1 Kings 9:18

And Baalath,.... A city in the tribe of Dan, Joshua 19:44 and Tadmor in the wilderness, in the land; or "Tamar", as in the Cetib, or Scriptural reading; for we go according to the marginal reading,

And Baalath, and Tadmor in the wilderness, in the land, Baalath - Baalbec, called also Aven, or On (Amos 1:5). But some think that Baalath was in the south of Palestine, near the Shephelah, or Philistines plain (cf.

Baalath, in the tribe of Dan, ,44. Tadmor; supposed to be called Tamar, . In the land: this clause may belong either, first, To all the places above mentioned, which are here declared to be in the land of Canaan. But so that clause may seem superfluous; for none would easily think that he would build much out of his own land. Or rather, secondly, To Tadmor, which otherwise being in that wilderness which was the border of the land, might have been presumed to have been out of the land.

1 Kings 9:18 And Baalath, and Tadmor in the wilderness, in the land,Ver. 18. In the wilderness, in the land,] i.e., So in the wilderness, as not out of the land of Canaan. Places which were but thinly inhabited, the Jews called wildernesses.

(18) Baalath is said by Josephus to have been in the same neighbourhood; and this agrees with the mention of it in Joshua 19:44, as lying in the region assigned to Dan, on the edge of the Philistine country. The three, Gezer, Beth-horon, and Baalath, evidently form a group of fortified places commanding the passes from the sea-coast.Tadmor in the wilderness, in the land.—The Hebrew text here has Tamar (with, however, Tadmor as a marginal reading). From this fact, and from the peculiar expression “in the land,” which certainly seems to designate the land of Israel, and from the juxtaposition of the name in this passage with the names of places situated in the southern part of Palestine, it has been thought that the place meant is the Tamar of Eze 47:19; Ezekiel 48:28), or, perhaps, Hazazon-Tamar, the old name of En-gedi; and that the marginal reading, and the reading of the old versions, have arisen from a mistaken identification of this place with the Tadmor of 2 Chronicles 9:4. But, on the whole, these considerations are not sufficient to counterbalance the invariable reference of this passage, by all the ancient versions and by the narrative of Josephus, to the celebrated Tadmor, the name of which is a local variety of the Hebrew name Tamar (or “the palm-tree,”) preserved in the later name of Palmyra. If this be meant, it is indeed difficult to suppose that there is not some omission after the words “in the land.”Tadmor, or Palmyra, is described by Josephus as “in the desert above Syria, a day’s journey from the Euphrates, and six long days’ journey from Babylon the Great.” Its foundation is described in 2 Chronicles 9:4, as connected with a subjugation of Hamathzobah, and it may have had a military purpose. But situated on a well-watered oasis, in the midst of the desert, south-west of Tiphsah or Thapsacus on the Euphrates, also occupied by Solomon (see 1 Kings 4:24), and about 120 miles from Damascus, it would be eminently fitted for trade both with Damascus and with Babylon and the north. Its importance is indicated by its long existence as a great city, and by its splendour (still traceable in its ruins), in Greek and Roman times, down to, at least, the age of Diocletian.

Verse 18. And Tadmor in the wilderness] This is almost universally allowed to be the same with the celebrated Palmyra, the ruins of which remain to the present day, and give us the highest idea of Solomon's splendour and magnificence. Palmyra stood upon a fertile plain surrounded by a barren desert, having the river Euphrates on the east. The ruins are well described by Messrs. Dawkes and Wood, of which they give fine representations. They are also well described in the ancient part of the Universal History, vol. i., p. 367-70. The description concludes thus: "The world never saw a more glorious city; the pride, it is likely, of ancient times, and the reproach of our own; a city not more remarkable for the state of her buildings and unwontedness of her situation than for the extraordinary personages who once flourished there, among whom the renowned Zenobia and the incomparable Longinus must for ever be remembered with admiration and regret."

18. and Baalath] This place is mentioned (Joshua 19:44) among the places which fell to the tribe of Dan, and must therefore have been on the border of the country of the Philistines, and for that reason we may presume that it was included among the places which Solomon strengthened. and Tadmor in the wilderness, in the land] Here the Hebrew text reads Tamar, and Tadmor is only given on the margin (Keri). The R.V. adopts the reading of the text, probably because of the words ‘in the land.’ All the places mentioned here lie in Palestine, and we know from Ezekiel (Ezekiel 47:19, Ezekiel 48:28) that there was a city Tamar on the south border of the Holy Land, which was towards the wilderness. It seems therefore most likely, as this place is spoken of as ‘in the land,’ that Tamar should be here preferred, and the position assigned to it in Ezekiel is that of a place which it would be most important to fortify. The marginal reading Tadmor is no doubt due to the mention of Tadmor among the cities which Solomon built in 2 Chronicles 8:4. But there Tadmor is mentioned in connexion with Hamath-Zobah and the conquest of the northern part of the land. This reading may be correct in Chronicles, for with Solomon’s ambition to extend his dominion and foster commerce, Tadmor in the wilderness (afterwards so famous as Palmyra) would be a place much to be coveted as a step on the road to Babylon. Tadmor grew famous, and Tamar was well-nigh forgotten, hence we can see how the former name (not mentioned anywhere but in Chronicles) should be substituted on the margin in the verse before us. It may well be that Solomon occupied both places, but there is no warrant for importing the name Tadmor into Kings, especially as the place here mentioned is spoken of as being ‘in the land.’ Josephus is very minute in his account of this city, which he (as was to be expected) says was Tadmor (Ant. viii. 6, i), ‘Having invaded the desert that lies above Syria, and acquired it, he founded there a very great city, two days’ journey from upper Syria, and one from the Euphrates, and its distance from the great city of Babylon was six days. And the reason why he built this city so distant from the inhabited parts of Syria was that nowhere in the land lower down was there water, but that there alone were found fountains and wells. So having built the city and surrounded it with very strong walls, he named it Thadamora, and it is still so called by the Syrians, but the Greeks name it Palmyra.’

Tadmor - The Hebrew text here has, as written, Tamor (or Tamar), and as read, Tadmor.

18. Baalath — Probably identical with the town of this name in the tribe of Dan. Joshua 19:44. Some have supposed it to be the same as Baalbek in Coele-Syria, whose splendid ruins are still the wonder of the modern traveller.