Atlantis and the Biblical City of Tyre (2 parts)

After looking over the responses in the other Atlantis thread, I decided that the presented ideas had been discussed pretty thoroughly. No consensus, of course, but I expected that. In any case, I decided to take a different tact this time around.

Apologies in advance, but in this post I'll need to do some rather advanced literary analysis of the book of Ezekiel in order to demonstrate my point -- that is, that the description of Tyre in Ezekiel doesn't match what we know historically about the city, and is much closer to what we know of Atlantis.

Ezekiel is a very odd book in any cursory examination of the bible. It's filled with bizarre imagery that doesn't really appear elsewhere in the bible, for one. The structure of the book is confusing, and certain parts of the book just don't fit with what we know historically. What's going on, here?

Firstly, the book was written from the perspective of a priest (Eze. 1:3) and thus, a lot of the sins described in the book concern, not necessarily moral and ethical violations (although the book mentions those too), but ritual violations. In addition, in the eschatological (future-pointing) portion of the book, we see a very large focus on the priesthood and their duties (Eze. 40-48). This specific focus on the priesthood will become important later on, in my analysis.

Next, to start zeroing in on the specific texts which mention Type that I'd like to discuss, we need to first understand a structural feature of not only the book of Ezekiel, but also Isaiah and Jeremiah. In the view of the authors of these books, God punishes the people of Israel for their sins, sometimes by bringing upon them foreign nations (e.g. the Assyrians or Babylonians) for purposes of correction (compare Is. 10:5-7). So if God is punishing the people of Israel for their sins using the Assyrians or Babylonians, what about the foreign nations who get in the way of the Assyrians or Babylonians? Is God punishing them, too?

The answer is yes, at least according to the view of these authors, and the parts of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel that deal with God's judgement of these other nations are called "foreign execration texts."

For instance, we find a collection of foreign execration texts in Isaiah 13-21. In Ezekiel, the foreign execration texts are in Ezekiel 25-32. We can skip the execration against the Ammonites (Eze. 25) for now, and proceed onto the rest.

One more thing, before we start looking more closely at these chapters. In ancient Israel, genealogies were extremely important, because they identified who was legally entitled to inherit what piece of land. So, copies of genealogies were maintained both by the heads of local clans, but also in the Temple in Jerusalem by the priesthood. In addition, historical records were maintained by the priesthood, and these historical records were often used as inspiration for poetry or music (just look at the biblical psalms, for instance). Genealogies and historical records were often linked.

That's very important to understand, because there's a parallel with how such things were handled in ancient Egypt. The Egyptians had extremely reliable historical records (just look at Manetho, especially Gary Greenberg's article on "Manetho Rehabilitated") but generally such records were kept by the priesthood. These historical records formed the basis for the creation literature found, among other places, on the walls of the temple of Edfu.

This creation literature was a form of liturgy. It contained the veiled secrets of the actual history, in liturgical form. The priesthood was responsible for passing on the public liturgy, as well as the private records.

Now, let's go back and look at Ezekiel 26, which begins talking about the city of "Tyrus." In verse 2, God is saying to Ezekiel, "Son of man, because Tyre has said of Jerusalem, 'Aha! The gate to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper...'"

What does this mean? Basically, Jerusalem and Judea formed part of a major, overland trade route between Egypt and Mesopotamia. But there was a competing trade route by sea which went through either Tyre or Byblos, and thus there was an economic rivalry between Judea and Phoenician Tyre. When Jerusalem fell after the Babylonians destroyed it in 586 BCE, the "gate to the nations" (i.e. Jerusalem) was "broken" leaving Phoenician Tyre as the sole competitor for mercantile trade.

Tyre's supposed sin was letting economic issues overshadow the previous friendly ties between Tyre and Jerusalem that had existed in the time of Solomon. Therefore, God was judging them, according to the author of the book.

Interestingly enough, Tyre's judgement was to become a desolate place "for the spreading of nets." Historically, that never happened. Was the author of the book of Ezekiel simply not a good prognosticator? Was merely he hoping and wishing for total destruction, something that didn't even come close to happening until Alexander the Great invaded Tyre in 332 BCE? Or is something else at work, here?

