Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha
Genesis (Septuagint): Only if you are referring to the Greek translation of the Hebrew book done before 100 B.C. whose AACR2 form would be Bible. $p O.T. $Genesis $l Greek. $s Septuagint or a translation into another language based on that text. Larry Creider -- Laurence S. Creider Special Collections Librarian New Mexico State University Las Cruces, NM 88003 Work: 575-646-7227 Fax: 575-646-7477 lcrei...@lib.nmsu.edu On Tue, 10 May 2011, J. McRee Elrod wrote: Genesis (Septuagent)?
Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha
>> Just "Genesis" is a faith neutral compromise.
>
>Ah, yes it might very well be. But since that title conflicts with other
>works that have the same title, if you are using an authorized access
>point you will need to qualify it.
Genesis (Septuagent)?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha
Mac wrote: Just "Genesis" is a faith neutral compromise. Ah, yes it might very well be. But since that title conflicts with other works that have the same title, if you are using an authorized access point you will need to qualify it. By what? (Torah), (Bible), (Book of the Torah), (Book of the Bible), (Holy scripture) - one could get into the same dilemma we've been discussing even with the qualifier. Adam ** * Adam L. Schiff * * Principal Cataloger* * University of Washington Libraries * * Box 352900 * * Seattle, WA 98195-2900 * * (206) 543-8409 * * (206) 685-8782 fax * * asch...@u.washington.edu * **
Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha
Jonathan said:
>RDA should be delayed because it didn't change AACR2 _enough_ for your
>tastes, because it left some AACR2 practices intact that you think
>should be changed?
Yes. If RDA is to be an improvement on AACR2, it is not too much to
ask that it be so.
Otherwise, why the trouble and expense?
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA - make a proposal!
As a proposal, here goes
Since we no longer will have Bible. O.T., therefore we can no longer have
Bible. O.T. Apocrypha, but only Bible. Apocrypya. But that is misleading
since there are N.T. Apocryha as well
Therefore, all of the apocrypha, of the O.T. and N.T. as well as what is
generally stated to be the Pseudepigrapha of the O.T. should be entered
under title only.
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 8:11 AM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
> Mike Tribby said:
>
> >Adam Schiff makes a fair point that it would be far more constructive
> >to suggest improvements rather than just airing grievances about
> >particular aspects of RDA.
>
> Suggestions have been made, but have been ignored, including:
>
> -Have the text edited by someone who writes good English, Michael
> Gorman for example.
>
> -Adopt ISBD's Area 0's "electronic" as a media type; a "computer" is a
> piece of equipment, and increasingly electronic resources are used on
> devices other than computers. That has been brought up from the floor
> at every RDA workshop of which I am aware.
>
> -Allow ISBD inclusions in a multilingual catalogue, or even as an
> alternative for any agency concerned with display space.
>
> -Allow jurisdictional qualification. If [London, Ontario] is
> acceptable, why no London [Ontario]?
>
> -Continue sentence capitalization of titles with no alternatives.
>
> -Remove alternate title from title proper; "or" is no greater a
> problem than "and" in collections without a collective title.
>
> -Describe items as they describe themselves. whether written by a
> mouse, cockroach, or cat.
>
> -Abandon the faith specific B.C,/A.D. for the faith neutral
> B.C.E./C.E.
>
> -Introduce "equipment", "large print" and "kit" as carriers, even
> though a kit may contain a mix if mediated and unmedicated items.
>
> -Introduce shorter alternate content terms for terms too long to
> display, e.g., "cartographic", "tactile", "moving image".
>
>
> =
>
> Or better yet, issue RDA's few improvements (e.g., treaty entry) as
> AACR2 revisions, and shelve RDA until there is a coding system and
> ILS capable of its utilization.
>
>
> __ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
> {__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing
> HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha
RDA should be delayed because it didn't change AACR2 _enough_ for your
tastes, because it left some AACR2 practices intact that you think
should be changed? That's not a reason to delay a standard. That's
ridiculous. If you wait until RDA is perfect in the judgement of
everyone involved, it will never be released at all. Which I understand
may be some people's preference, but come on.
On 5/10/2011 12:36 PM, J. McRee Elrod wrote:
Thomas said:
It would make sense then for religious works to follow the same pattern, wh=
ich would mean the Preferred Title for Genesis could be
"Genesis" instead of "Bible. Genesis"
Very true. How nice to agree with Thomas for a change. It is
Christian bias which has "Bible. Genesis" as opposed to "Torah.
Genesis". Genesis was in the Torah centuries before it entered the
Christian Bible. Just "Genesis" is a faith neutral compromise.
