10 14<\/strong>. Solomon’s gift to Hiram king of Tyre (Not in Chronicles)<\/p>\n 10<\/strong>. at the end of twenty years<\/em> ] See 1Ki 6:38<\/span> and 1Ki 7:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n The twenty years are to be counted from the fourth year of Solomon, the year when he commenced the building of the temple. They are made up of the seven years employed in the work of the temple 1Ki 6:38<\/span>, and the thirteen years during which Solomon was building his own house 1Ki 7:1<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 10<\/span>. At the end of twenty years<\/B><\/I>] He employed seven years and a half in building the temple, and twelve years and a half in building the king’s house; see 1Kg 7:1<\/span>; 2Ch 8:1<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n 10. at the end of twenty years<\/B>Sevenand a half years were spent in building the temple, and twelve and ahalf or thirteen in the erection of his palace (1Ki 7:1<\/span>;2Ch 8:1<\/span>). This verse is only arecapitulation of 1Ki 9:1<\/span>,necessary to recover the thread of connection in the narrative.<\/P><\/p>\n And it came to pass at the end of twenty years<\/strong>,…. From the time Solomon first began to build: when Solomon had built the two houses, the house of the Lord, and the king’s house; the first was seven years in building, and the other thirteen; in all twenty.<\/p>\n The Means by which the Buildings were Erected. – In order that all which still remained to be said concerning Solomon’s buildings might be grouped together, different notices are introduced here, namely, as to his relation to Hiram, the erection of several fortresses, and the tributary labour, and also as to his maritime expeditions; and these heterogeneous materials are so arranged as to indicate the resources which enabled Solomon to erect so many and such magnificent buildings. These resources were: (1) his connection with king Hiram, who furnished him with building materials (1Ki 9:10-14<\/span>); (2) the tributary labour which he raised in his kingdom (1Ki 9:15-25<\/span>); (3) the maritime expedition to Ophir, which brought him great wealth (1Ki 9:26-28<\/span>). But these notices are very condensed, and, as a comparison with the parallel account in 2 Chron 8 shows, are simply incomplete extracts from a more elaborate history. In the account of the tributary labour, the enumeration of the cities finished and fortified (1Ki 9:15-19<\/span>) is interpolated; and the information concerning the support which was rendered to Solomon in the erection of his buildings by Hiram (1Ki 9:11-14<\/span>), is merely supplementary to the account already given in 1Ki 9:5<\/span>. 1Ki 9:24<\/span>, 1Ki 9:25<\/span> point still more clearly to an earlier account, since they would be otherwise unintelligible. – In 2 Chron 8 the arrangement is a simpler one: the buildings are first of all enumerated in 2Ch 8:1-6<\/span>, and the account of the tributary labour follows in 2Ch 8:7-11<\/span>.<\/p>\n 1Ki 9:10-14<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> The notices concerning Solomon’s connection with Hiram<\/em> are very imperfect; for 1Ki 9:14<\/span> does not furnish a conclusion either in form or substance. The notice in 2 Chron 8; 1:1-2:18 is still shorter, but it supplies an important addition to the account before us.<\/p>\n 1Ki 9:10-14<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> 1Ki 9:10<\/span>, 1Ki 9:11<\/span> form one period. (then he gave) in 1Ki 9:11<\/span> introduces the apodosis to (and it came to pass, etc.) in 1Ki 9:10<\/span>; and 1Ki 9:11<\/span> contains a circumstantial clause inserted as a parenthesis. Hiram had supported Solomon according to his desire with cedar wood and cypress wood, and with gold; and Solomon gave him in return, after his buildings were completed, twenty cities in the land of Galil<\/em>. But these cities did not please Hiram. When he went out to see them, he said, “What kind of cities are these ( in a contemptuous sense) which thou hast given me, my brother?” as in 1Ki 20:32<\/span>, 1 Macc. 10:18; 11:30, 2 Macc. 11:22, as a conventional expression used by princes in their intercourse with one another. “And he called the land Cabul<\/em> unto this day;” i.e., it retained this name even to later times. The land of Galil<\/em> is a part of the country which was afterwards known as Galilaea<\/em>, namely, the northern portion of it, as is