Let's step back for a moment. The Phoenician city of Tyre was a major player in maritime trade. Their influence extended all through the Mediterranean, even beyond the Pillars of Hercules to Spain and as far as the British Isles. As I've mentioned before in my previous post on Atlantis, the Phoenicians were one of the inheritors of Atlantean culture. Colonies from Atlantis had existed from Morocco, to Spain, to Italy, to Egypt, and the Phoenicians (Pelasgians) were descendants of some of these original colonies.

I submit that, rather than directly talking about Tyre itself, Ezekiel is making an oblique reference to Atlantis. We'll see even more evidence of that later in the text.

But wait! you might say. Aren't the next verses talking about Babylon itself invading and laying waste to Tyre? (Eze. 26:7-14) Doesn't that make it obvious that the city being discussed here can't be Atlantis?

It's not quite that simple. Babylon did attack Tyre, but Tyre was never conquered by Babylon. So either the author prognosticated incorrectly, engaged in wishful thinking, or he's overlaying and interweaving two different subjects in two completely different time periods.

So, why is it more likely that the author intended to look backwards in time to Atlantis, rather than forwards in time to, say, Alexander the Great conquering Tyre?

If we look further in the text, at Ezekiel 28:12-14, we'll see a description of the so-called "king of Tyrus" who "has been in Eden, the garden of God."

Now, what does Tyre have to do with Eden? Was this just a metaphorical reference to Hyram of Tyre having visited Jerusalem in the days of King Solomon? (That's the traditional Jewish interpretation of this verse.) Or is something else going on?

(to be continued)

Note that this is very unlike the description of Eden that we find in Genesis 1-3. In this Eden, there are "stones of fire" (verses 14 and 16) or volcanic stones. It had a large variety of precious stones as well (verse 13). This Eden was explicitly described as having "merchandise" (verse 16) or, to put it another way, trade goods. Hence, it had trade, or commerce as in verse 18. It also had more than one religious sanctuary, or place of worship (verse 16). Finally, it had a ruler who was described as a "covering cherub" -- perhaps a metaphorical way of describing an individual who rules in God's stead, by divine right of kings, as it were. (In the bible, cherubs are described as "covering" the very throne of God.)

Unless there were quite a few details left out of the Genesis account, then this isn't the same place. So why is it being described as Eden?

Setting that question aside for the moment, let's consider the similarities between Tyre and Atlantis:

* Both were situated, not just on a coastline, but on an actual island
* Both were major purveyors of maritime trade
* Both were supposed to have been in God's graces (ethically speaking) at one point

With those similarities, it's no wonder that Tyre could have been used, in literary fashion, as a type of Atlantis. But now let's consider the literary link in the "days" of Genesis 1 to Atlantis. If the (re)creation of Genesis 1 is recording the aftermath of Atlantis' destruction, then it stands to reason that whoever the author(s) of Genesis 1-3 were, they were descended from the survivors of Atlantis. And then the reference to "Eden" in the description of Tyre becomes more understandable.

Atlantis had an Eden of its own. In fact, the "Eden" in Genesis 1-3 would have been a "New Eden" as it were, named after the original.

Thoughts? Take a look at the rest of Ezekiel 26-32 and let me know what you think. I haven't gotten into the comparison between Egypt and Eden yet (Ezekiel 29-32), but I thought I'd stop after 2 parts to this post.

Damon

I just want to thank you for your insight and study. This is all very interesting. I look forward to your continued discussion on this topic.

Atlantis is a fictional city and is not referenced in a fictional book which was written earlier
The sooner you accept the actual facts and stop pulling them out of your ass the better

Good investigation, I reckon you are on to somethings. After reading your last article I began to think about it and work a little bit with words or the names. Atlan-tiz, Tar-zis and now your added element Tyre. As you will more than like know there is this god know as Tyz or tyr with many varients of the name.This in a modern context is who we call tyr as in tuesday (mars) this is confusing in the sense that back in the day it may of been a roll up of both gods or simply the god of war mars,a kind of warrior along with a few other attributes. In many ancient languages the written language varied somewhat from the spoken language. Many people were unable to speak and write it, so that makes plenty of options for variations and confusions. Now this is a wild guess, but I would say that if those three names above mentioned contain the god tyr, Tyz etc.. it would be fair to at least see that there is a connection between the names and the people that live in these places. A bit like in Australia you have cities that take their names from the uk where many people of the new Australians came from. for example Newcastle, Perth or a region like new south whales.
Now the question remains where are these lands, I reckon spain fits perfectly for Tarsis, Atlantiz is below the ocean and Tyre havent got a clue, yet!
about tyza reply to: damonjc

Interesting wordplay.