This is one of many areas in which old practices were carried forward,
by RDA, rather than being revised to agree with the overall RDA principles
stated. RDA should be delayed until these matters are addressed.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha
Thomas said:
>It would make sense then for religious works to follow the same pattern, wh=
>ich would mean the Preferred Title for Genesis could be
>
>"Genesis" instead of "Bible. Genesis"
Very true. How nice to agree with Thomas for a change. It is
Christian bias which has "Bible. Genesis" as opposed to "Torah.
Genesis". Genesis was in the Torah centuries before it entered the
Christian Bible. Just "Genesis" is a faith neutral compromise.
This is one of many areas in which old practices were carried forward,
by RDA, rather than being revised to agree with the overall RDA principles
stated. RDA should be delayed until these matters are addressed.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] RDA - make a proposal!
Mike Tribby said:
>Adam Schiff makes a fair point that it would be far more constructive
>to suggest improvements rather than just airing grievances about
>particular aspects of RDA.
Suggestions have been made, but have been ignored, including:
-Have the text edited by someone who writes good English, Michael
Gorman for example.
-Adopt ISBD's Area 0's "electronic" as a media type; a "computer" is a
piece of equipment, and increasingly electronic resources are used on
devices other than computers. That has been brought up from the floor
at every RDA workshop of which I am aware.
-Allow ISBD inclusions in a multilingual catalogue, or even as an
alternative for any agency concerned with display space.
-Allow jurisdictional qualification. If [London, Ontario] is
acceptable, why no London [Ontario]?
-Continue sentence capitalization of titles with no alternatives.
-Remove alternate title from title proper; "or" is no greater a
problem than "and" in collections without a collective title.
-Describe items as they describe themselves. whether written by a
mouse, cockroach, or cat.
-Abandon the faith specific B.C,/A.D. for the faith neutral
B.C.E./C.E.
-Introduce "equipment", "large print" and "kit" as carriers, even
though a kit may contain a mix if mediated and unmedicated items.
-Introduce shorter alternate content terms for terms too long to
display, e.g., "cartographic", "tactile", "moving image".
=
Or better yet, issue RDA's few improvements (e.g., treaty entry) as
AACR2 revisions, and shelve RDA until there is a coding system and
ILS capable of its utilization.
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha
Armin Stephan said:
>In electronical systems it's no longer necessary to produce such
>unpractical monsters of authority names.
While I think you make good points, there is the browse feature in
some OPACs. Our law firm clients were upset by Insurance subject
headings being uninverted. There are advantages to collocation even
in the electronic environment.
This is not to defend putting "Apocrypha" under "Bible".
__ __ J. McRee (Mac) Elrod (m...@slc.bc.ca)
{__ | / Special Libraries Cataloguing HTTP://www.slc.bc.ca/
___} |__ \__
Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha
I think that RDA having to support the three scenarios (http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5editor2rev.pdf) means that the construction of authorized access points (only really needed in scenario 3 (card catalogs) and scenario 2 (MARC)) will continue to affect how Preferred Titles and Preferred Names are determined. The choice for preferred title and preferred name is consistently stated in RDA as being done in light of being "the basis for the authorized access point". But there appears to be an alternative procedure already in place in RDA. Generally, parts of works are treated as standalone titles (RDA 6.2.2.9), even a title as non-distinct as "Part 1". Stitching together the elements for authorized access point for non-distinct titles involves bringing in other elements, such as the authorized access point for the larger work (RDA 6.27.2.2). It would make sense then for religious works to follow the same pattern, which would mean the Preferred Title for Genesis could be "Genesis" instead of "Bible. Genesis" leaving the authorized access point to be a concatenated construction including either the authorized access point for the larger work or qualifiers consisting of other elements. In the case of religious works, there is a consistent pattern for all scriptures to use subdivisions of the larger work (Bible, Talmud, Qur'an, Vedas, Upanishads, and so on) in the authorized access point for the part. These could be covered as additional exceptions for Parts of Works in RDA 6.27.2.2. There is also an inherent bias to choosing forms for preferred titles as well, in the choice of predominant form (or as RDA describes the choice-"commonly found" or "commonly identified"). I'm not sure how that relates to the bias for the adherence to the Protestant Authorized Version in the choices for the authorized access points. However, separating out the individual title of the book of the Bible as the Preferred Title of the Religious Work (consistent with RDA 6.2.2.9) from the concatenation for the authorized access point for the work might go partway in resolving this issue. Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Armin Stephan Sent: May 10, 2011 4:31 AM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha This discussion about biblical or apocryphal works seems unbelievable to me. The AACR cataloging tradition concerning these works is an anachronism. It was invited many, many years ago for card catalogs. All parts of the Bible should be found at one place in the card catalog. (I know this system from a German catalog in an university library. This catalog was founded in 1912!) In electronical systems it's no longer necessary to produce such unpractical monsters of authority names. (But abbreviations to make them shorter??) The second unbelievable point is, that AACR and RDA use Latin numbers in the names of biblical works. No electronical system can handle such numbers perfectly. In Germany we cancelled this cataloging tradition in the eighties, when the new rules RAK have been developed. And now we shall get back these old-fashioned rules ... :-(( I'm very, very sad about the JSC discussion and decision. Of course the church libraries in Germany tried to get in contact with the national cataloging agency. But the problem got lost in the huge RDA discussion. If You treat the works of the Bible as individual works, You don't have the problem of a construction of hierarchical authority names and You don' t have the problem to decide if a work is a part of the biblical canon or not. It's problem enough that we have several names for the same work in the different confessions and denominations and so a big problem of authority control. Am 10.05.2011 00:34, schrieb Brenndorfer, Thomas: The issue of Apocrypha titles has been discussed in the RDA historical documents: In particular, http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5lc8.pdf http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5lc8-alaresp.pdf List of documents at: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#lc-8 The original proposal included removing "O.T. Apocrypha" from individual titles of the Protestant Apocrypha, but this did not make it into RDA. Using the Authorized Version list of titles was considered an "arbitrary simplification", "biased", but a "necessary evil". That would mean that Catholic canon books in the Protestant Apocrypha would have "Apocrypha" as part of the preferred title. I think one needs to draw some Venn diagrams to see what books of the Bible are covered in each set of instructions in RDA: ** For RDA 6.23.2.9.2 "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" the governing list is the list of books in the Authorized Version, regardless of the Cath
Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha - make a proposal!
Concerning the changes to the Apocrypha, I wish the powers of modern computing could be employed to solve these matters. At its basis, I don't think that this issue is any different from any other authorized point: there is the conceptual consideration that everyone can more or less agree on: the concept of "Bel and the Dragon" or "Tobit" or "Apocrypha", but there is no agreement on the name of that concept. This is the same as for Confucius or Santa Claus: everybody has their own name for it, and there is no "correct" name. The Chinese form of Confucius is no more "correct" than the English form but the English form makes no sense to use for Chinese users, just as the Chinese form makes no sense for English users. But you must choose one form as the authorized form, and the moment you do that, you must alienate certain groups who prefer some other form. If you change it again for those groups, you make still other groups angry. Some of these groups can react *very strongly*. It is a completely no-win situation. Except this can be averted today. There is now no need for everybody to be forced to use the same form of name since the point of organization, e.g. LC Control Number for Bel and the Dragon 88039735 (but other means can be used as well) can be used as a URI, while the actual form can display according to how each library, or even each person wants. I really wish that the resources could be placed into these kinds of real solutions, instead of re-airing the same old arguments, as I am sure catalogers were arguing these same issues about the Apocrypha 100 years ago! -- James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.ji...@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/ Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha - make a proposal!