evident from the fact that in Jos 20:7<\/span>; Jos 21:32<\/span>, Kedes<\/em> in the mountains of Naphtali, to the north-west of Lake Huleh<\/em>, is distinguished from the kadesh in southern Palestine by the epithet . It is still more evident from 2Ki 15:29<\/span> and Isa 9:1<\/span> and Galil<\/em> embraced the northern part of the tribe of Naphtali; whilst the expression used by Isaiah, , also shows that this district was for the most part inhabited by heathen (i.e., non-Israelites). The twenty cities in Galil<\/em>, which Solomon gave to Hiram, certainly belonged therefore to the cities of the Canaanites mentioned in 2Sa 24:7<\/span>; that is to say, they were cities occupied chiefly by a heathen population, and in all probability they were in a very bad condition. Consequently they did not please Hiram, and he gave to the district the contemptuous name of the land of Cabul<\/em>. Of the various interpretations given to the word Cabul<\/em> (see Ges. Thes<\/em>. p. 656), the one proposed by Hiller ( Onomast<\/em>. p. 435), and adopted by Reland, Ges., Maurer, and others, viz., that it is a contraction of , sicut id quod evanuit tanquam nihil<\/em>, has the most to support it, since this is the meaning required by the context. At the same time it is possible, and even probable, that it had originally a different signification, and is derived from = in the sense of to pawn, as Gesenius and Dietrich suppose. This is favoured by the occurrence of the name Cabul<\/em> in Jos 19:27<\/span>, where it is probably derivable from , to fetter, and signifies literally a fortress or castle; but in this instance it has no connection with the land of Cabul<\/em>, since it is still preserved in the village of Cabul to the south-east of Acre (see the Comm. on Josh. l.c.<\/em>). The “land of Cabul” would therefore mean the pawned land; and in the mouths of the people this would be twisted into “good for nothing.” In this case would have to be taken impersonally: “they called;” and the notice respecting this name would be simply an explanation of the way in which the people interpreted it. Hiram, however, did not retain this district, but gave it back to Solomon, who then completed the cities (2Ch 8:2<\/span>).<\/p>\n (Note: This simple method of reconciling the account before us with the apparently discrepant notice in the Chronicles, concerning which even Movers ( die biblische Chronik<\/em>, p. 159) observes, that the chronicler interpolated it from a second (?) source, is so natural, that it is difficult to conceive how Bertheau can object to it; since he admits that the accounts in the books of Kings and Chronicles are incomplete extracts from common and more elaborate sources.) <\/p>\n The only way in which we can give to 1Ki 9:14<\/span> a meaning in harmony with the context, is by taking it as a supplementary explanation of … … in 1Ki 9:11<\/span>, and so rendering as a pluperfect, as in 1Ki 7:13<\/span>: “Hiram had sent the king a hundred and twenty talents of gold.” If we reckon the value of gold as being ten times the worth of silver, a hundred and twenty talents of gold would be 3,141, 600 thalers<\/em> (about 471,240: Tr.). This is no doubt to be regarded as a loan, which Solomon obtained from Hiram to enable him to complete his buildings. Although David may have collected together the requisite amount of precious metals for the building of the temple, and Solomon had also very considerable yearly revenues, derived partly from tribute paid by subjugated nations and partly from trade, his buildings were so extensive, inasmuch as he erected a large number of cities beside the temple and his splendid palace (1Ki 9:15-19<\/span>), that his revenues might not suffice for the completion of these costly works; and therefore, since he would not apply the consecrated treasures of the temple to the erection of cities and palaces, he might find himself compelled to procure a loan from the wealthy king Hiram, which he probably intended to cover by ceding to him twenty cities on the border of the Phoenician territory. But as these cities did not please the king of Tyre and he gave them back to Solomon, the latter will no doubt have repaid the amount borrowed during the last twenty years of his reign.