Commentaria in III Regum
You will ask whether this fleet of Solomon sailing to Tharsis is the same as the fleet sailing to Ophir, of which verse 11? Some think it was one and the same: for “Ophir” and “Tharsis” are names given to the immense sea, and to vast and very distant regions, such as is India, whether East or West. So Joseph Acosta, book 3 On the New World, chapter 14, and others. These, therefore, by “Ophir and Tharsis” understand the Indian sea, and its marts to which the fleet of Solomon sailed, setting out from Asiongaber situated on the Red Sea, as from the same the fleet of Josaphat setting out sailed “to Tharsis,” that is, to the East Indies, as is said in 2 Paralipomenon chapter 20, 36. Josephus the Hebrew hints the same. Others more plainly think there were two fleets: for the one went to Ophir, the other to Tharsis: the former brought back from Ophir Ophirian gold and thyine woods; the latter from Tharsis gold and silver, ivory, apes and peacocks: the former went every year to Ophir, as is plain from verse 14; the latter once in three years went to Tharsis, as is here said: the former set out from Asiongaber situated on the Arabian Gulf, the latter from Joppe situated on the Mediterranean. Wherefore by Tharsis understand here the Mediterranean. For Tharsis was a son of Javan, Genesis 10:4, who first after the flood inhabited Cilicia, whose capital is Tarsus; thence the neighbouring sea, and at length the rest of the Mediterranean, was called Tharsis: for the Cilicians formerly held almost all of it. So Jonas chapter 1, verse 3, “fled to Tharsis,” that is, to the Mediterranean sea. So Ribera in the same place, Salianus and others.
This fleet, therefore, setting out from Tyre or from Joppe, sailed “to Tharsis,” that is, to the Mediterranean sea near it, and visited the various shores, ports and marts, whether of Africa, or of Europe, or of Asia, as of Arabia, Anatolia, Greece, Dalmatia, Gaul, Italy, Spain, Mauritania, Cyprus, Crete, Sicily, Sardinia, the Cyclades, etc., adjacent to this sea, and bought up for Solomon whatever anywhere was excellent and precious. Wherefore, making many stops, it returned home only in the third year, as Josephus says. But if anyone will have it that it went on from the Mediterranean further into the Ocean, and sailed to Brazil, Peru and Mexico, as the Spaniards now do, I shall not oppose, and I should more readily concede this of this fleet than of the other which sailed to Ophir; for this spent three years in going and returning, but that to Ophir only one year.
Moreover it is a new opinion of Pineda, book 4 On Solomon, chapter 14, where by many arguments he strives to prove that “Tharsis” is Tartessus, and Baetic Spain, where Seville, commonly Sevilla, is situated, which formerly abounded in gold, so that he claims for his own country this distinction of Solomon’s fleet. He thinks, then, that there was only one and the same fleet of Solomon, which, setting out from Asiongaber situated on the Arabian Gulf, or Red Sea, first sailed into the Ocean, and by the Cape of Good Hope, carried round all the shores of Africa as far as Gades, came “to Tharsis,” that is, Tartessus and Seville; thence returning, running along the same shores of Africa again, sailed to the East Indies, namely Taprobana and Sumatra, and thence at last in the third year returned to the port of Asiongaber from which it had set out.
But thus this fleet ought first to have returned from Tharsis to Asiongaber, and there to unload its wares bought in Tharsis and Tartessus, and then to sail to Ophir, that is, to Sumatra. For why would it have exposed wares bought in Tharsis to the danger of a new and long voyage to India and Sumatra, when it could easily unload them at Asiongaber, which sailors going from Tharsis or Tartessus to India must necessarily sail past? Certainly this would have been a too dangerous voyage, as it seems rash and imprudent, in which so many precious wares were entrusted to a ship and a treacherous sea, when they could be safely deposited in a neighbouring port.
27. AND HE MADE SILVER TO BE AS PLENTIFUL IN JERUSALEM AS STONES.—It is a hyperbole, as if to say: He made the greatest abundance of silver, such as is of stones. For otherwise there was a greater supply of stones than of silver.
