Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture gives as one of his strongest evidences that the Philippines is both Ophir and Tarshish is that all the resources brought back from those places are native to the Philippines. Is that true? Let's test Tim's testing of the resources of Ophir and Tarshsish. Though he has many videos on this subject I shall be sticking with his book Solomon's Treasure which he claims is "the monumental case for the Philippines no one can disprove."
 |
| Solomon's Treasure, pg. 95 |
The sons of Joktan – Ophir, Sheba and Havilah are all from Noah’s son Shem. However, Tarshish is from Japheth. How does he enter this narrative of the journey to Ophir? The only Tarshish mentioned in Genesis 10 is this one.
Genesis 10:4-5 KJVAnd the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
Tarshish is the son of Javan, the father of Greece according to history and the Book of Jubilees. Along with his brothers, he inherited the Greek isles very accurately termed the isles of the Gentiles in Genesis 10. However, if we are to follow the supposed history which ignores the Bible and makes unsupported assumptions often times, we would believe no one had ships back in 2200 B.C. We have not found any ships that would credibly date back that far indeed. However, the thinking it would be preserved that long is not reasonable except in extremely rare cases.
However, what good would inheriting isles be if you could not travel there. They got to their inheritance somehow and they were not that great of swimmers. We are actually expected to believe that Noah and his sons construct a ship of supertanker complex construction years before this and yet, they all forgot how to build a ship after the Flood especially with a large world ocean to cross now. Of course, they boated and had ships. Tarshish especially found a way to build something to get to his inheritance and this is how he enters the Ophir migration. We are certainly not the first to make such connection.
“And that this was really so, and that the principal settler of these archipelagoes [Philippines] was Tharsis, son of Javan, together with his brothers, as were Ophir and Hevilath of India, we see in the tenth chapter of Genesis...” –Father Francisco Colin, 1663
With Tarshish arrived his brothers, the sons of Javan, the mariner family from Japheth as they were all returning to the land of Noah. The territory was given to the sons of Shem in Noah’s division of the Earth which Ophir, Sheba and Havilah were the ones to claim it but they needed ships to get there.
What Tim is saying here is that Tarshish inherited the islands of Greece and therefore had ships. He and his brothers, along with Ophir and Havilah, sailed far to the east in those ships because "they were all returning to the land of Noah" which Tim teaches is the Philippines. He cites the Jesuit Fr. Francisco Colin in support of his thesis. That is kind of odd seeing how much Tim dislikes the Jesuits.
Ophir, Sheba and Havilah lived in Meshad, Iran which in 1663, was a territory right adjacent to what was referred to as India (Afghanistan) still by many so it is not inconsistent for Father Colin to identify them so as they did originate in that region. This was not exactly a yachting area and certainly not one possessing vessels which could cross the sea but Tarshish and his brothers had ships. Therefore, Ophir and Sheba needed ships and Tarshish provided them. His payment for this endeavor carrying them back to their homeland would be to inherit a piece of that land logically as he certainly did according to scripture in order to have land in that region especially since Tarshish’s territory is no where near there otherwise but the Greek isles. David mentions ships and kings of Tarshish two times before Solomon’s reign before his navy even began construction (Ps. 48:7, 72:10). Both are prophesies that Tarshish will bring gifts to Messiah with Ophir and Sheba and it’s ships destroyed.
That is all pure speculation based on Tim's imagination. Why couldn't Ophir and Sheba build their own ships? How does he know the payment for building those ships would be to inherit a piece of land? How does he know the land the inherited is Mindanao? He doesn't know any of that. He is simply asserting it as a fact because "that makes sense."
Solomon's Treasure, pgs 124-125Rome did not benefit from this knowledge so easily as this was established by Israel with Phoenicia managing the route. Greece inherited this and, as they represent Tarshish’s family. That makes sense.
Tarshish is Mindanao, Philippines as it is mapped as the Greek land of silver, Argyre (The Hebrew Tarshish) especially on the 1492 Portuguese globe of Behaim just South of Luzon/Chryse. Mindanao also tests as the only place in the Philippines which fully aligns with Tarshish in resources especially due to tin.
2 Chronicles 9:21 KJV
For the king’s ships went to Tarshish with the servants of Huram: every three years once came the ships of Tarshish bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes and peacocks.