<\/p>\n 1Ki 9:15-23<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Solomon’s tribute service, and the building of the cities<\/em>. (Cf. 2Ch 8:3-10<\/span>.) The other means by which Solomon made it possible to erect so many buildings, was by compelling the remnants of the Canaanitish population that were still in the land to perform tributary labour. , “this is the case with regard to the tribute.” For compare 1Ki 5:13<\/span>. To the announcement of the object which Solomon had in view in raising tributary labourers, namely, to build, etc., there is immediately appended a list of all the buildings completed by him (1Ki 9:15-19<\/span>); and it is not till 1Ki 9:20<\/span> that we have more precise details concerning the tribute itself. Millo, the wall of Jerusalem, and the cities enumerated, are for the most part not new buildings, but simply fortifications, or the completion of buildings already in existence. David had already built the castle of Millo<\/em> and the wall of Jerusalem (2Sa 5:9<\/span>); so that Solomon’s building was in both cases merely fortifying more strongly. On Millo<\/em> see the fuller remarks at 2Sa 5:9<\/span>; and on the building of the wall, those at 1Ki 3:1<\/span> and 1Ki 11:27<\/span>. As Solomon thereby closed the breach of the city of David according to 1Ki 11:27<\/span>, he probably extended the city wall so as to enclose the temple mountain; and he may possibly have also surrounded the lower city with a wall, since David had only built a fortification round about the upper city upon Zion (see at 2Sa 5:9<\/span>). – Hazor<\/em>: an old royal city of the Canaanites above Lake Huleh<\/em>, which has not yet been discovered (see at Jos 11:1<\/span>). Megiddo<\/em>, i.e., Lejun<\/em> (see at 1Ki 4:12<\/span>). Gezer<\/em>: also an old Canaanitish royal city, which stood close to the Philistian frontier, probably on the site of the present village of el Kubab<\/em> (see at Jos 10:33<\/span>).<\/p>\n 1Ki 9:16<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> This city had been taken and burned down by the king of Egypt; its Canaanitish inhabitants had been put to death; and the city itself had been given as a marriage portion to his daughter who was married to Solomon. Nothing is known concerning the occasion and object of Pharaoh’s warlike expedition against this city. The conjecture of Thenius, that the Canaanitish inhabitants of Gezer had drawn upon themselves the vengeance of Pharaoh, mentioned here, through a piratical raid upon the Egyptian coast, is open to this objection, that according to all accounts concerning its situation, Gezer was not situated near the sea-coast, but very far inland.<\/p>\n 1Ki 9:17<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> This city Solomon built: i.e., he not only rebuilt it, but also fortified it. He did the same also to Lower Bethhoron<\/em>, i.e., Beit-Ur Tachta<\/em>, on the western slope of the mountains, four hours’ journey from Gibeon. According to 2Ch 8:5<\/span>, Solomon also fortified Upper Bethhoron<\/em>, which was separated by a deep wady from Lower Bethhoron, that lay to the west (see Comm. on Jos 10:10<\/span> and Jos 16:3<\/span>). The two Bethhorons and Gezer were very important places for the protection of the mountainous country of Benjamin, Ephraim, and Judah against hostile invasions from the Philistian plain. The situation of Megiddo on the southern edge of the plain of Jezreel, through which the high road from the western coast to the Jordan ran, was equally important; and so also was Hazor as a border fortress against Syria in the northern part of the land.<\/p>\n 1Ki 9:18<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Solomon also built, i.e., fortified, Baalath<\/em> and Tadmor<\/em> in the desert. According to Jos 19:44<\/span>, Baalath<\/em> was a city of Dan, and therefore, as Josephus ( Ant<\/em>. viii. 6, 1) justly observes, was not far from Gezer; and consequently is not to be identified with either Baalgad or Baalbek in Coele-syria (Iken, ich. Rosenm.; cf. Robinson, Bibl. Res<\/em>. p. 519). ( Chethb<\/em>) is either to be read , or according to Ewald ( Gesch<\/em>. iii. p. 344) , palm, a palm-city. The Keri<\/em> requires (Tadmor, after 2Ch 8:4<\/span>), a pronunciation which may possibly have simply arisen from Aramaean expansion, but which is still the name for the city current among the Arabs even in the present day (Arabic tadmur , locus palmarum ferax <\/em>). The Greeks and Romans called it Palmyra<\/em>. It was situated in what is certainly now a very desolate oasis of the Syrian desert, on the caravan road between