Ophir (Hastings' Dictionary)

A proper name that occurs twelve times in OT. 1. Gn 10%=1 Ch 1% (LXX Οὐφείρ) repre- sents Ophir as the eleventh of the thirteen sons of Joktan, and locates him in the list between Sheba and Havilah. Gn 1059. 81 testifies that the name designates a Ben le (or land) ‘from Mesha as thou goest towards Sephar, the mountain (m. ‘hill βοῦν ἢ of the east.’ 2.1K 9%28 (B Σωφηρά, A Σωφαρά), 10% and 2 Ch 9° (LXX Σουφείρ), 1 K 22% (A ᾿Ὠφείρ, B om.)

, and 2 Ch 818 (B Σωφειρά, A Σωφῆρα), with 1 K 10”, designate a place to which the Tarshish ships of Hiram and Solomon sailed from Ezion-geber, at the head of the Gulf of Akabah, and after three years returned with gold, silver, precious stones, costly woods, ivory, apes, and peacocks. It is not specified that Ophir was the source of all these proamat but simply that such articles were rought back by the merchantmen at the end of a three years’ cruise.

It is quite possible that some of these wares were purchased at regular ports to which they had been brought by other traders. So that Ophir needs not ate sought for at some oint where all these products were native (cf. heyne in Expos. Times, July 1898, p. 472). Sub- sequent references in the OT, however, Is 13”, 1 Ch 294 (LXX Σουφείρ), Job 22% (LXX Σωφείρ), 281 (B Σωφείρ, A ᾿Ὠφείρ), confirm the idea that Ophir was at least a gold-producing region.

[{8 product in these references is synonymous with the finest of that metal. The definite location of Ophir is still in dispute. Search for it has been made from ancient times. Even the translations of the LXX and the remarks OPHIR OPHIR 627 of Josephus (Ant. VII. vi. 4) point to an opinion as to its location, Ancient and current opinions may be classified under three heads. Limits of space will allow the merest outline of the arguments urged for the acceptance of each place.

(1) On the East Coast of Africa.—For several centuries travellers, writers, and scholars of several nationalities have found the Solomonic Ophir at some point along the eastern coast of Africa. Most notable among these were Th. Lopez, J. Bruce, Robertson, Montesquieu, d’Anville, Schul- tess, and Quatremére. The location of Ophir in East Africa, in Mashonaland, opposite the island of Madagascar, has won new friends since the German uch (Retsende in Ost.

Afrikas) made his now famous investigations of 1871. He found, about 200 miles inland from Sofala, at Zimbabye, some remarkable ruins, already described in the works of de Barros, a Portuguese traveller of the 16th cent. The majestic remains of once stately buildings now cover one granite mound 400 ft., and another 300 ft. in height. The natives have preserved among themselves a tradition that white men once lived there and carried on extensive manufactures.

Traces of Phcenician pottery, and even of mining operations, add to the evidence of its former importance. Merensky, a superin- tendent of the Berlin Mission (Beitraége zur Kenntniss Siid-Afrikas, 1875), reported that Arabian travellers regarded these ruins as the Ophir of Solomon, and that as far back as A.D. 1500 the Arabs took gold from those districts. Portuguese sailors found near Sofaéla in 1506 two Arabian ships laden with zold.

The Portuguese colonists in this country tound many ore mines, and even down to the Transvaal may be found remains of old ore-smelting ovens. A corollary of this view is found in the position of those who find Ophir farther north on the coast of Africa—even as far as the Red Sea. The latest and most ardent advocate of this newer view is Carl Peters (Das goldene Ophir Salomos, 1895). Among his array of arguments is found this one on the linguistic evidence.

‘Chinese astronomy designates the east by blue, the south by red, the north by black, and the west by yellow.’ ‘The Black Sea is in the north, the Red Sea in the south, the Turks call the Mediterranean Sea the white, probably a change from yellow.’ ‘In Arabic red is ahr, and Africa is Afir, or the land of the south.’ ‘In Latin Afer is used to designate an African, accordingly the terms Ophir and Africa are identical.

’ Peters agrees substantially with those Egyptologists who would practically identify Ophir with Punt, the great foreign mart of Egypt, especially during the reign of queen Hatshepsu of the 18th dynasty (see art. Put). W. Max Miiller (Asien μι. Europa nach altigyptischen Denknuilern, 1893, p. 111 and n. 1) locates Punt on the Ethiopian coast of the Red Sea, possibly including both sides.

