522 
O P H I R. 
is evident that the inveftigations hitherto made into the 
fituation of thefe places, and into the courfe of the voyages 
performed by Solomon’s fleet, proceed on unfupported 
data ; and, conlequently, though fome of them difplay 
great ingenuity and learning, they can only lead us affray 
from the real objeff of our refearch. • 
In the firfl place, the paflages in Scripture by no means 
warrant the opinion, that the fame veflels which made a 
voyage to Ophir at the fame time went to Tarfhifh ; and 
that thefe two places lay nearly in the fame direflion, and 
therefore muff be fought for, either in the fame or an ad¬ 
joining country 5 or, at lea ft, in the courfe of the voyage 
which the (hips of Solomon and of Hiram made. An 
examination and com'parifon of the paflages from Kings 
and the Chronicles, which we have quoted, will fuffi- 
ciently prove that there is no foundation for this opinion ; 
the utmoft they can be faid to prove is, that Solomon 
fent (hips to Tarfhifh as well as to Ophir : and the words 
in i Kings x. 21, for the Mug• lutd atfea a navy of Tarjhijh, 
icith the navy of Hiram, feem to indicate that there were 
two dill in ft fleets fent out on two diftinft voyages. It 
may alfo be remarked, that, if the fame fleet went at the 
fame time to Ophir and Tarfhifh, the commodities brought 
from thefe places could not have been fo clearly diftin- 
guifhed as they are, nor would the fleet have been called, 
as it is exclufively, the navy of Tarjhijh. 
But, in the lecond place, there feems good reafon for 
doubting whether Solomon fent fhips to Tarfhifh at all; 
or, if he did, whether Tarfhifh was not very near Judea, 
and merely a depot for |he merchandife of more diftant 
countries, which was brought there by the veflels of that 
place. This opinion, though attended with fome diffi¬ 
culties, ar.doppofed by fome paflages in Scripture, is evi¬ 
dently and' diredfly fupported by other paflages, and is 
more confonant with what we know, from other fources, 
refpefting Tarfhifh. By the expreffion employed in 1 
Kings, x. 22. for the king had at J'ea a navy of Tarjhijh, it is 
more reafonable to underftand that this navy was either 
hire<J_from Tarfhifh by Solomon, or was compofed of fhips 
built after the manner of the fhips of that place, than 
that it was a fleet which had failed for Tarfhifh : the firfl: 
of thefe fuppofuions is fupported by the context, the 
navy of Tarjhijh being mentioned immediately in connec¬ 
tion with the navy of Hiram, which feems to imply, that, 
as the latter was lent to Solomon by that monarch, the 
former was procured from Tarfhifh. The other idea, 
that by the navy of Tarfhifh is meant, fhips built after 
the manner of the fhips of Tarfhifh, is countenanced by 
the paflage in 1 Kings xxii. 48. Jehqjhaphat made Jhips of 
Taijhjjh to go to Ophir for gold. At any rate, thefe paf- 
fages are diredfly againfl: the opinion, that Tarfhifh was 
a very diftant place, which was vifited by the fhips of So¬ 
lomon at the fame time that they went to Ophir. 
There are, however, two paflages which favour the opi¬ 
nion that Solomon and Jehofhaphat fent fhips to Tar 
fhifb, though they by no means prove the.greiit diflance 
of this place, or that it was vifited at the fame time with 
Ophir. In the paflage of Chronicles, which correfponds 
with 1 Kings, x. 22, the navy of Solomon, inftead of 
being called the navy of Tarjhijh, as in the latter paflage, 
is faid to have gone to Tarjhijh with theJ'ervants of Huram. 
And in 2 Chron. xx. 36. which correfponds with 1 Kings 
xxii. 48. Jehofhaphat is faid to have joined himfelf with 
Ahaziah king of Ifrael, to makeJhips to go to Tarjhijh, and 
not, as in the paflage of Kings, to make Jhips of Tarjhijh to 
go to Opliirfor gold. 