Damascus and the Euphrates, – according to modern accounts, not more than seventeen hours’ journey from that river; and there are still magnificent ruins which attest the former glory of this wealthy and, under queen Zenobia, very powerful city (cf. Ritter, Erdk<\/em>. xvii. 2, p. 1486ff., and E. Osiander in Herzog’s Cycl<\/em>.). The correctness of this explanation of the name is placed beyond all doubt by the words “in the wilderness;” and consequently even Movers has given up his former opinion, viz., that it was the city of Thamar<\/em> in southern Judah (Eze 47:19<\/span>; Eze 48:28<\/span>), which Thenius has since adopted, and has decided in favour of Palmyra, without being led astray by the attempt of Hitzig to explain the name from the Sanscrit (vid., Deutsche morgld. Ztschr<\/em>. viii. p. 222ff.). The expression appears superfluous, as all the cities named before were situated in the land or kingdom of Solomon, and Tadmor<\/em> is sufficiently defined by (in the desert). The text is evidently faulty, and either the name of the land, namely Hamath<\/em> (according to 2Ch 8:4<\/span>), has dropped out, or is to be taken in connection with what follows (according to the Cod. Al. of the lxx), and the cop. before must be erased and inserted before (“and in the land of all the magazine-cities”).<\/p>\n 1Ki 9:19-21<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> The “magazine-cities” ( ) were fortified cities, in which the produce of the land was collected, partly for provisioning the army, and partly for the support of the rural population in times of distress (2Ch 17:12<\/span>; 2Ch 32:28<\/span>), similar to those which Pharaoh had built in the land of Goshen (Exo 1:11<\/span>). If they were situated on the great commercial roads, they may also have served for storing provisions for the necessities of travellers and their beasts of burden. The cities for the war-chariots ( ) and cavalry ( ) were probably in part identical with the magazine-cities, and situated in different parts of the kingdom. There were no doubt some of these upon Lebanon, as we may on the one hand infer from the general importance of the northern frontier to the security of the whole kingdom, and still more from the fact that Solomon had an opponent at Damascus in the person of Rezin (1Ki 11:24<\/span>), who could easily stir up rebellion in the northern provinces, which had only just been incorporated by David into the kingdom; and as we may on the other hand clearly gather from 2Ch 16:4<\/span>, according to which there were magazine-cities in the land of Naphtali. Finally, the words “and what Solomon had a desire to build” embrace all the rest of his buildings, which it would have occupied too much space to enumerate singly. That the words are not to be so pressed as to be made to denote simply “the buildings undertaking for pure pleasure,” like the works mentioned in Ecc 2:4<\/span>., as Thenius and Bertheau suppose, is evident from a comparison of 1Ki 9:1<\/span>, where all Solomon’s buildings except the temple and palace, and therefore the fortifications as well as others, are included in the expression “all his desire.” – Fuller particulars concerning the tributary workmen are given in 1Ki 9:20<\/span>. The Canaanitish population that was left in the land were made use of for this purpose, – namely, the descendants of the Canaanites who had not been entirely exterminated by the Israelites. “Their children,” etc., supplies a more precise definition of the expression “all the people,” etc., in 1Ki 9:20<\/span>.<\/p>\n 1Ki 9:22-23<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> Solomon did not make Israelites into tributary slaves; but they were warriors, ministers, and civil and military officers. are the king’s servants; , the heads of the military and civil service; , royal adjutants (see at 2Sa 23:8<\/span>); , captains over the royal war-chariots and cavalry. – For 1Ki 9:23<\/span> compare 1Ki 5:16<\/span>.