This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
translated from Hebrew Wikipedia -- Midrashah ( talk) 15:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
[1]: "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 ..." 75.14.217.143 ( talk) 20:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be Yehud (Persian province). 75.14.217.143 ( talk) 20:19, 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. 75.14.217.143 ( talk) 20:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Book of Ezra 5:8 [2] ---> parlal Hebrew/English) -- 93.173.0.184 ( talk) 14:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Yehud Medinata (or maybe Medinta) is Aramaic for "province Yehud", a name used already by the Neo-Babylonians, so not specific to the Achaemenid-Persian period and therefore not appropriate as an article name. Aramaic was used as a lingua franca for centuries by the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenid (Persian) empires, until it was replaced by Greek. Also, there is not a single English-language occurrence for "Yehud Medinata" as a name in scholarly works popping up on Google. Crotty's is the only one where it shows up, but not as an administrative name as such, but as a translation, and followed immediately by "or simply 'Yehud'". [1] None of the coins discovered, which are arguably the best historical source for this quite silent period, is inscribed with 'Yehud Medinata'; only with 'Yehud'.
Since we already have Yehud (Babylonian province) (again: the name was identical in both periods), I will use that as a template and move the article to 'Yehud (Persian province)'.
Please check with Google: our work has real-life repercussions, there are several amateurish books on sale at Amazon etc. based on English Wiki material, and dozens of blogs, websites and articles parroting the name as a given. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 14:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The Babylonians translated the Hebrew name [Judah] into Aramaic as Yehud Medinata ('the province of Judah') or simply 'Yehud' and made it a new Babylonian province. This was inherited by the Persians. Under the Greeks, Yehud was translated as Judaea and this was taken over by the Romans. After the Jewish rebellion of 135 CE, the Romans renamed the area Syria Palaestina or simply Palestine. The area described by these land titles differed to some extent in the different periods.
See https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/14ouhio/scriptural_research_institute/ tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
translated from Hebrew Wikipedia -- Midrashah ( talk) 15:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
[1]: "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 ..." 75.14.217.143 ( talk) 20:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be Yehud (Persian province). 75.14.217.143 ( talk) 20:19, 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. 75.14.217.143 ( talk) 20:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Book of Ezra 5:8 [2] ---> parlal Hebrew/English) -- 93.173.0.184 ( talk) 14:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
Yehud Medinata (or maybe Medinta) is Aramaic for "province Yehud", a name used already by the Neo-Babylonians, so not specific to the Achaemenid-Persian period and therefore not appropriate as an article name. Aramaic was used as a lingua franca for centuries by the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Achaemenid (Persian) empires, until it was replaced by Greek. Also, there is not a single English-language occurrence for "Yehud Medinata" as a name in scholarly works popping up on Google. Crotty's is the only one where it shows up, but not as an administrative name as such, but as a translation, and followed immediately by "or simply 'Yehud'". [1] None of the coins discovered, which are arguably the best historical source for this quite silent period, is inscribed with 'Yehud Medinata'; only with 'Yehud'.
Since we already have Yehud (Babylonian province) (again: the name was identical in both periods), I will use that as a template and move the article to 'Yehud (Persian province)'.
Please check with Google: our work has real-life repercussions, there are several amateurish books on sale at Amazon etc. based on English Wiki material, and dozens of blogs, websites and articles parroting the name as a given. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 14:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
The Babylonians translated the Hebrew name [Judah] into Aramaic as Yehud Medinata ('the province of Judah') or simply 'Yehud' and made it a new Babylonian province. This was inherited by the Persians. Under the Greeks, Yehud was translated as Judaea and this was taken over by the Romans. After the Jewish rebellion of 135 CE, the Romans renamed the area Syria Palaestina or simply Palestine. The area described by these land titles differed to some extent in the different periods.
See https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/14ouhio/scriptural_research_institute/ tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)