I forgot to mention that I got the idea for Tyre representing Atlantis from a book called "Beyond the Pillars of Hercules". It in turn cites the writings of H.P. Blavatsky who said that Tyre in the bible was really Atlantis. The author of this book suggested that Tyre (or Tyrus) was actually a colony of the easternmost portion of Atlantis. I could only follow part of the author's logic, but one of the assumptions he made that I disagreed with was that Eden in Genesis 1-3 and Eden in Ezekiel, in the context of the description of Tyre, were the same place.

Anyway, I highly recommend getting this book if this concept of Tyre being Atlantis interests you.

Damon

Interesting but stories in bible might be based on fable so doesn't really tell us if its fact or fiction. Recent finding of orichalcum from a 2600 year old ship wreck here gives hope that the remains of Atlantic might yet be discovered one day.

originally posted by: glend
Interesting but stories in bible might be based on fable so doesn't really tell us if its fact or fiction. Recent finding of orichalcum from a 2600 year old ship wreck here gives hope that the remains of Atlantic might yet be discovered one day.

Atlantic would have had to have been a continent of it's own. It was described as being beyond the gates of the Mediterranean (the narrowest point at Spain/Gibraltar leading to the Atlantic). Then it was comprised of three rings of land and had a diameter of between 100 and 300 miles.

There are plenty of submerged cities, towns and villages along the coastline of Europe. We can cross-reference them from ancient maps and export artifacts. Every city either did trade with fish, fruit, grain or jewellery. It would only take a single tsunamis or earthquake to destroy a coastal region.

Can they perform isotope analysis on this metal?

Atlantis literally means "Daughter of Atlas", that's Atlas the Greek God
Plato explains in the only two dialogues about Atlantis that exist, that he doesn't know any of the names involved so makes them up as literal Greek meanings.

So it wasn't called Atlantis, so you can stop all the silly games pretending that Tyre is somehow related by name. because it has a T in it,

originally posted by: glend
Interesting but stories in bible might be based on fable so doesn't really tell us if its fact or fiction. Recent finding of orichalcum from a 2600 year old ship wreck here gives hope that the remains of Atlantic might yet be discovered one day.

Not really
Analyzed with X-ray fluorescence by Dario Panetta, of TQ - Tecnologies for Quality, the 39 ingots turned out to be an alloy consisting of 75-80 percent copper, 15-20 percent zinc, and smaller percentages of nickel, lead and iron

But don't let the daily mail put you off, if they say its from Atlantis then it must be lol

Thy shall not play silly games, or talk about anything in a manner that doesnt suit my view! Come on Marduk if you dont find it interesting why dont you find a space where everything is set out in the manner you prefer. I for one, was happy to see your first comment and that way we have some opposed views happening. But now it seems your only offering is to get upset about some people chatting freely. Its not about being right, its about giving the subject a nibble from all directions. Hey if youve made your mind up Atlantis never really existed thats cool, but surely you know there are millions of others who have not. You will find that those who have a tendency to believe in the truth of a possible Atlantis, will continue oblivious to someone who just says its fairytales. a reply to: Marduk

Forgot to give the links for Gary Greenberg's articles on Manetho. You can read more about them here, here, here, here, and here.

Damon

originally posted by: ancientthunder
Thy shall not play silly games, or talk about anything in a manner that doesnt suit my view! Come on Marduk if you dont find it interesting why dont you find a space where everything is set out in the manner you prefer.

So I should find a website who's motto is "deny ignorance"
Like this one for instance

originally posted by: ancientthunder

I for one, was happy to see your first comment and that way we have some opposed views happening. But now it seems your only offering is to get upset about some people chatting freely. Its not about being right, its about giving the subject a nibble from all directions. Hey if youve made your mind up Atlantis never really existed thats cool, but surely you know there are millions of others who have not. You will find that those who have a tendency to believe in the truth of a possible Atlantis, will continue oblivious to someone who just says its fairytales. a reply to: Marduk

I have no idea where you are getting I am upset from, if you are incapable of reading my posts which show how ignorant this thread is and the comments posted in it without the ability to weigh the facts contained therein, then I suggest you find somewhere interesting which has a space where everything is set out in the manner you prefer.

People who have a tendency to want to believe the truth in Atlantis are idiots, people who think they can link it to the bible, doubly so.