The location of Ophir in the land of Punt, which is not as yet a fixed quantity, introduces many of the same questions as the location farther south on the east coast. Miiller says that the products of Ophir are all African, and only at a later date were the Indian articles inserted in the list. In the chief passage (1 Καὶ 103) the LXX (B) does not mention ‘peacocks’ at all, and it ‘must be held to be an interpolation.

’ But while it is not at all improb- able that the ubiquitous Pheenician sailors may have touched ports on the east coast of Africa in Solomon’s day, arguments based on the ethno- graphical representation of Gn 10 positively make inst this view. (2) In the far East.—Among the most notable advocates of Ophir’s location at some point in the far East we may name the LXX, Josephus, Reland, Lassen, Ritter, Thenius, Murchison.

There are three general locations which deserve mention: (2) Ophir is identified with AbAfra, a nomadic people settled on the east side of the delta of the Indus. While gold is not found on the coast-line, it could have come from N.W. India near Kashmir. Precious stones are found in great abundance in India. ‘Sandal-wood’ (Heb. oxy, var. op3ax) corresponds to the Sanscrit valgu or valgum; ‘peacocks’ (Heb. 5535) is the equivalent of the Sanscrit gikhi; ‘apes’ (Heb. o'5p) is the Indian kapi.

Largely, then, on the basis of philo- logy and that of the products brought to Solomon, Ophir was located near the mouth of the Indus. (Ὁ) On the basis of the LXX (Σωφηρά) of 1 K 9%, which indicates India on Coptic authority, Ophir has been located (Karl E, v. Baer) on the coasts of Malabar, or at Ceylon, whence nearly all of the ἔποθποίε brought by Solomon’s seamen could be ound. An old city, Supara or Uppara, in the region of Goa, has been identified with Ophir.

(c) The Malay Peninsula has also had its advocates. While von Baer admits that this peninsula yields all the products required iy the records, he sees an insuperable objection in the great distance from Ezion-geber. he U.S. Consul, General Wildman of Hong Kong (Tales of the Malayan Coast, 1899, p. 178f.), spent about eight years in this region, and examined with great care the evidence at hand. There is a gold-producing Mt. Ophir near Johore, and good evidence of other kinds.

After careful study of the subject, Wildman concludes that Opbir is a comprehensive term, embracing the entire East, the Malay Peninsula, Ceylon, India, and even China—the name Ophir being taken from this mountain because it marks a central point of the region to which Solomon’s ships sailed.

‘ For all ages the gold of the Malay Peninsula has been known; from the earliest times there has been intercourse between the Arabians and the Malays, while the Malayan was the very first of the far eastern countries to adopt the Moham- medan religion and customs. All the articles mentioned in the biblical account of Ophir are found in and about Malacca in abundance... Peacocks are found [native] only in India and Malaya.’ (3) In Arabia, Southern or South-Eastern.

—Gn 10-° appears to imply that Ophir was either between Sheba and Havilah or in proximity to them. The fact that the Joktanites settled in Arabia would seem to require that search be made for Ophir within that territory. It is of course assumed, because it cannot be absolutely proved, that this Ophir is identical with the a from which the Pheenician sailors brought their remark- able wares to enrich the coffers of Solomon.

This territory has been the favourite location for Ophir from a very ancient day. Among some of its chief advocates we may mention Michaelis, Bochart, Niebuhr, Gesenius, Vincent, Seetzen, and Rosen- miiller. One of the most enthusiastic and experi- enced advocates of our day is Ed. Glaser (Shizze der Geschichte u. Geographie Arabiens, ii. 1890, pp. 353-387).

He arrays evidence at great length, and with commendable skill, to show that all good evidence from ancient times points to south- eastern Arabia, in the region of the Persian Gulf, as the proper location for the Ophir of Solomon's day. Southern and south-eastern Arabia were famed in ancient times for their gold-producing ualities, according to the testimony of Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, and Pliny.

The gold of this region was called apyron (dxvpor)-gold, because its urity was so πότ that it needed no smelting. t is not improbable that the Greek name for the gold of that region (apyron) was ἘΣΤΕ: to the product, since that name for the land had passed out of use. 628 OPHNI OPHRAH The chief gold-producing lands of the OT were found in Arabia, and, for the most part, apparently, in the region of the Persian Gulf. We find be- sides Ophir: (a) Havilah, Gn 2" (and 10); (0) Simba, Ps 72" (cf.

1 K 10"), Ezk 27%; (c) Parvaim (see art. PARVAIM), 2 Ch 85; and also (ὦ) Uphaz, Jer 10%, Dn 10% Of these, Sheba and Havilah at least (and possibly Parvaim) appear to be located, according to Gn 10”, in proximity to Ophir. And again we should note that Ophir was not simply a gold-producing land, but it was so located that ships called at its port or ports (1K 97%). Glaser (p.