Above Pigafetta describes from two different translations, though pretty much the same, that the King of Butuan was able to secure a gold nugget the size of a chicken egg or walnut by simply sifting through the earth or seeking in the ground. This actually fits what would have to be the case in the ancient land of gold from at least 1000 B.C. as there was no major mining equipment in that era. The Philippines not only matches this but we offer two additional legends which affirm this point that the gold in the Philippines was available by picking it up from the shallows of rivers and even the ground. Granted these are oral legends in which the story may change some depending on whom you talk but these affirm this position. Silver, we will withhold for Tarshish.
Solomon's Treasure, pg. 96
Ivory
In my initial review of Solomon's Gold I commented on Tim's claim about the Philippines being a source for ivory which bears repeating here.
However, one must overlook tons of archaeology in order to conclude elephants were not native to the Philippines including the very latin identification of species which is specific to the Philippines such as Rhinoceros philippinensis unearthed in Fort Bonaficio along with Stegodon luzonensis, Bubalus cebuensis, a dwarf buffalo found in Cebu and Elephas Beyeri named after anthropologist H. Ottley Beyer who found these bones on Cabarruyan Island In Luzon.
Solomon's Treasure, pg.100
Tim also claims that Pigafetta saw elephants on Palawan.
Even history agrees as in 1521, Pigafetta witnessed elephants as he mentioned them multiple times especially in Palawan.
“When we arrived at the city (Palawan), we were obliged to wait about two hours in the prahu, until there came thither two elephants covered with silk...” –Pigafetta, 1521
This is not true. Pigafetta's account, which can be read here in sections 110-118, took place after the death of Magellan and the route can be discerned from his journal. They left Cebu for Bohol, next to Cagayan, then north west to Palawan (Palaoan), then south west to another island. There is only one island to the south west of Palawan and that is Borneo.
Describing the inhabitants this island Pigafetta writes:
The Moors of Burné go naked like the other islanders.
The people were Muslims and they were naked. Clearly not the Philippines whose inhabitants, while noted for being naked, are never called Moors. So, this is another lie concocted by Tim. Did he read the text? It very clearly says they went from Palawan to an island in the south west and then they encountered the elephants. Nowhere in the preceding section about the Philippines are elephants noted though they are noted in other places following Borneo. I call this a lie and not a simple error because Tim had ample time to check everything and he is on record admitting that he wants to prove that the Philippines is Ophir. If he read the text there is no way he would have gotten this wrong except on purpose. I assume he did read the text because I can find no one else claiming Pigafetta saw elephants in Palawan which means he probably did not crib this from elsewhere. Therefore this is a flat-out lie and not a simple error.
Tim concludes this section on ivory thusly:
Ivory was native to the Philippines since pre-history, in the days of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, long before the time of the Sultanate of Sulu, in the era of the Spanish and all the way up until they went extinct in the 1600s or so.
Solomon's Treasure, pg. 102
But he has not proven this at all. He has taken five fossils, which if you read the information at each link says some have not been examined properly and some have been lost, and has extrapolated a vast and lucrative ivory trade between the Philippines and Israel. He has also lied claiming that Pigafetta saw elephants in Palawan. That alone makes this section unreliable.
Apes
Solomon’s navy returned with apes and we cannot begin to tell you how many demanded we produce a large, hairy Africa-type ape in order to prove this position. The problem is they are inserting their own modern thinking and not looking at the origin of the word which is not African-style large apes nor would they have had the technology to handle such primates in that era. They also would not need them as Solomon is not known for building a zoo and they serve noother purpose. Instead, this word simply means monkey and specifically a monkey with a tail or long-tailed.
apes: Hebrew: qôwph: קוף: Probably of foreign origin, a monkey: – ape... especially monkeys with tails.
We would agree the Philippines is not known for African-style apes but those seeking such are not following the Bible. We are pursuing monkeys with long tails and yes, they are abundant in the Philippines. However, we can get more definitive on this one because in this case, we actually have archaeology of a relief from the walls of the palace of Assyria which illustrates Phoenician sailors (Solomon’s navy) arriving with long- tailed monkeys not big African-style apes.
This relief tells us much as it is just after Solomon’s time in 865 B.C. and the Phoenicians brought apes, or really long-tailed monkeys, from Ophir according to the Bible account. However, what is astonishing about this carving is that you can identify these monkeys as a match to the Philippine Long-Tailed Macaque. [pictured next page] The face, hands, feet, size, structure and tail all appear to be a match. Of course, there are other macaques around the world but we are not testing the world, we are testing whether the Philippines has the apes of the Bible and they have what appears to be a precise harmony.