I'd like to respond to a number of the issues that are raised by Mike's comments below. I cannot speak for all of the members of the Joint Steering Committee, but I can talk about how ALA approaches both this specific issue and the more general issues of RDA revision. On 5/10/2011 9:23 AM, Mike Tribby wrote: Adam Schiff makes a fair point that it would be far more constructive to suggest improvements rather than just airing grievances about particular aspects of RDA. 1. The Joint Steering Committee is open to proposals for revising RDA instructions. The general guidelines on submitting proposals through the various constituency groups still apply, and are stated on the JSC website in "Submitting proposals to revise RDA" http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html 2. ALA's document on "How to submit a rule change proposal to CC:DA" is about to be updated to reflect RDA. Anyone interested in submitting a revision proposal to CC:DA should contact the Chair of CC:DA for advice. 3. As ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee, I do monitor discussions on RDA-L. In this specific case, I have already contacted the representatives from the groups on which CC:DA relies for advice on issues relating to religious works (the American Theological Library Association, the Catholic Library Association, and the Association of Jewish Libraries); at least one representative has already indicated an interest in doing further work on the instructions for parts of biblical works, based on the RDA-L discussions. I anticipate that there will eventually be a proposal from ALA that will address the issues raised. Still, it seems to me that, at least for some listmembers, what appear as complaints are also questions about why RDA has the provisions it has. Were altenate ways of dealing with Apocrypha discussed and discarded? If so, would airing the same alternatives that were already rejected serve a useful purpose (beyond the obvious purpose of calling the decisions reached in creating RDA into question)? 4. All of the instructions in RDA have a historical background. One of the expectations for those submitting a revision proposal is that the proposer has taken that historical background into account. Therefore, Mike's point above is well taken. It is not so much that the JSC refuses to reconsider arguments previously rejected or decisions already made, but that we expect that any new proposal will take that history into account. 5. In most cases, the historical background of particular RDA instructions may be limited to the text of AACR2. In this particular case, however, there was an attempt to reconsider the instructions for naming parts of the Bible. A proposal from the Library of Congress -- 5JSC/LC/8 -- and a whole series of responses and follow-ups, deal with the issue, and the JSC discussions and decisions on these documents are reported in the JSC minutes. All of this documentation is available on the JSC website: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#lc-8 6. In this case, the JSC decided to take some modest steps to remedy the problem of bias in the authorized access points for biblical works, while also recognizing that significant issues remained unresolved. This means that there is definitely room for further revision proposals in this area. We would hope that any such proposals would take into account all of the discussion that has already taken place in the documents I referred to above. 7. Finally, as Mike notes, the issues in question relate to instructions on formulating authorized access points for biblical works. In such cases, there is a need to balance a desire to respect the various confessional traditions relating to the canon of sacred scriptures with the need for consistent practice within a shared authority file. We would like to do both, but that is not always possible. John Attig ALA Representative to the Joint Steering Committee jx...@psu.edu
Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha - make a proposal!
Adam Schiff makes a fair point that it would be far more constructive to suggest improvements rather than just airing grievances about particular aspects of RDA. Still, it seems to me that, at least for some listmembers, what appear as complaints are also questions about why RDA has the provisions it has. Were altenate ways of dealing with Apocrypha discussed and discarded? If so, would airing the same alternatives that were already rejected serve a useful purpose (beyond the obvious purpose of calling the decisions reached in creating RDA into question)? It seems to me from my narrow perspective on this particular issue, that since there are widely divergent ideas about what constitute Apocrypha in the many versions of the Bible, it may well be impossible to reach a consensus. So do we want air-tight rules that will inevitably leave some feeling wronged? Do we want another area for cataloger's judgment (on this issue I would assume not, but what do I know?)? How do we deal with a situation for which there may well not be an entirely equitable solution? And, more in keeping with my history on this list, where does this issue or set of issues fall on the RDA is not a cataloging code<--->RDA is silent on display continuum? Mike Tribby Senior Cataloger Quality Books Inc. The Best of America's Independent Presses mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com -Original Message- From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access [mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Adam L. Schiff Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 5:10 PM To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Subject: [RDA-L] Apocrypha - make a proposal! It's frustrating to see all of the griping about RDA instructions like the ones dealing with Apocrypha, which will lead nowhere unless someone actually makes a revision proposal. If there is a problem that needs fixing, the way to get it fixed is to ask one of the JSC constituent bodies to make a proposal to change RDA. Thus the best course of action would be contact the appropriate constituent body with a summary of the problem and a concrete suggestion on the way to fix it. If the fix is not obvious at first, the body could decide to form a task group to investigate and to recommend an appropriate solution/revision. To get the ball rolling, one could contact the chairs of the appropriate bodies: ALA Committee on Cataloging: Description and Access (CC:DA): Lori Robare, Chair lrob...@uoregon.edu Canadian Committee on Cataloguing (CCC): Christine Oliver chris.oli...@mcgill.ca Australian Committee on Cataloguing: Deirdre Kiorgaard dkior...@nla.gov.au CILIP/BL Secretariat, c/o Katharine Gryspeerdt katharine.gryspee...@bl.uk See also the page on Submitting Proposals to Revise RDA at http://www.rda-jsc.org/revision.html Several of the constituents have guidelines on submitting proposals: ALA CC:DA: "How to Submit a Rule Change Proposal to CC:DA" http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas/jca/ccda/how-to.html (hasn't yet been revised from AACR2, but the principles/procedures will be the same) CCC: "How to submit a Canadian proposal for a revision to Resource Description and Access (RDA)" http://www.lac-bac.gc.ca/cataloguing-standards/040006-3100-e.html For proposals coming from outside the RDA author countries, they would be submitted to the Chair of JSC, currently Alan Danskin alan.dans...@bl.uk ^^ Adam L. Schiff Principal Cataloger University of Washington Libraries Box 352900 Seattle, WA 98195-2900 (206) 543-8409 (206) 685-8782 fax asch...@u.washington.edu http://faculty.washington.edu/~aschiff ~~ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3627 - Release Date: 05/09/11 18:35:00
Re: [RDA-L] [sic] ?