As thefe paflages feem not to accord very well together, 
and confequently cannot be brought forward of them- 
felves abfolutely to determine whether Tarfhifh were a 
diftant country, vifited by Solomon’s fhips at the fame 
time that they made their voyage to Ophir; or whether 
Solomon merely hired veflels from Tarfhifh, a neighbour¬ 
ing city or territory, or built his own veflels on the ino- 
‘del ufed here ; it will he neceffary to examine other paf- 
fages in which Tarfhifh is mentioned. It may fairly be 
inferred, that, as the Tarfhifh fpoken of in the. paflages 
already quoted is not particularized by any epithet, or 
circumftance, to diftinguifh it from the Tarfhifh men¬ 
tioned repeatedly in other parts of Scripture, it is the 
fame place; certainly, if it had been a very diftant 
and comparatively-unknown place, it would have been 
fo diflinguifhed from the Tarfhifh that was familiar to the 
Jews. 
That this place was celebrated for its fhips and com¬ 
merce, and that it was vifited by the Jews, the following 
paflages, befides others, will fufficiently prove. In the 
27th chapter of. Ezekiel, where the prophet foretells the 
deftruflion of Tyre, he exprefsly mentions Tarfhifh as 
one of the places which traded with that city : Tarjhijh 
was thy merchant, by reafon of the multitude of all hinds of 
riches-, ver, 12. The Jhips of Tar/hijh did Jiug of thee in 
thy market; ver. 25. And that this Tarfhifh, thus cele¬ 
brated for its fhips and commerce, wasat nogreat diftancp 
from Tyre, appears from the paflages in the xxiiid chap¬ 
ter of Ifaiah, already quoted in Dr. Doig’s account. 
And, upon the whole, we are inclined to think, that the 
Tarfhifh mentioned in the paflages cited from Kings and 
the Chronicles, is the fame place known under that name 
in other parts of Scripture. It evidently was a place of 
great commerce, and famous for its fhips; and, though 
it may he granted, that Solomon and Jehofhaphat traded 
with Tarfhifh, and did not merely hire veflels from the 
merchants there, or build them after the models of that 
place, (though, as wehavefeen, there are paflages in Scrip , 
ture which countenance thefe opinions,) yet there is cer¬ 
tainly no evidence, that the fleet which vifited Ophir at 
the fame time vifited Tarfhifh, or that the voyage to thefe 
places lay in the fame track. 
In the laft place, the marks refpefling the fituation of 
Ophir, drawn from the fuppofed length of the voyage, 
are equally unfupported by the paflages quoted from 
ScripturS. Even allowing that the navy.of Solomon was 
three years on its voyage to Tarfhifh, this circumftance 
would not ferve as a guide to afeertain the pofition of 
Ophir, unlefs it had been proved that the voyage to the 
two places was performed at the fame time ; and u r e have 
fhown that there is no proof of this. But, as the alleged 
length of the voyage to Tarfhifh may feem to militate 
againfl the idea which we have thrown out, that this 
place was in Cilicia, and that, if reforted to by Solomon’s 
fhips, it was reforted to only as a depot for merchandife, 
not as the native country of the commodities brought 
from it; it will be proper to examine on what authority 
it has been fo generally maintained, or rather taken for 
granted, that the voyage to Tarfhifh occupied the fpace 
of three years. The parallel paflages have been already 
given ; 1 Kings x. 22. and 2 Chron. ix. 21. Now', cer¬ 
tainly, to read thefe paflages without attachment to, or 
knowledge of, any lvypothefis on the fubjeft, the fum of 
the inferences that could reafonably he drawn, from them, 
W'ould Amply amount to this ; “ that Solomon had a flip- 
ply of the commodities mentioned in them once in three 
years f there is no afiertion made, no intimation given, 
no reafon fupplied, for drawing the inference, that the 
voyage to Tarfhifh occupied three years. This interpre¬ 
tation of thefe paflages, fo plain, obvious, and confident, 
in itfelf, muft derive confiderable fupport from the faff, 
that Tarfhifli is frequently mentioned ip other parts of 
Scripture, as at a fhort diflance from Judea, as famous 
for its (hipping and commerce, and as having kept up a 
direft and frequent intercourfe with Joppa, one of the 
principal fea-ports of Hiram, from wliom Solomon re¬ 
ceived one of his fleets, or, at leaft, feamen to navigate it 
on its voyage to Ophir. The general conclufions, there¬ 
fore, which we fhould be difpofed to draw, are, that 
whatevermay have been the diflance and fituation of OplVir, 
they ought not to be fought after on the idea that this 
place and Tarfhifh lay in the fame route, and were vifited 
on the fame voyage ; nor that the voyage occupied fo 
long a period as three years 5 and that, in order to pro¬ 
cure 
