|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Does this term have any currency in the English language? I've never heard of it before. There are only two google books search results for it, and none in google scholar. I'm not sure what this article should be called, but it evidently should not be called "Yehud Medinata". john k (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think Yehud Province or even just Yehud are the more common English terms for the Persian province. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Here's an example: "Approaching Yehud: New Approaches to the Study of the Persian Period (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies)". 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yehud is more commonly the city, so some ambiguity with that term. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
: "The long-held view that the Persian period in Israel (known as Yehud) was a historically derivative era that engendered little theological or literary innovation has been replaced in recent decades by an appreciation for the importance of the Persian period for understanding Israel’s literature, religion, and sense of identity. A new image of Yehud is emerging ..."18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Why not Judah (Persian province)? If we must have "Yehud," your suggestion is certainly an improvement on the current situation. john k (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Could be Judah (Persian province) or Judea (Persian province). Yehud is the technical term in use among historians. The term itself tells you it's Persian (or Aramaic, the language in use in Persia at the time). Personally, I don't really care what wikipedia decides to call it and I'm sure most professionals in the field couldn't care either. Maybe Yehud is too unfamiliar a term to a general audience such as wikipedia? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
You can see a wikipedia use at Yehud#History. I added the link to Yehud Medinata, presumably it would be changed to whatever the new name for the article will be. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Its is based on the biblical verse from Book of Ezra 5:8 (see here)
Etymology of Yehud
I deleted this from the lead: The name "Yehud" derives from its Hebrew/Canaanite (the two languages were virtually, if not completely, identical) designation for the area, Har Yehudahor "mountain (district) of the gorge(s)".
I've never heard of this, although it sounds plausible. But it really needs a source. Can anyone provide one? (By the way Canaanite is usually seen as a group of related languages/dialects, not a single language, with Hebrew as one of its members).PiCo (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
- Little on Google/Google Books, apart from a Dieter Wolfgang Schmidt using the phrase in an apparently familiar and offhand way on the old ANE list in January 1997 , 'the "Mountains of the Gorges" Har Yehudah'. So it may have some history. Jheald (talk) 16:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Medinata or medinta?
Are we sure the Aramaic term is medinata, with two a's? This looks like a plural form, while we would expect the singular medinta (i.e., without the first a): see http://cal1.cn.huc.edu/oneentry.php?lemma=mdynh%20N&cits=all. The vocalization in Ezra 5:8 confirms this: The Aramaic text there reads מְדִֽינְתָּא֙ m(ə)ðīntā (see http://tanach.us/Tanach.xml?Ezra5:8). Of course, that vocalization was added by the Masoretes in the Middle Ages and may have differed from the actual pronunciation at the time of Ezra. It is possible that a historical short a was still pronounced between the n and t, meaning that "medinata" reflects singular *m(ə)ðīnatā (short a) rather than the plural m(ə)ðīnātā (long ā), and perhaps this was the form in which it was borrowed into Persian. But as far as my knowledge of Aramaic goes, I see no reason to assume such speculations, and would expect the correct form to be singular "medinta". Can someone look into this? Drabkikker (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)