<\/p>\n 1Ki 9:24-25<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> 1Ki 9:24<\/span>, 1Ki 9:25<\/span> contain two notices, with which the account of Solomon’s buildings is brought to a close. Both verses point back to 1Ki 3:1-4<\/span> (viz., 1Ki 9:24<\/span> to 1Ki 3:1<\/span>, and 1Ki 9:25<\/span> to 1Ki 3:2-4<\/span>), and show how the incongruities which existed at the commencement of Solomon’s reign were removed by his buildings. When Solomon married Pharaoh’s daughter, he brought her into the city of David (1Ki 3:1<\/span>), until he should have finished his palace and built her a house of her own within it. After this building was completed, he had her brought up from the city of David into it. , came up, inasmuch as the palace stood upon the loftier summit of Zion. is to be connected with which follows, in the sense of only<\/em> or just as<\/em>: as soon as Pharaoh’s daughter had gone up into the house built for her, Solomon built Millo.<\/p>\n (Note: Nothing certain can be gathered from this notice as to the situation of this castle. The remark made by Thenius, to the effect that it must have joined that portion of the palace in which the harem was, rests upon the assumption that Millo was evidently intended to shelter the harem, – an assumption which cannot be raised into a probability, to say nothing of a certainty. The building of Millo immediately after the entrance of Pharaoh ‘ s daughter into the house erected for her, may have arisen from the fact that David (? Solomon – Tr.) could not undertake the fortification of Jerusalem by means of this castle till after his own palace was finished, because he had not the requisite labour at command for carrying on all these buildings at the same time.) <\/p>\n 1Ki 9:25<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> After the building of the temple, the practice of sacrificing upon the altars of the high places could be brought to an end (1Ki 3:2<\/span>). Solomon now offered burnt-offerings and thank-offerings three times a year upon the altar which he had built to the Lord, i.e., upon the altar of burnt-offering in the temple, or as 2 Chron 8; 12 adds by way of explanation, “before the porch.” “Three times in the year:” i.e., at the three great yearly feasts – passover, the feast of weeks, and the feast of tabernacles (2Ch 8:13<\/span>). The words which follow, , “and indeed burning (the sacrifice) at the (altar) which was before Jehovah,” cannot be taken as parallel to the preceding clause, and understood as referring to the incense, which was offered along with the bleeding sacrifices, because is not a preterite, but an inf. absol., which shows that this clause merely serves as an explanation of the preceding one, in the sense of, “namely, burning the sacrifices at the altar which was before Jehovah.” is the technical expression here for the burning of the portions of the sacrificial flesh upon the altar, as in Exo 29:18<\/span>; Lev 1:9<\/span>, etc. On the use of after , which Thenius and Bttcher could not understand, and on which they built up all kinds of conjectures, see Ewald, 333, a<\/em>., note. – , “and made the house complete,” i.e., he put the temple into a state of completion by offering the yearly sacrifices there from that time forward, or, as Bttcher explains it, gave it thereby its full worth as a house of God and place of worship. is to be taken grammatically as a continuation of the inf. abs. .<\/p>\n 1Ki 9:26-28<\/span><\/p>\n <\/strong> He sends ships to Ophir<\/em>. – Solomon built a fleet ( is collective, ships or fleet; the nom. unitatis<\/em> is ) at Eziongeber, near Eloth, on the coast of the Red Sea ( : see at Exo 10:19<\/span>), in the land of Edom; and Hiram sent in the fleet “shipmen that had knowledge of the sea” along with Solomon’s servants to Ophir, whence they brought to king Solomon 420 talents of gold. Eziongeber<\/em>, a harbour at the north-eastern end of the Elanitic Gulf, was probably the “large and beautiful town of Asziun<\/em> ” mentioned by Makrizi (see at Num 33:35<\/span>), and situated on the great bay of Wady Emrag<\/em> (see Rppell, Reisen in Nubien<\/em>, pp. 252-3). Eloth<\/em> (lit., trees, a grove, probably so named from the large palm-grove in the neighbourhood), or Elath<\/em> (Deu 2:8<\/span>; 2Ki 14:22<\/span>: see at Gen 14:6<\/span>), the Aila<\/em> and Aelana<\/em> of the Greeks and Romans, Arab. Aileh<\/em>, was situated at the northern point of the (Elanitic) gulf, which took its name from the town; and in the time of the Fathers it was an important commercial town. It was not far from the small modern fortress of Akaba<\/em>, where heaps of rubbish still show the spot on which it formerly stood (compare Rppell, Nub<\/em>. p. 248, with plates 6 and 7, and Robinson, Pal<\/em>. i. p. 251ff.). – The corresponding text, 2Ch 8:17-18<\/span>, differs in many respects from the account before us. The