Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Kings 9:28

"And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to king Solomon." — 1 Kings 9:28 (ASV)

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 Kings 22:48, and from 2 Chronicles 8:18; 2 Chronicles 9:10), and second, that so famous was the gold imported from it that “the gold of Ophir” became proverbial (Job 22:24; Job 28:16; Psalms 45:10; Isaiah 13:12; 1 Chronicles 4:0; 1 Chronicles 4:0).

All else is a matter of speculation and tradition. Setting aside merely fanciful conjectures, substantial reasons have been given for fixing its geographical location in Africa, Arabia, or India. Of these three positions, evidence strongly preponderates for the second or third.

Tradition is in favour of India; the Septuagint 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) states 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 Genesis 10:29, is placed among the sons of Joktan, clearly indicating an Arabian position. It is also urged that the mention of Ophir (here and in 1 Kings 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 at the products described as brought from Ophir, the “gold and precious stones” would suit either, but India better than Arabia (although, indeed, as far as gold is concerned, Western Africa would have a better claim than either). Furthermore, the “almug,” or “algum” wood is certainly the “sandalwood” found almost exclusively on the Malabar coast, and the very word “algum” appears to be a corruption of its Sanskrit name, valguka. If the other imports mentioned in 1 Kings 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 rivaled the Egyptians in the trade of the East, to whom it would more naturally have belonged. Various places have been named conjecturally as identical with Ophir: for example, in Arabia, Zaphar or Saphar, Doffir, and Zafari; in Africa, Sofala; and in India, Abhira, at the mouth of the Indus, and a place called Soupara mentioned by ancient Greek geographers, not far from Goa.