Solomon's Treasure, pg. 103
The Philippines has long-tailed monkeys which would seem to fit the description in 2 Chronicles. But let's take a closer look at the word for ape.
 |
| https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h6971/kjv/wlc/0-1/ |
a word of Indian origin
Tim's source for his definition of the word translated ape comes from the Blue Letter Bible which I have just cited. But notice that Tim does not give the full definition. He leaves out the part about the Hebrew word being an Indian loan word. If the word for ape in Hebrew is Indian in origin then the apes taken back to Israel must have come from India and not the Philippines. That does not mean that Tarshish is in India only that the apes likely came from India. Or perhaps the word for ape is Indian in origin because they had imported monkeys from India and the word came to mean any monkey. Just like in the Philippines Colgate means toothpaste and not just the brand Colgate.
Peacocks
The Philippines has a native peacock named the Palawan Peacock.
“Endemic to the Philippines, the Palawan peacock-pheasant is found in the humid forests of Palawan Island in the southern part of the Philippine archipelago.”
We find references to this peacock in Pigafetta’s Journal twice.
“The next day the king of that island sent a prahu to the ships; it was very handsome, with its prow and stern ornamented with gold; on the bow fluttered a white and blue flag, with a tuft of peacock’s feathers at the top of the staff” –Pigafetta, 1521
“Afterwards there came nine men to the governor’s house, sent by the king, with as many large wooden trays, in each of which were ten or twelve china dishes, with the flesh of various animals, such as veal, capons, fowls, peacocks, and others, with various sorts of fish, so that only of flesh there were thirty or thirty-two different viands.”
–Pigafetta, 1521
Again, this is a lie. The reference to peacocks in Pigafetta occurs in sections 110 and 114 which is when he is Borneo. Like Palawan, Borneo is also home to an endemic peacock. As for the origin of the word translated peacock it is, like the word for monkey, foreign.
 |
| https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h8500/kjv/wlc/0-1/ |
To this answer the Malabar. togei
The Hebrew word for peacock has its derivation from Malabar Tamil which is spoken in India. Tim brings this issue up later in his book when discussing India's claim to be Ophir.
India’s challenge as Ophir per The Periplus is it’s own history which details it’s source of gold in ancient times was located in the isles East of India. This legend persisted in Sri Lanka as well thus, it would not qualify either as it is only an isle and not isles nor is it East of India. This is the only claim out there other than the Philippines that meets the burden in resources but history and the fact it is not an island crush it. We dealt with Malaysia already in Chapter 3.
A Dictionary of the Bible by Sir William Smith, published in 1863, notes “the Hebrew word for parrot Thukki, derived from the Classical Tamil for peacock Thogkai and Cingalese “tokei.”–Sir William Smith, Smith’s Bible Dictionary, 1863Smith focuses heavily in this writing on the Hebrew word Thukki which he never proves is Tamil. Yes, Thogkai and Tokei are sort of similar but a different language and one would need more to connect. Additionally, the word parrot which he seems to be focused never appears in any Bible translation even once. It is not in the KJV, NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV, CSB, NASB, NET, RSV, ASV, YLT, DBY, WEB, HNV, RVR60, VUL, WLC, LXX, mGNT, or TR translations. Additionally, ancient words from scripture do not originate from other languages that are newer. The Book of Jubilees is clear, Hebrew was the “language of Creation” (Jub. 12:26-27).
Solomon's Treasure, pg. 216
Tim rebukes William Smith for claiming a Hebrew word is derived from a Tamil word because of the similarity of sound. But that is EXACTLY what Tim does when he claims there is residual Hebrew in the Philippine place-names. His other objection is that Hebrew is the original language of creation therefore it needs no loan words. That is an unproven assertion and does not take into account how languages actually work. For instance the age of Hebrew texts can be determined on linguistic grounds. Hebrew is not a static language.
As for the Philippines having its own peacock, well that is interesting. The Palawan Peacock-pheasant is related to but not in the same genus as what we think of when we think of peacocks.
The adult male is the most peacock-like member of the genus Polyplectron in appearance.
It's not a true peacock, it is a peacock-pheasant. That is not a small difference. A true peacock is much larger with long tail feathers. This bird is short and squat just like a Filipino.
 |
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavoninae |
It is interesting to note that the word translated peacock can also be translated baboon and that there is no mention of peacocks in the Septuagint which ends with ivory. The Orthodox Study Bible, which is a modern translation of the Septuagint, translates 1 Chronicles 9:21 as follows:
The King's ships went to Tarshish with Hiram's servants. Once every three years the merchant ships returned, loaded with gold and silver and elephant tusks and monkeys.
