India

VIEW:39 DATA:01-04-2020
praise; law
Hitchcock's Bible Names Dictionary


INDIA (Heb. Hôddû) is named as the E. boundary of the empire of Ahasuerus (Est_1:1; Est_8:9). The Heb. is contracted from Hondu, the name of the river Indus. It indicated the country through which that river flows: not the great peninsula of Hindustan. So also in 1Ma_8:8, Ad. Est 13:1, 14:1, 1Es_3:2. Possibly the drivers of the elephants (1Ma_6:37) were true Indians. If India proper is not named, there is little doubt that from ancient times Israel had relations with the country, by means of the caravan trade through Arabia. Many of the articles of commerce in the account given of this trade are of Indian origin: e.g. ‘ivory and ebony,’ ‘cassia and calamus,’ ‘broidered work,’ and ‘rich apparel’ (Eze_27:15; Eze_27:19; Eze_27:24).
W. Ewing.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909


(Est_1:1; Est_8:9). Ahasuerus' (Xerxes') easternmost dominion, as Ethiopia was the westernmost. The country round the Indus, the Punjab, and Scinde, which Alexander the Great afterward conquered. Hebrew Hoddu, i.e. Honadu, Hindu; occurring in the Persepolitan inscriptions. Solomon imported through the Red Sea from Ophir Indian articles, of which some have Indian names; algumiym "sandal wood," kophim "apes," thucim "peacocks," pitdah "topaz," Sanskrit pita.
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.


In'dia. The name of India does not occur in the Bible, before the book of Esther, where it is noticed as the limit of the territories of Ahasuerus in the east, as Ethiopia was in the west. Est_1:1; Est_8:9. The India of the book of Esther is not the peninsula of Hindostan, but the country surrounding the Indus, the Punjab and perhaps Scinde.
The people and productions of that country must have been tolerably well known to the Jews. An active trade was carried on between India and western Asia. The trade opened by Solomon with Ophir, through the Red Sea, consisted chiefly of Indian articles.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863


in?di-a (הדּוּ, hōddū̌: ἡ Ἰνδική, hē Indikḗ): The name occurs in canonical Scripture only in Est_1:1; Est_8:9, of the country which marked the eastern boundary of the territory of Ahasuerus. The Hebrew word comes from the name of the Indus, Hondu, and denotes, not the peninsula of Hindustan, but the country drained by that great river. This is the meaning also in 1 Esdras 3:2; Additions to Esther 3:2; 16:1. Many have thought that this country is intended by Havilah in Gen_2:11 and that the Indus is the Pishon. The drivers of the elephants (1 Macc 6:37) were doubtless natives of this land. The name in 1 Macc 8:9 is certainly an error. India never formed part of the dominions of Antiochus the Great. It may possibly be a clerical error for ?Ionia,? as Media is possibly a mistake for Mysia. If the Israelites in early times had no direct relations with India, many characteristic Indian products seem to have found their way into Palestinian markets by way of the Arabian and Syrian trade routes, or by means of the Red Sea fleets (1Ki_10:11, 1Ki_10:15; Eze_27:15, etc.). Among these may be noted ?horns of ivory and ebony,? ?cassia and calamus,? almug (sandalwood), apes and peacocks.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.