368) maintains that the biblical Ophir in the narrow sense is the Arabian coast of the Persian Gulf, extending from the north to Ras Musandum, and that in a wider sense it extends to both sides of the Gulf. In the cuneiform records of Elam, dating from prior to B.C. 1000, we find that the territory be- tween Susa and the Persian Gulf was called Apirra (Apir), and as late as the 8th cent. B.c. the Elamites make mention of it as Apir(cf. Hommel, Gesch. Bab.- Assyr. p. 720; also Del.

, Paradies, PP. 131, 231). i 655 regions of the Persian Gulf did not pro- duce the full list of articles brought back by the Pheenician and Jewish sailors, but the importance of this location both for land and sea trade would account for the presence in the emporia of trade of articles brought from and native in many and far- distant lands.

The trip, too, from Ezion-geber to this region, either in the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Oman, and return, in view of the periodical monsoons which prevail on the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the Indian Ocean, would occupy just about the required three years.

‘Taking into account, then, (1) the location of Ophir as related to the other names mentioned in Gn 10; (2) the gold-producing properties attributed to it in the ὅτ; (3) the testimony of ancient authorities to its richness in the precious metal ; (4) the time required to make the trip in view of the annual monsoons; (5) the testimony of the cuneiform inscriptions as to the name; (6) the cumulative strength of these points,—it seems most- probable that Ophir was a territory situated in south-eastern Arabia, in the region of the Gulfs of Oman and Persia.

Lrtzraturs.—In addition to the many works mentioned in the article, see Ritter, Erdkunde, xiv. 348-431 ; Commentaries of Delitzsch and Dillmann on Gn 109-31, and of Benzinger cx Kurzer Hdcom,) and Kittel (in Nowack’s Hdkom.) on 1 K 926; Zckler, Eden, Ophir, Ephraim, 1893; Sprenger, Die alte Geographie Arabiens, 1874, p. 49ff.; Goergens, SK, 1878, pp. 458-475; Soetbeer, Das Goldland Ophir, 1880; Keil, Heb. Archiologie, pp. 617-620; Nowack, Lehrb. ἃ. Heb. Arch. i. p. 248; Benzinger, Heb. Arch. p.

219; E. Meyer, Ges. ἃ. Alterthums, i. δῇ 185, 187, 804, 307; Herzfeld, Ha eschichte ἃ. Juden ἃ. Alterthums, 1879; Lieblein, Handel τι, Schifffahrt auf dem rothen Meer in alten Zeiten, ES: 142ff. : _ TRA M. PRICE. OPHNI (%35y3, lit. ‘the Ophnite’; BA om., Lue. ᾿Αφνή)., -Α town of Benjamin, Jos 18%. The site is unknown. It may be (but see Dillm. ad loc., and Buhl, GAP 173) the later Gophnah of Josephus (BJ ΠῚ. iii. 5), now Jufnah, 24 miles N.W. of Bethel. See SIP vol. ii. sheet xiv.

OPHRAH (7 5y possibly ‘fawn,’ feminine of 15. —There are both place and personal names in the OT which are derived from names of animals (Journ. Philol. ix. 92 1]. Ὃν ‘dust,’ “ soil,’ suggests a derivation that agrees better with the transliterations of LXX). 1. One of the Benjamite towns enumerated in Jos 18 (A ᾿Ιεφραϑά, B ᾿Αφρά, Luc. ᾿Αφαρά). It is included (18) in what seems to be a north-eastern oup.

This agrees with Jerome’s statement that it was vicus Ephrem (Ephraim) 5 Roman miles from Bethel, eastward (Lag. Onom.? p. 129; Ee ee Eusebius’ text is imperfect; in it the name is κώμη "Agpj\A—Lag. p. 241). The locality so determined is a few miles north of Michmash, and consequentl suits also the Ophrah of 1S 13 (LXX Togepa, Euseb., Jer. Ogpd). The Philistines are said to have sent troops from their camp at Michmash in the direction of Ophrah.

There is even an indica- tion that this direction was northward. Two other bands went east and west respectively, it seems, and Saul’s troops were on the south. The modern et-Taiyibe, about 5 miles north-east of Bethel, has been suggested as the site of the ancient Oph-ah (Robinson’, ii. 121 ff., more at length in Bidblioth. Sac. 1845, ii. 398).

