Verse 22. - For [Reason why silver was so lightly esteemed. It was because of the prodigious quantity both of gold and silver brought in by the fleet] the king had at sea a navy of Tarshish [It has been much disputed

(1) whether this was a second fleet, or the same as that mentioned 1 Kings 9:26-28, as trading to Ophir, and

(2) whether this fleet, if it were not the same, went to Ophir or to Tartessus in Spain. Keil and Bahr contend that there was Out one fleet, first, because there is no mention of a second fleet at 1 Kings 9:28, and, secondly, because the cargoes were practically the same. I incline (with Rawlinson, al.) to think there were two separate navies, for the following reasons:

(1) The expression "navy of Tarshish" (in 2 Chronicles 9:21 expanded into "ships going to Tarshish," which Keil and Bahr are compelled to set aside as a mistake on the part of the writer), taken in connexion with the following words, "with (עִם, together with, as well as) the navy of Hiram" (i.e., as we conclude from ver. 11, the navy manned, or, it may be, owned, by Hiram) points to a separate fleet;

(2) the cargoes, so far from being the same, strike me as being altogether diverse. The Ophir fleet brought in "gold, almug trees, and precious stones." The navy of Tarshish "gold and silver ivory, apes, and peacocks." See below.

(3) Even if we understand here by the "navy of Hiram" a Phoenician fleet, still a second fleet is indicated. But this leads us to consider the destination of these ships. The term, "fleet of Tarshish," does not in itself prove anything, for the expression, "ships of Tarshish," is almost a synonym for "merchant vessels." In 1 Kings 22:48 we read, "Jehoshaphat made ships of Tarshish to go to Ophir," and they "were broken at Ezion-geber" (cf. Psalm 48:7; Jonah 1:3). It is probable that in Jewish lips the words were a nomen generale for all vessels going long voyages (Isaiah 2:16; Psalm 48:7; compare our "East Indiaman," "Greenlander"). But the words "in the sea," בַּיָּם, are most naturally understood of that ocean which the Jews called par excellence "the sea," or "the great sea" (Numbers 34:6, 7), i.e., the Mediterranean, though the term הַיָּם is undoubtedly used of the Red Sea, the Sea of Galilee, and the Dead Sea. And the more so as we know that the Tyrians had an extensive commerce with Tartessus, which was a great emporium of trade from the earliest times. Bahr objects that "no gold is found in Spain, but few peacocks, and little ivory;" but Rawlinson, on the other hand, affirms that "Spain had the richest silver mines known in the ancient world, and had a good deal of gold also" (Plin., Nat. Hist. 3:4), while "apes and ivory were produced by the opposite coast of Africa" (Herod. 4:191. As to peacocks see below). And it is a powerful argument in favour of Tartessus that it is the plentifulness of silver in Solomon's days has suggested this reference to the fleet. For though silver "was found in the land of the Nabataeans, according to Strabo, 16:784" (Keil), yet it was to Tartessus that the ancient world was chiefly indebted for its supplies of that metal. On the whole, therefore, it seems probable that second fleet, trading with the Mediterranean seaports, is here described. And Psalm 72:10 is distinctly in favour of this conclusion. When Ewald says ("Hist. Israel," 3:263) that the Phoenicians would hardly tolerate a rival in the Mediterranean, he surely forgets that they had been admitted by the Jews to share the trade of Ophir] with the navy of Hiram; once in three years [This period agrees better with a voyage to Spain than to Southern Arabia. And if we understand it of Spanish voyages, it removes one difficulty in the way of placing Ophir in Arabia. It has also been urged that "the Hebrews reckoned parts of years and days as whole ones" (Kitte); but this hardly would apply to the expression "once in three years"] came the navy of Tarshish, bringing gold and silver ivory [Heb. tooth of elephants, LXX. ὀδόντες ἐλεφάντινοι. It is noteworthy that the name for elephant used here is derived from the Sanskrit (Gesen.), and an argument has been drawn hence in favour of placing Ophir in India, and of identifying the Tarshish fleet with the navy of Ophir. But such conclusions are extremely precarious. The name may have first come to the Jews from India, in which case it would be retained, from whatever quarter the commodity was subsequently derived. See Rawlinson, p. 546], and apes [קופis in like manner identified by Gesenius, al., with the Sanskrit kapi. Sir J. Emerson Tennant ("Ceylon," 2 p 102) says "the terms by which these articles (ivory, apes, and peacocks) are designated in the Hebrew Scriptures are identical with the Tamil names by which some of them are called in Ceylon to the present day"], and peacocks. [So the the ancients interpret the original word, though some of the moderns would understand "parrots." But the root תכי appears in several Aryan tongues (cf. ταῶς, from ταρως, and pavo) as indicating the peacock (Gesen., Max Muller, al.) which originally came from India. Whether it was also found in Africa is uncertain. Aristophanes (Birds, 485) says, καλεῖται Περσικὸς ὄρνις. Wordsworth very justly sees in the mention of these curious beasts and birds a symptom of declension in simplicity and piety, a token that "wealth had brought with it luxury and effeminacy, and a frivolous, vainglorious love for novel and outlandish objects.'