This name occurs only in Est_1:1; Est_8:9, where the Persian king is described as reigning 'from India unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces.' It is found again, however, in the Apocrypha, where India is mentioned among the countries which the Romans took from Antiochus and gave to Eumenes (1Ma_8:8).
It is evident from all ancient history, that the country known as India in ancient times extended more to the west, and did not reach so far to the east?that is, was not known so far to the east?as the India of the moderns. When we read of ancient India, we must clearly not understand the whole of Hindustan, but chiefly the northern parts of it, or the countries between the Indus and the Ganges; although it is not necessary to assert that the rest of that peninsula, particularly its western coast, was then altogether unknown. It was from this quarter that the Persians and Greeks (to whom we are indebted for the earliest accounts of India) invaded the country; and this was consequently the region which first became generally known. The countries bordering on the Ganges continued to be involved in obscurity, the great kingdom of the Prasians excepted, which, situated nearly above the modern Bengal, was dimly discernible. Besides the western and northern boundaries were not the same as at present. To the west, India was not then bounded by the river Indus, but by a chain of mountains which, under the name of Koh (whence the Grecian appellation of the Indian Caucasus), extended from Bactria to Makran, or Gedrosia, enclosing the kingdoms of Kandahar and Cabul, the modern kingdom of Eastern Persia or Afghanistan. These districts anciently formed part of India, as well as, further to the south, the less perfectly known countries of the Arabi and Haurs, bordering on Gedrosia. This western boundary continued at all times the same, and was removed to the Indus only in consequence of the victories of Nadir Shah.
Towards the north, ancient India overpassed not less its present limit. It comprehended the whole of the mountainous region above Cashmir, Badakshan, Belur Land, the western boundary mountains of Little Buchama, or Little Thibet, and even the desert of Cobi, so far as it was known. The discovery of a passage by sea to the coasts of India has contributed to withdraw from these regions the attention of Europeans, and left them in an obscurity which hitherto has been little disturbed, although the current of events seems likely before long to lead to our better knowledge.
From this it appears that the India of Scripture included no part of the present India, seeing that it was confined to the territories possessed by the Persians and the Syrian Greeks, that never extended beyond the Indus, which, since the time of Nadir Shah, has been regarded as the western boundary of India. Something of India beyond the Indus became known through the conquering march of Alexander, and still more through that of Seleucus Nicator, who penetrated to the banks of the Ganges; but the notions thus obtained are not embraced in the Scriptural notices, which, both in the canonical and the apocryphal text, are confined to Persian India.
The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.