28. FOR THE KING’S MERCHANTS WENT, AND BOUGHT (horses) OUT OF COA, AND BROUGHT THEM AT A SET PRICE.—For “out of Coa” the Hebrew is miqqeveh, which our version and the Septuagint take as the proper name of a place, pointing and reading mikkoa, and translating “out of Coa,” although in the Septuagint it is corruptly read “out of Ecue” or “Thecue.” Coa seems to have been a city or region of western Egypt in which there was a most famous horse trade, of which Stephen of Byzantium speaks. So Serarius.
But the Chaldee, reading with other points miqweh, translates: the gathering of the king’s merchants bought the gathering at a price. R. David, R. Solomon, R. Joseph and R. Levi, following the Chaldee, in Pagninus explain it variously; but the sum of all is this, that a multitude of merchants, for a price given, drew out of Egypt a multitude either of fine linen, or of cloth, or of horses, or of other things. But we must stand by the version of St. Jerome and the Septuagint. Some have thought Coa to be Goa, which is the seat of the viceroy of the king of the Portuguese in the East Indies; but this is farthest distant from Egypt and Jerusalem.
Moreover that the dignity and magnificence of a king consist chiefly in the number and pomp of attendants, horsemen and chariots, Brissonius teaches from Athenaeus, Aelian, Xenophon and others, book 1 On the Persian Kingdom. Whence Julian the Apostate, “when he had removed the pomp of the palace, made the empire contemptible,” says Socrates, book 3 of his History, chapter 10, and Cassiodorus, book 6 Tripartite, chapter 10; but in this matter, as in all others, measure must be kept.
29. AND A CHARIOT CAME OUT OF EGYPT FOR SIX HUNDRED PIECES OF SILVER, AND A HORSE FOR A HUNDRED AND FIFTY.—“Chariot” (quadriga), that is, four horses, which draw a car or chariot. For each horse stood at 150 sicles: four horses therefore stood at six hundred sicles; wherefore the car or chariot itself had to be procured at another price; so Abulensis. A sicle of silver is a half-ounce, or four drachmas of silver, namely four Roman julii, or four Spanish reals, which make a Brabant or Belgian florin. Six hundred sicles are therefore six hundred Brabant florins.
AND IN THIS MANNER ALL THE KINGS OF THE HETHITES AND OF SYRIA SOLD THEIR HORSES.—Our Interpreter translates rightly. For the prefixed article lamed, although ordinarily the sign of the dative, yet at times is the sign of the ablative, and has the same force as from, out of, of. Whence you may translate thus from the Hebrew: and so from all the kings of the Hethites and of the Syrians they went out by their hands, that is, were sold to Solomon.
Moreover the Septuagint, Chaldee and Rabbis, taking lamed as the sign of the dative, translate the contrary: (600 sicles) they went out of Egypt, and to all the kings of the Hethites and Syrians; see Abulensis, who excellently defends the Vulgate version here.
Finally, so great an abundance of all things, felicity and glory were given by God to Solomon on account of his wisdom and virtue, first, that all the Israelites might imitate the same, from hope of the same rewards: and therefore serve the true God, not idols, seeing that the true God gave greater things to Solomon alone than all the idols to their worshippers. For the Israelites, being gross and rude, took in and relished nothing but earthly things, as even now their descendants the Jews do.
Secondly, that the kings of the Syrians, Egyptians, Arabians, nay of the whole world, might be stirred up to worship the God of Solomon, that they might obtain from God a like magnificence, as Solomon had obtained, as the queen of Saba did, and other kings of good heart.
Thirdly, that in Solomon he might give a specimen and slender idea of the felicity and glory eternal, which he prepared from eternity for his elect in heaven.
Fourthly, that he might show in Solomon how vain is all the opulence and glory of this world, since it presently vanished like smoke together with Solomon himself, so that men might say: “So passes the glory of the world.” Wherefore true felicity and glory consist in heavenly and eternal goods, that men might aspire to them; and this God clearly shows in Solomon, whose felicity was mere infelicity, as will now be plain: for his glory soon became inglorious, his fame infamy, and his opulence poverty: for his son Roboam, having lost ten tribes of Israel, scarcely retained a single tribe, Juda.