1 Reis 9:28

Ophir. — All that can be certainly gathered from the mention of Ophir in the Old Testament is, first; that it was situated to the east of Palestine and approached by the Red Sea (as is clear from this passage, from 1 Reis 22:48, and from 2 Crônicas 8:18; 2 Crônicas 9:10), and next, that so famous was the gold imported from it, that the “gold of Ophir” became proverbial (Jó 22:24; Jó 28:16; Salmos 45:10; Isaías 13:12; 1 Crônicas 4; 1 Crônicas 4). All else is matter of speculation and tradition. Setting aside merely fanciful conjectures, substantial reasons have been given for fixing it geographically in Africa, Arabia, and India; and of these three positions, evidence strongly preponderates for the second or third. Tradition is in favour of India; the LXX. renders the name as Soufir, or Sofir, which is the Coptic word for “India; the Arabic versions actually render it “India;” and Josephus (Ant. viii. 6, 4) srates unhesitatingly that Ophir was in his day called “The Golden Chersonesus,” which is the Malay peninsula. On the other hand, it is urged that “Ophir,” in the ethnological list of Gênesis 10:29, is placed among the sons of Joktan, clearly indicating an Arabian position; and that the mention of Ophir (here and in 1 Reis 10:11), stands in close connection with the visit of the Queen of Sheba and the gold brought from Arabia. But neither of these considerations is conclusive. Looking to the products described as brought from Ophir, the “gold and precious stones” would suit either. but India better than Arabia (although, indeed, so far as gold is concerned, Western Africa would have better claim than either); while the “almug,” or “algum” wood is certainly the “sandal wood” found almost exclusively on the Malabar coast, and the very word “algum” appears to be a corruption of its Sanscrit name valguka. If the other imports mentioned in 1 Reis 10:22 were also from Ophir, this latter argument would be greatly strengthened. (See Note there.) But putting this aside as doubtful, the preponderance of evidence still appears to be in favour of India. The Tyrians, it may be added, are known to have had trading settlements on the Persian Gulf, and to have rivalled in the trade of the East the Egyptians, to whom it would more naturally have belonged. Various places have been named conjecturally as identical with Ophir: as in Arabia, Zaphar or Saphar, Doffir, and Zafari; in Africa, Sofala; and in India, Abhira, at the mouth of the Indus, and a Soupara mentioned by ancient Greek geographers, not far from Goa.