India
(Heb. Hoddu', הֹדּוּ, for הֹנְדּוּ, i.e. Hindu, of Sanscrit origin; see Gesenius, Thesaur. Heb. p. 366; Sept. Ι᾿νδική, Vulg. India), occurs in the Bible only in Est_1:1; Est_8:9, where the Persian king is described as reigning “from India unto Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces;” the names of the two countries are similarly connected by Herodotus (Est_7:9). It is found again, however, in the Apocrypha (compare Esther 13:1), where India is mentioned among the countries which the Romans took from Antiochus and gave to Eumenes (1Ma_8:8). It is also with some reason conceived that in the list of foreign Jews present at the Pentecost (Act_2:9) we should read Ι᾿νδίαν, India, and not Ι᾿ουδαίαν, Judaea; but the still more probable reading is Ι᾿δουμαίαν, Idumaea, if indeed the common reading ought to be changed at all (see Kuinol, Conmment. ad loc.). The Hebrew form “Hoddu” is an abbreviation of Honadu, which is identical with the indigenous names of the river Indus, “Hindu,” or “Sindhu,” and again with the ancient name of the country as it appears in the Vendidad, “Hapta Hendu.” The native form “Sindus” is noticed by Pliny (vi, 23). The India of the book of Esther is not the peninsula of Hindostan, but the country surrounding the Indus--the Punjab, and perhaps Scinde — the India which Herodotus describes (3, 98) as forming part of the Persian empire under Darius, and the India which at a later period was conquered by Alexander the Great. The name occurs in the inscriptions of Persepolis and Nakhsh-Rustam, but not in those of Behistufn (Rawlinson, Herod. 2, 485). In 1Ma_8:8, it is clear that India proper cannot be understood, inasmuch as this never belonged either to Antiochus or Eumenes. At the same time, none of the explanations offered by commentators are satisfactory: the Eneti of Paphlagonia have been suggested, but these people had disappeared long before (Strabo, 12:534): the India of Xenophon (Cyrop. 1, 5, 3; 3:2, 25), which may have been above the Carian stream named Indus (Pliny, 5, 29; probably the Calbis), is more likely; but the emendation “Mysia and Ionia” for ilfedia and India offers the best solution of the difficulty. SEE IONIA. A more authentic notice of the country occurs in 1Ma_6:37; where Indians are noticed as the drivers of the war-elephants introduced into the army of the Syrian king (see also 1Es_3:2; Esther 16:1). SEE ELEPHANT.
But, though the name of India occurs so seldom, the people and productions of that country must have been tolerably well known to the Jews. There is undoubted evidence that an active trade was carried on between India and Western Asia: the Tyrians established their depots on the shores of the Persian Gulf, and procured “horns of ivory and ebony,” “broidered work and rich apparel” (Eze_27:15; Eze_27:24), by a route which crossed the Arabian desert by land, and then followed the coasts of the Indian Ocean by sea. The trade opened by Solomon with Ophir through the Red Sea chiefly consisted of Indian articles, and some of the names even of the articles, Algummim, “sandal wood,” kophims, “apes,” tukiims, “peacocks,” are of Indian origin (Humboldt, Kosmos, 2, 133); to which we may add the Hebrew name of the “topaz,” pitdah, derived from the Sanscrit pita. There is a strong probability that productions of yet greater utility were furnished by India through Syria to the shores of Europe, and that the Greeks derived both the term κασσίτερος (compare the Sanscrit kastira), and the article it represents, “tin,” from the coasts of India. The connection thus established with India led to the opinion that the Indians were included under the ethnological title of Cush (Gen_10:6), and hence the Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic versions frequently render that term by India or Indians, as in 2Ch_21:16; Isa_11:11; Isa_18:1; Jer_13:23; Zep_3:10. For the connection which some have sought to establish between India and Paradise, SEE EDEN.
The above intimations, and indeed, all ancient history, refer not to the whole of Hindostan, but chiefly to the northern parts of it, or the countries between the Indus and the Ganges; although it is not necessary to assert that the rest of that peninsula, particularly its western coast, was then altogether unknown. It was from this quarter that the Persians and Greeks (to whom we are indebted for the earliest accounts of India) invaded the country; and this was consequently the region which first became generally known. The countries bordering on the Ganges continued to be involved in obscurity, the great kingdom of the Prasians excepted, which, situated nearly above the modern Bengal, was dimly discernible. The “nearer we approach the Indus, the more clear becomes our knowledge of the ancient geography of the country; and it follows that the districts of which at the present day we know the least, were anciently best known. Besides, the western and northern boundaries were not the same as at present. To the west, India was not then bounded by the river Indus, but by a chain of mountains which, under the name of Koh (whence the Grecian appellation of the Indian Caucasus), extended from Bactria to Makran, or Gedrosia, inclosing the kingdoms of Candahar and Cabul, the modern kingdom of Eastern Persia, or Afghanistan. These districts anciently formed part of India, as well as, further to the south, the less perfectly known countries of the Arabi and Haurs (the Arabitse and Oritse of Arrian, 6:21), bordering on Gedrosia. This western boundary continued at all times the same, and was removed to the Indus only in consequence of the victories of Nadir Shah. Towards the north, ancient India over passed not less its present limit. It comprehended the whole of the mountainous region above Cashmir, Badakshan, Belur Land, the western boundary mountains of Little Bucharia, or Little Thibet, and even the desert of Cobi, so far as it was known. (See Heeren's Historical Researches, 1, c. 1, § 3, on Persian India; and Rennell's Geography of Herodotus. For other conjectures respecting the location of the Scriptural India, see Winer's Realworterbuch, s.v. Indien. For the history of ancient India, see Anthon's Class. Diet s.v.) — Smith; Kitto.

CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.





Norway

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores

Comments   2

BUSCADAVERDADE

Visite o nosso canal youtube.com/buscadaverdade e se INSCREVA agora mesmo! Lá temos uma diversidade de temas interessantes sobre: Saúde, Receitas Saudáveis, Benefícios dos Alimentos, Benefícios das Vitaminas e Sais Minerais... Dê uma olhadinha, você vai gostar! E não se esqueça, dê o seu like e se INSCREVA! Clique abaixo e vá direto ao canal!


Saiba Mais

  • Image Nutrição
    Vegetarianismo e a Vitamina B12
  • Image Receita
    Como preparar a Proteína Vegetal Texturizada
  • Image Arqueologia
    Livro de Enoque é um livro profético?
  • Image Profecia
    O que ocorrerá no Armagedom?

Tags