Atlantis if it is based on anything at all is just another rendering of the Biblical flood story, the origins of which are absolutely known, no ignorance required, but hey, lets see if we can find the truth by linking a name with a "T" in it with other names with "T" in them, that's not ignorant at all...

originally posted by: damonjc
Forgot to give the links for Gary Greenberg's articles on Manetho. You can read more about them here, here, here, here, and here.

Damon

Yay, more pointless pseudo history from yet another unqualified pseudo historian, that'll help..

Now I know you're just trolling. Anyone who reads those articles would know that those have absolutely nothing to do with pseudohistory, but rather with sorting out inconsistencies with the various third-hand sources we have for Manetho and trying to figure out the sums and totals that Manetho originally wrote in the first place for reign lengths.

I used to be a total argument-magnet douche in my college years. Fortunately I grew out of that.

Thanks for that reply that was exactly what I was expecting from you, good work. Dont forget to cross your t's. a reply to: Marduk

An interesting article and one that I generally agreed with...until you hit this part:

originally posted by: damonjc
That's very important to understand, because there's a parallel with how such things were handled in ancient Egypt.

Actually, there isn't.

The Egyptians had extremely reliable historical records (just look at Manetho,

Not really. They had records of the pharaohs but not a lot of detailed history - much of it has been destroyed by the ancient Egyptians themselves as they reused temple blocks and inscriptions for other monuments (which were then torn down and reused again.) Nor were the stories the basis of their creation literature (there are three separate cosmogenies that we know of and it would not be utterly surprising if another minor one turned up.)


Now, let's go back and look at Ezekiel 26, which begins talking about the city of "Tyrus." In verse 2, God is saying to Ezekiel, "Son of man, because Tyre has said of Jerusalem, 'Aha! The gate to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper...'"

What does this mean? Basically, Jerusalem and Judea formed part of a major, overland trade route between Egypt and Mesopotamia. But there was a competing trade route by sea which went through either Tyre or Byblos, and thus there was an economic rivalry between Judea and Phoenician Tyre. When Jerusalem fell after the Babylonians destroyed it in 586 BCE, the "gate to the nations" (i.e. Jerusalem) was "broken" leaving Phoenician Tyre as the sole competitor for mercantile trade.
I found this interesting, but am not convinced here (do you have some sources I can look at?) Maps of the area show that the three overland routes of the Levant did not include Jerusalem but did include Jericho. (source: Biblical Archaeology website)

(for anyone interested, map of the Levant showing major cities of antiquity)

Interestingly enough, Tyre's judgement was to become a desolate place "for the spreading of nets." Historically, that never happened. Was the author of the book of Ezekiel simply not a good prognosticator? Was merely he hoping and wishing for total destruction, something that didn't even come close to happening until Alexander the Great invaded Tyre in 332 BCE? Or is something else at work, here?

The modern view, as you said, is that it's an execration text, and lots of those fall under the "failed prophecy" umbrella.

But wait! you might say. Aren't the next verses talking about Babylon itself invading and laying waste to Tyre? (Eze. 26:7-14) Doesn't that make it obvious that the city being discussed here can't be Atlantis?

It's not quite that simple. Babylon did attack Tyre, but Tyre was never conquered by Babylon. So either the author prognosticated incorrectly, engaged in wishful thinking, or he's overlaying and interweaving two different subjects in two completely different time periods.

Given all the other dire prognostications that did not come to pass, I'm going with option 1.

If we look further in the text, at Ezekiel 28:12-14, we'll see a description of the so-called "king of Tyrus" who "has been in Eden, the garden of God."

Now, what does Tyre have to do with Eden? Was this just a metaphorical reference to Hyram of Tyre having visited Jerusalem in the days of King Solomon? (That's the traditional Jewish interpretation of this verse.) Or is something else going on?