In MARC it would be a useful addition for 246 to have indicator value 9: Type of title: Corrected title. Peter Schouten -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access namens Schupbach, William Verzonden: di 10-5-2011 12:54 Aan: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA Onderwerp: Re: [RDA-L] [sic] ? So one could search for genuine misprints in RDA titles by searching for the misprint in records in which a variant title does not exist, or in MARC21 terms, in records lacking a 246 field. William Schupbach Wellcome Library, 183 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE Visit the Wellcome Library Blog at: http://wellcomelibrary.blogspot.com -Original Message- From: Adam L. Schiff [...] The world of television Title proper recorded as: The wolrd of television [...] Kathleen Lamantia wrote: The presence of the [sic] is very helpful in determining which records I need to look at more closely. This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Email Security - www.websense.com
Re: [RDA-L] [sic] ?
So one could search for genuine misprints in RDA titles by searching for the misprint in records in which a variant title does not exist, or in MARC21 terms, in records lacking a 246 field. William Schupbach Wellcome Library, 183 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE Visit the Wellcome Library Blog at: http://wellcomelibrary.blogspot.com -Original Message- From: Adam L. Schiff [...] The world of television Title proper recorded as: The wolrd of television [...] Kathleen Lamantia wrote: The presence of the [sic] is very helpful in determining which records I need to look at more closely. This message has been scanned for viruses by Websense Hosted Email Security - www.websense.com
Re: [RDA-L] Apocrypha
This discussion about biblical or apocryphal works seems unbelievable to me. The AACR cataloging tradition concerning these works is an anachronism. It was invited many, many years ago for card catalogs. All parts of the Bible should be found at one place in the card catalog. (I know this system from a German catalog in an university library. This catalog was founded in 1912!) In electronical systems it's no longer necessary to produce such unpractical monsters of authority names. (But abbreviations to make them shorter??) The second unbelievable point is, that AACR and RDA use Latin numbers in the names of biblical works. No electronical system can handle such numbers perfectly. In Germany we cancelled this cataloging tradition in the eighties, when the new rules RAK have been developed. And now we shall get back these old-fashioned rules ... :-(( I'm very, very sad about the JSC discussion and decision. Of course the church libraries in Germany tried to get in contact with the national cataloging agency. But the problem got lost in the huge RDA discussion. If You treat the works of the Bible as individual works, You don't have the problem of a construction of hierarchical authority names and You don' t have the problem to decide if a work is a part of the biblical canon or not. It's problem enough that we have several names for the same work in the different confessions and denominations and so a big problem of authority control. Am 10.05.2011 00:34, schrieb Brenndorfer, Thomas: The issue of Apocrypha titles has been discussed in the RDA historical documents: In particular, http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5lc8.pdf http://www.rda-jsc.org/docs/5lc8-alaresp.pdf List of documents at: http://www.rda-jsc.org/working2.html#lc-8 The original proposal included removing "O.T. Apocrypha" from individual titles of the Protestant Apocrypha, but this did not make it into RDA. Using the Authorized Version list of titles was considered an "arbitrary simplification", "biased", but a "necessary evil". That would mean that Catholic canon books in the Protestant Apocrypha would have "Apocrypha" as part of the preferred title. I think one needs to draw some Venn diagrams to see what books of the Bible are covered in each set of instructions in RDA: ** For RDA 6.23.2.9.2 "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" the governing list is the list of books in the Authorized Version, regardless of the Catholic canon. ** For RDA 6.23.2.9.4 Apocrypha "For an individual book use the name of the book as a further subdivision", the list is in the Protestant Apocrypha: "1-2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Rest of Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, History of Susanna, Song of the Three Children, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, 1-2 Maccabees". ... meaning "Bible. Apocrypha. Tobit" is the preferred title. ** For RDA 6.23.2.6 Apocryphal Books. This is for all that's leftover that is not in the Catholic canon or the Protestant Apocrypha "(i.e., one included neither in the Catholic canon nor in the Protestant Apocrypha)". ** Thomas Brenndorfer Guelph Public Library -- Mit freundlichen Gruessen Armin Stephan Jefe de Biblioteca Augustana-Hochschule / Bibliothek D-91564 Neuendettelsau Tel. 09874/509-300 | | ,__o |_-\_<, | (*)/'(*)
