).

We discussed your proposal at a recent Israel and Judaica Section meeting.  Although works such as Ben Sira and Wisdom of Solomon are not accepted into a Jewish canon, they are canonical in other religions.  And since these works are accepted into the canons of other religions, there cannot be multiple headings for the same text.  In other words, there cannot be headings for the same work given one way in one religious context and in another way in another religious context.  For works such as Ben Sira, we would not recommend entering directly under the individual title.

That said, Paul Crego of the Israel and Judaica Section has offered to investigate the possibility of streamlining the headings for some of these headings within a Christian context that would allow the religious tradition to be included at the end of a string.  Attached to this is e-mail is a very preliminary discussion of this matter by Dr. Crego.  I am carbon copying Erica Treesh of the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) on this e-mail.

Thank you,
Aaron Taub

*******************************************************************************
Aaron Taub
Head, Israel and Judaica Section
Asian and Middle Eastern Division
LS/ABA/ASME/IJ
Library of Congress
101 Independence Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20540-4222
E-Mail: atau at loc.gov<mailto:atau at loc.gov>
Telephone: (202) 707-3965

===================================================================================================

From: heb-naco-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu<mailto:heb-naco-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu> [mailto:heb-naco-bounces at lists.service.ohio-state.edu] On Behalf Of Elhanan Adler
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2013 8:50 AM
To: Hebrew Name Authority Funnel
Subject: [Heb-NACO] Jewish view of the Apocrypha

Shalom all

I would like your input on the following idea - but first you need to forget your Christian-oriented cataloging rules which consider the Apocrypha (or at least various parts of it) to be canonized sacred scripture.

We are in the process of rewriting Israeli cataloging rules to adapt them to RDA. At the same time, we are also looking at adopting some rules which were already there in AACR, but never adopted in Israel (particularly regarding Jewish liturgy - but that is another story)

>From a purely Jewish point of view, there never was an official group of apocryphal books. When the Tanakh was officially 'closed' in Tannaitic times (and after some argument regarding Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs) various other books of the period were declared to be 'external books' (sefarim hitsoni'im) and some very strong statements were made against reading them. Most of these survived primarily because they were in the Greek Septuagint and became accepted as part of Christian Old Testament canon (although not all churches accepted the same books).

There are several collections of Jewish apocrypha in Hebrew but these are relatively recent attempts to translate back to Hebrew and group these works together, certainly not to 'canonize' the group.

Therefore, from a purely Jewish standpoint it seems to me that Apocrypha is similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls which consist of some titled works, some untitled fragments, and some collections from various works. What brings them together as 'Dead Sea Scrolls' is the fact that they were all found (presumably) in and around the Judean desert.

In RDA  this is a 'manuscript group' 6.2.2.7
6.2.2.7 Manuscripts and Manuscript Groups

For works contained in a manuscript or manuscripts (including manuscript groups), choose the preferred title by applying the instructions appropriate for the work at 6.2.2.4-6.2.2.6. If these instructions do not apply, choose one of these options as the preferred title (in this order of preference):

a)a title that has been assigned to the work subsequent to its creation or compilation
   EXAMPLE
Domesday book
Cancionero musical de palacio
Codex Amiatinus

   b)the name of the manuscript or manuscript group if the work is identified only by that name
   EXAMPLE
Book of Lismore
Dead Sea scrolls
Tell-el Amarna tablets

So a named work (e.g. Genesis Apocryphon) would stand alone under rule a, but a collection from various works would be 'Dead Sea Scrolls' under rule b

For Apocryphal works also it seems to me that individual titled works should be established under their own titles, and the heading Apocrypha should be used only for collections/selections from this literature.

Regarding apocryphal books RDA says:

RDA 6.23.2.6Apocryphal Books

An apocryphal book is one that is not included in the Catholic canon nor in the Protestant Apocrypha. Choose as the preferred title for an apocryphal book the title commonly found in sources in a language preferred by the agency creating the data.
   EXAMPLE
Book of Jubilees
Epistola Apostolorum
Gospel according to the Hebrews
   For compilations of apocryphal books, apply the instructions at 6.2.2.9.2.

Note that works which are not part of a 'canon' are to be entered under individual title. Since there is no Jewish Apocryphal canon, wouldn't it be correct from a purely Jewish outlook to enter each work (Ben Sira, Wisdom of Solomon, etc.) under its own title?

Comments welcome.

Best wishes

Elhanan

Elhanan Adler
Email: elhanana at savion.huji.ac.il<mailto:elhanana at savion.huji.ac.il>
Mobile tel.: 972-54-6829657
Tel. (home) 972-2-6515977
Fax (home): 972-2-6517129

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osu.edu/pipermail/heb-naco/attachments/20140401/5a6796bd/attachment.html>