statement in the Chronicles, that Solomon went to Eziongeber and Elath, is but a very unimportant deviation; for the building of the fleet makes it a very probable thing in itself that Solomon should have visited on that account the two towns on the Elanitic Gulf, which were very near to one another, to make the requisite arrangements upon the spot for this important undertaking. There is apparently a far greater deviation in 1Ki 9:27<\/span>, where, in the place of the statement that Hiram sent , in the (or a) fleet, his servants as sailors who had knowledge of the sea, the chronicler affirms that Hiram sent by his servants ships and men who had knowledge of the sea. For the only way in which Hiram could send ships to Eziongeber was either by land or (as Ritter, Erdk<\/em>. xiv. p. 365, supposes) out of the Persian Gulf, supposing that the Tyrians had a fleet upon that sea at so early a date as this. The statement in the Chronicles receives an apparent confirmation from 1Ki 10:22<\/span>, “The king had a Tarshish fleet upon the sea with the fleet of Hiram,” if indeed this passage also refers to the trade with Ophir, as is generally supposed; for then these words affirm that Hiram sent ships of his own to Ophir along with those of Solomon. We do not think it probable, however that the words “Hiram sent ships by his own men” are to be so pressed as to be taken to mean that he had whole ships, or ships taken to pieces, conveyed to Eziongeber either from Tyre or out of the Mediterranean Sea, although many cases might be cited from antiquity in support of this view.<\/p>\n (Note: Thus, for example, according to Arriani exped. Alex<\/em>. l. v. p. 329, and vii. p. 485 (ed. Blanc), Alexander the Great had ships transported from Phoenicia to the Euphrates, and out of the Indus into the Hydaspes, the ships being taken to pieces for the land transport ( ), and the pieces ( ) afterwards joined together again. Plutarch relates ( vita Anton<\/em>. p. 948, ed. Frkf. 1620) that Cleopatra would have had her whole fleet carried across the isthmus which separates Egypt from the Red Sea, and have escaped by that means, had not the Arabs prevented the execution of her plan by burning the first ships that were drawn up on the land. According to Thucydides, bell. Pelop<\/em>. iv. 8, the Peloponnesians conveyed sixty ships which lay at Corcyra across the Leucadian isthmus. Compare also Polyaeni strateg<\/em>. v. 2, 6, and Ammian. Marcell. xxiv. 7, and from the middle ages the account of Makrizi in Burckhardt ‘ s Reisen in Syrien<\/em>, p. 331.) <\/p>\n In all probability the words affirm nothing more than that Hiram supplied the ships for this voyage, that is to say, that he had them built at Eziongeber by his own men, and the requisite materials conveyed thither, so far as they were not to be obtained upon the spot. At any rate, Solomon was obliged to call the Tyrians to his help for the building of the ships, since the Israelites, who had hitherto carried in no maritime trade at all, were altogether inexperienced in shipbuilding. Moreover, the country round Eziongeber would hardly furnish wood adapted for the purpose, as there are only palms to be found there, whose spongy wood, however useful it may be for the inside of houses, cannot be applied to the building of ships. But if Hiram had ships built for Solomon by his own men and sent him sailors who were accustomed to the sea, he would certainly have some of his own ships engaged in this maritime trade; and this explains the statement in 1Ki 10:22<\/span>.<\/p>\n The destination of the fleet was Ophir<\/em>, whence the ships brought 420 or (according to the Chronicles) 450 talents of gold. The difference between 420 and 450 may be accounted for from the substitution of the numeral letter (50) for (20). The sum mentioned amounted to eleven or twelve million dollars (from 1,600,000 to 1,800,000 – Tr.), and the question arises, whether this is to be taken as the result of one voyage, or as the entire profits resulting from the expeditions to Ophir. The words admit of either interpretation, although they are more favourable to the latter than to the former, inasmuch as there is no allusion whatever to the fact that they brought this amount all at once or on every voyage. (See also at 1Ki 10:14<\/span>, 1Ki 10:22<\/span>.) The question as to the situation of Ophir has given rise to great dispute, and hitherto no certain conclusion has been arrived at; in fact, it is possible that there are no longer any means of deciding it. Some have endeavoured to prove that it was in southern Arabia, others that it was on the eastern coast of Africa, and others again that it was in Hither India.