No mention of baboons or peacocks. Could it be that the Hebrew text contains a later addition?
Tim ends this first section of testing the resources of Ophir and Tarshish on a triumphant note.
Just from this single passage in 2 Chronicles which identifies resources of Ophir and Tarshish, this allows us to narrow this down already. Solomon’s navy returned with gold, and silver, ivory, and apes and peacocks. There are no other stops on the list and this was the very first journey to Ophir and Tarshish. There is no record of their establishing trading posts along the way nor was that their purpose. They were building the Temple and to complete the project, Solomon wanted specific resources such as the gold Adam used in the first sacrifice which only comes from one place, the wood of Noah which was used to build the ark from this same land and all the resources of ancient Havilah, the land of his ancient ancestors – Adam and Eve.
However, the Bible is far more brilliant than given credit even by scholars, many of which do not actually believe the Bible unfortunately. It just knocked out any claim of Ophir coming from Ethiopia who not only is in the wrong territory but has no peacocks, almug trees (we will cover) and was not located in the uttermost parts of the earth. Yemen has no ivory, peacocks, almug nor is it in the uttermost parts of the earth. Both fail miserably the resource test and every test we have attempted. Nothing can replace the actual land of gold in history – the Philippines.
The Bible lists more resources though than just this one passage which come from Tarshish especially as well as Sheba which is further defined. We will test all of them and you will continually notice the others making assertions, deteriorate under examination.
Solomon's Gold, pgs. 106-107
Here we see that Tim is conflating Ophir and Tarshish. He thinks the cargo listed in 2 Chronicles 9:21 and 1 Kings 10:22 refer to both areas but they do not. 2 Chronicles 9:10 tells us what was brought back from Ophir.
And the servants also of Huram, and the servants of Solomon, which brought gold from Ophir, brought algum trees and precious stones.
What Tim says about the temple is totally wrong. The temple was finished before the ships sailed to Ophir and Tarshish and before the Queen of Sheba arrived for her visit. The scripture tells us that David had already prepared the gold.
1 Chronicles 29:1 Furthermore David the king said unto all the congregation, Solomon my son, whom alone God hath chosen, is yet young and tender, and the work is great: for the palace is not for man, but for the LORD God.
2: Now I have prepared with all my might for the house of my God the gold for things to be made of gold, and the silver for things of silver, and the brass for things of brass, the iron for things of iron, and wood for things of wood; onyx stones, and stones to be set, glistering stones, and of divers colours, and all manner of precious stones, and marble stones in abundance.
3: Moreover, because I have set my affection to the house of my God, I have of mine own proper good, of gold and silver, which I have given to the house of my God, over and above all that I have prepared for the holy house,
4: Even three thousand talents of gold, of the gold of Ophir, and seven thousand talents of refined silver, to overlay the walls of the houses withal:
5: The gold for things of gold, and the silver for things of silver, and for all manner of work to be made by the hands of artificers. And who then is willing to consecrate his service this day unto the LORD?
There was no need for Solomon to adorn the temple with additional gold from Ophir because it was already finished and dedicated.
As I have stated previously Tarshish must be located within the Mediterranean basin. In the Septuagint Tarshish is translated as Carthage in Isaiah 23:1. I am not going to affirm that Carthage is indeed the location of Tarshish but, despite the timeframe of every three years, all the resources listed here, gold, ivory, apes, and peacocks or baboons, can be found in North Africa. It is not impossible that peacocks from the Congo where they are native were captured and traded along the Barbary coast. Mosaic tile art from North Africa shows what looks like a Congolese peacock. The thing to remember is just because an item was brought back from Tarshish does not mean it was native to Tarshish. It only means that the item was brought there to be traded.
Has Tim proven without a doubt that Tarshish and Ophir are the same region? No. Has he shown that gold, ivory, apes, and peacocks must have come from the Philippines and no other place? No. In fact when it comes to ivory and peacocks he has lied about what Pigafetta wrote in his journal in order to fit his agenda. When speaking of ivory he has taken 5 fossils and extrapolated them into an elaborate ivory trade for which he offers no proof. Gold is to be found all over the world not just the Philippines and he gives no proof that the gold from Tarshish must be from the Philippines. As for peacocks, they may or may not have been part of the original cargo as they are not listed in the Septuagint which predates the Masoretic text.
There are more resources to be tested so I will have to divide this into three articles. The next section will deal with the resources of Tarshish and the final article will deal with the offerings of the Queen of Sheba.
No comments:
Post a Comment