The place is described as strikingly situated on a conical hill, and part of the argument is that such a site must certainly have been occupied in ancient times. The distance from Bethel corresponds with that given by Jerome. But nothing more decisive can urged. The suggested correspondence of the modern name with the ancient is too hazardous to be assigned any weight (Winer® sub voce).

The assumption that the jinsy of Jos 15° is identical with Ophrah is not well founded, for Ephron is plainly on the north-western frontier of Judah. Eusebius’ state- ment, therefore, that Ephron was 20 miles north of Jerusalem Gees P- 260), does not help to determine the site of Ophrah. Negatively it may be argued that et-Zaiyibe lies too far north to have been in- cluded in Benjamite territory (Dillm. on Jos 18%), Six place names, in addition to Ephron, have been identified with Ophrah.

They are :—(1) p75» 2 Ch 13° (Kethibh psy); (2) Ἐφράιμ In 11%; (3) ᾿“Εφράιμ Jos. BJ Iv. ix. 9; (4) ον 28 1353 (Luc. Todpdiu= ?omsy); (5) ᾿Αφαίρεμα 1 Mac 11%; (6) mexd m2 Mic 1", Regarding all of them it should be observed that the mere fact of their being situated on the borders of Judah and Ephraim (or Judea and Samaria) leaves it open to identify them with Ephron.

The names also are as much equivalent to 718} as to mn5y, and the testimony of Eusebius is that, later, Ephron actually became ᾿Εφράιμ (Lag.? p. 260; Jerome calls it Efraea). A brief statement may be made regarding each. (1) Presumably on the borders of Judah and Israel, and possibly not distant from Bethel, in which case it may be Ophrah. (2) See EPHRAIM. Eusebius identifies it with the Ephron of Jos 15° (Lag.? p. 262), and so is against an identification with Ophrah.

(3) Occupied by Vespasian on his march from Czesarea to Jerusalem, and named along with Bethel. But there is nothing to show that it was near Bethel. If it can be assumed that Bethel was in the toparchy of Gophna, which is mentioned on the same occasion, it might be argued that Ephraim was in the toparchy of Akrabatta, too far from Bethel to be Ophrah. (4) From Jerusalem this town lay in the direction of Ὥρωνήν (B, 258 13%, Lue. Σωράιμ).

If that name represents Hebrew 01354 and stands for Beth-horon (Driver, Sam. ad loc.), this Ephraim lay north-west of Jerusalem and may be identical with Ephron. The direction is the same, and Ephron was known to Eusebius as ᾿Εφράιμ. All that supports identification with Ophrah is an uncertain resemblance of name which might equally be claimed for Ephron. (5) On the borders of Judzea and Samaria (᾿Αφερειμά in Jos. Ant. xm. iv. 9).

But there is nothing to show at what point, whether to the east or west. (6) See BETH-LE-APHRAH. The direction of Ephron is more suitable than that of Ophrah.—For further references to literature see EPHRAIM. 2. A town in Manasseh (Jg 61-74 857. 82 95) dis- tinguished from the preceding as Ophrah (LXX ᾿Εφραθά ; in 6" 8” Luc. ᾿Εφρά, in 857 9° A ᾿Εφράιμ), of the Abiezrites (see ABIEZER). It was the home of Gideon, and is mentioned only in his history and in that of his son Abimelech.

It was situated OR evidently on the western side of Jordan and within easy reach of the plain of Jezreel (Jg 6", cf. also 8:8). It is natural to suppose that the Abiezrites were apprehensive of Midianite attack when they took the offensive. Jg 9 does not imply the close proximity of Shechem. Abimelech’s relations with that town are expressly accounted for by his kin- ship. The area within which the site may be looked for is accordingly sufficiently wide.

No modern name closely resembling the ancient has been pointed out. (Suggestions in Schwarz, Geog. 1850, p. 158; van de Velde, Memoir, p. 337; PEFSt 1876, p. 197, by Conder, who quotes an Arabic translation of Samar. Chron. which gives Fer‘ata, 6 miles west of Shechem, for Ophrah). Some of the places saveny, named because of their identification with Ophrah of Benjamin have also been identified with this Ophrah.

The third of them may have been as far north as to come within the boundaries of Manasseh. 8. A family or clan (B Todepd, A Todopd, Luc. ἜἜφράθ) in the tribe of Judah, according to the list of the Chronicler (1 Ch 4"), There are certainly names of towns in this list, and this may be one, the Judean Ephron or even the Benjamite Ophrah. Border towns may be counted at one time to Benjamin, at another to Judah. W. B. STEVENSON.