<\/p>\n (Note: Compare the thorough examination of the different views concerning Ophir in C. Ritter ‘ s Erdk<\/em>. xiv. pp. 348-431, with the briefer collection made by Gesenius in his Thes<\/em>. p. 141f. and in the Allgem. Encyclop. der Wissenschaft u. Knste<\/em>, 3 Sect. Bd. 4, p. 201ff., and by Pressel, art. “ Ophir, ” in Herzog ‘ s Cyclopaedia<\/em>. – We need not dwell upon the different opinions held by the earlier writers. But among modern authors, Niebuhr, Gesenius, Rosenmller, and Seetzen decide in favour of Arabia; Quatremre ( Mmoire sur le pays d ‘ Ophir in Mm. de l ‘ Instit. roy<\/em>. 1845, t. xv. P. ii. p. 350ff.) and Movers, who takes Ophir to be the name of an emporium on the eastern coast of Africa, in favour of Sofala; while Chr. Lassen ( Indische Alterthumskunde<\/em>, i. p. 537ff., ii. p. 552ff.) and C. Ritter are the principal supporters of India. On the other hand, Albr. Roscher ( Ptolemus und die Handelsstrassen in Central-Africa<\/em>, Gotha 1857, p. 57ff.) has attempted to connect together all these views by assuming that the seamen of Hiram and Solomon fetched the gold of Western Africa from the island of Dahlak in the Red Sea, and having taken it to India to exchange, returned at the end of a three years ‘ voyage enriched with gold and the productions of India.) <\/p>\n The decision is dependent upon a previous question, whether 1Ki 10:22<\/span>, “The king had a Tarshish fleet upon the sea with the fleet of Hiram; once in three years came the Tarshish fleet, bringing gold, silver,” etc., also applies to the voyage to Ophir. The expression “Tarshish fleet;” the word (“on the sea”), which naturally suggests that sea to which the Israelites applied the special epithet , namely the Mediterranean; and lastly, the difference in the cargoes, – the ships from Ophir bringing gold and algummim<\/em> wood (1Ki 9:28<\/span> and 1Ki 10:11<\/span>), and the Tarshish fleet bringing gold, silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks (1Ki 10:22<\/span>), – appear to favour the conclusion that the Tarshish fleet did not sail to Ophir, but upon the Mediterranean Sea to Tarshish, i.e., Tartessus in Spain; to which we may add the fact that is reproduced in 2Ch 9:21<\/span> by , “ships going to Tarshish.” Nevertheless, however plausible these arguments may appear, after a renewed investigation of the subject I cannot regard them as having decisive weight: for (1) the expression “Tarshish fleet” is used in 1Ki 22:49<\/span> in connection with ships that were intended to go to Ophir; (2) (upon the sea) might receive its more precise definition from what precedes; and (3) the difference in the cargoes reduces itself to this, that in addition to the gold, which was the chief production of Ophir, there are a few other articles of trade mentioned, so that the account in 1Ki 10:22<\/span> is more complete than that in 1Ki 9:28<\/span> and 1Ki 10:11<\/span>. The statement concerning the Tarshish fleet in 1Ki 10:22<\/span> contains a passing remark, like that in 1Ki 10:11<\/span>, from which we must infer that both passages treat in the same manner simply of the voyage to Ophir, and therefore that the term “Tarshish ships,” like our Indiamen ( Indienfahrer<\/em>), was applied to ships intended for long voyages. If, in addition to the ships sailing to Ophir, Solomon had also had a fleet upon the Mediterranean Sea which sailed with the Phoenicians to Tartessus, this would certainly have been mentioned here (1Ki 9:27-28<\/span>) at the same time as the Ophir voyage. On all these grounds we can come to no other conclusion than that the expression in 2Ch 9:21<\/span>, “ships going to Tarshish,” is simply a mistaken exposition of the term “Tarshish fleet,” – a mistake which may easily be explained from the fact, that at the time when the Chronicles were written, the voyages not only of the Israelites but also of the Tyrians both to Ophir and Tarshish had long since ceased, and even the geographical situation of these places was then unknown to the Jews (see my Introduction to the Old Test<\/em>. p. 442, ed. 2).<\/p>\n The name Ophir<\/em> occurs first of all in Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n