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 ment
Dear Diana,
Please look at record UKOG04-B30.
I have put in square brackets in a Hebrew 260. They get inverted
although I didn't input any English text or Left-to-right text. Is there
any reason for this?
Regarding dates in Arabic numerals and Hebrew characters in the 260 field:
I now only re
*-
It may be because the book of Kohelet starts with "Kohelet ben David..." while
"Kehilat" is not associated in Jewish tradition with David, but with Jacob, Deut. 33,4.
I assume that the work, "Kohelet David," may be a commentary on Kohelet. So, it would
make sense for a David Sintzheim to cal
Dear group,
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 refe
Dear group,
Roger makes a good point.
In this case, I initiated the discussion because I need to cite Isaac
Metz''s catalog of the David Oppenheim collection and use Latin characters
instead of Hebrew characters. I suppose I could have avoided the whole
thing by using the Latin title page title
Silke Schaeper wrote:
> There must be some bibliographic tradition of
> calling it Kohelet David rather than Kehilat
David...
There probably is a good reason why it is often cited
as "Kohelet David" rather than "Kehilat David."
Another way of looking at it is through Library of
Congress romanizat
