The query has generated some discussion. In a bibliographic record, as per Yossi's suggestion, it is probably best to choose one way of transcription, and make a 246 variant title for the other. We do not have such an option if we cite the Hebrew title in other places such as a reference list or other textual body, and for technical reasons are required to use Latin characters instead of Hebrew script. To round out Silke's list of romanized forms in the literature, the Jewish Encycloedia cites it as "Kehillat David."
All the instances of "Kuf,heh,lamed,tav" in the Tanakh transcribed as "Kohelet" appear in the book of Kohelet' . Devarim 33:4 has "kehilat Yaakov."
If people are still interested, it might be fun to post the question to the Jewish-Languages list to get those scholars' perspective.
Heidi
At 11:06 AM 11/5/2004 +0000, you wrote:
Dear group,
I was intrigued by Heidi's query about the Oppenheimer Catalogue, which I have always known and cited as Kohelet David. Encyclopedia Judaica and Brisman have "Kohelet David". Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur, 1845, mentions only the Latin title. The added title page does NOT mention "Kohelet David", I have looked it up. There must be some bibliographic tradition of calling it Kohelet David rather than Kehilat David...
Silke Schaeper
Hebraica cataloguer Bodleian Library - Department of Oriental Collections Broad Street, Oxford OX1 3BG Tel 01865-277 031 Fax 01865-277 029 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Heidi G. Lerner
Hebraica/Judaica Cataloger
Catalog Dept.
Stanford Univ. Libraries
Stanford, CA 94305-6004
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ph: 650-725-9953
fax:650-725-1120