Some of the Biblical scholars believe that it means he equated the Prince of Tyre with Satan. (see Coffman)

As with other nations mentioned in the Bible, there's no actual correspondence between the Biblical version of the names of the leaders and the actual kings who sat on the throne. (I looked this up because I knew that Hiram was a more modern name, and if this was recording something from 800 BC or earlier, then "Hiram" is a mark that something hinky is going on. en.wikipedia.org...)

originally posted by: damonjc
Now I know you're just trolling. Anyone who reads those articles would know that those have absolutely nothing to do with pseudohistory,

"Pseudohistory is akin to pseudoscience in that both forms of falsification are achieved using the methodology that purports to, but does not, adhere to the established standards of research for the given field of intellectual enquiry to which the pseudoscience claims to be a part, and which offers little or no supporting evidence for its plausibility"

Greenbergs work has no supporting evidence, it evidences itself, and as the man is a biblical scholar, the fact that he's trying to support the bible by rewriting Manetho is ludicrous, in his opinion, the bible can't be wrong, therefore, orthodox history is. IIRC he claims that the Israelites were in fact Akhenaten's army. Which any one reading of the Biblical text should tell him is baloney, especially as Exodus starts by naming the Israelites involved, none of whom have Egyptian names. Oh, did you think I'm not familiar with Greenberg, guess again

Ref the Exodus, it didn't happen, has no evidence, more than half the stations of the Exodus (places they stopped) didn't exist at the time and it doesn't take 40 years to travel 1000 miles, that's 25 miles a year, what do you think they were doing, walking in circles...
The same time, the Egyptians weren't experiencing any plagues, no first born children were killed by an angel of death, especially considering that Angels didn't exist in Judaism until the Babylonian diaspora, 1000 years later. They say so themselves. So clearly, the Exodus story, is just an attempt to claim that God said "Israel is yours", a land grab, backed up by religion. Written hundreds of years later and mostly fabricated, they couldn't even name Pharaoh, or any pharaoh, despite claiming to be slaves for centuries. Exodus used to claim that the Israelites built Heliopolis while they were there, but that part got edited out of the Septuagint, because the city is predynastic and existed 1500 years before the Israelites did
But feel free to tell me that someone trying to explain it by moving all the long established dates around isn't biased by his religion...

This in itself is about a good a definition of pseudohistory I've ever seen, the fact that you don't know that speaks volumes. but then what should we expect from someone who listed Graham Hancock as a research source

Obviously then your personal attack on me here, is nothing else than you once again realising that you are incapable of answering any questions yourself, so you are trying to avoid them instead. That's not going to work on this website newbie


Basically, you are starting thread after thread based on a false premise, namely that the Bible is a history book, it isn't and the sooner you realise that, the sooner you'll stop posting in the history forum and start posting in the religious one where you'll probably get a lot more support
Fundamentalists being what they are...

originally posted by: damonjc
I used to be a total argument-magnet douche in my college years. Fortunately I grew out of that.

Seeing as an argument is defined as a discussion with opposing viewpoints, you're pretty much saying there that you're only interested in the sound of your own nonsense
Good luck with that, maybe you should start your own forum and then not let anyone join...

originally posted by: ancientthunder
Thanks for that reply that was exactly what I was expecting from you, good work. Dont forget to cross your t's. a reply to: Marduk

Your entire contribution to this thread so far has been to claim that Tyre sounds similar to Atlantis because it has a "T" in it, which reveals that you don't know the first thing about Platos lost city, it wasn't actually called Atlantis in real life, Plato just gave it that name because no one could translate its real one.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out

originally posted by: Marduk

originally posted by: ancientthunder
Thanks for that reply that was exactly what I was expecting from you, good work. Dont forget to cross your t's. a reply to: Marduk

Your entire contribution to this thread so far has been to claim that Tyre sounds similar to Atlantis because it has a "T" in it, which reveals that you don't know the first thing about Platos lost city, it wasn't actually called Atlantis in real life, Plato just gave it that name because no one could translate its real one.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out

Ok marduk, lets get it straight there is nowhere in this thread that states, "Thy must know everything about Plato’s lost city", that is an assumption that you make. to assume can be easily seen to be ignorant!! Now the fact that you assume that you know more about Plato makes you superior is another form of ignorance. That is implied by your tone and superior attitude. Of course you can deny that, but most can read between the lines and see. I give you an example so you may see the difference. I was hanging with a group of archaeologist a year ago and one archaeologist said that the Romans were very much in to shaving their hair off, much like many people do today. I answered smiling " I find that hard to believe" She looked at me and said " Just look it up on the net and you will be surprised what you will find" So I said," OK I will do! and that I did. Surprise, I found out she was apparently spot on. This is how it works when you have a little style and that is a style that precisely at the moment you are not worthy of. At least for now, Ill leave some room for master marduk to update. As for the door, I step through and say thanks my friend.