J’exercerai des jugements contre tous les dieux de l’Égypte. Je suis l’Éternel. Exode 12: 12
Comment la Genèse démysthifie et historicise les mythes de création égyptiens …
Genèse 1 et 2 à la lumière des mythes de création égyptiens
Les gens qui vivaient dans l’ancien Proche-Orient partageaient tous des idées semblables concernant la façon dont le monde avait vu le jour. Bien que les anciens avaient de nombreuses vues en commun, des différences existaient aussi entre eux. À Babylone, la création était issue d’une bataille sanglante entre les dieux. Marduk tue Tiamat et la partage en deux pour former le ciel. Toutefois, dans la création égyptienne, aucune lutte violente n’existe parmi les dieux. La création hébraïque introduit une autre différence. Il n’existe qu’un seul Dieu qui est distinct de sa création.
Relation historique entre les Hébreux et les Egyptiens
Étant donné que les concepts hébreux de la création avaient plus en commun avec ceux des Egyptiens que des Babyloniens, cela donne à penser que l’auteur ou rédacteur en chef des récits de création de la Genèse avaient une plus grande connaissance de la cosmologie de l’Egypte que de Babylone ou un minimum qu’ils avaient une vision du monde plus proche de celle des Egyptien que de celle des Babyloniens. Si le Pentateuque a été écrit par Moïse qui a fait ses études dans les tribunaux de l’Égypte, l’utilisation des idées égyptiennes dans le récit de la création Genèse ne devrait pas être surprenante.
Hatchepsout et Moïse
Omar Zuhdi, suggère Hatshepsut comme la fille de Pharaon qui a sauvé Moïse de l’eau. Des problèmes existent avec sa théorie, il l’admet, mais elle reste une possibilité valable.
Tel que mentionné précédemment, le temple d’Hatchepsout à Deir el-Bahari dans Thèbes contient un mur-relief illustrant Khnoum structuration d’elle et son ka partir de la glaise sur la plaque tournante de son potter. Épouse de Khnoum, Heket, se met à genoux par la tour de potier et offre à l’effigie d’argile le souffle de vie, symbolisée par l’ankh. L’affirmation par ce mur-relief, nommément que Khnoum personnellement fait Hatshepsut, valide son droit de gouverner.
Si Hatchepsout a adopté Moïse comme son fils, il aurait su sur le culte de Khnoum puisque son droit à la règle la belle-mère dépendait de la création de Khnoum d’elle. Familiarité de Moïse avec Khnoum peut expliquer l’imagerie égyptienne dans le deuxième récit de la création Genèse (Gen. 2:4-25). Ici, Yahvé-Dieu fait l’homme hors de la terre et respire le souffle de vie dans ses narines, provoquant l’homme devenir un être vivant.
Démystification : L’historicisation du mythe
Comme l’a montré McCurley, Yahvé fait souvent dans l’histoire les actions réclamées par d’autres dieux dans les mythologies des voisins d’Israël. Ce processus, appelé « démystification », se produit dans les comptes de création Genèse. Le premier récit de la création dans la Genèse démythifie la cosmogonie d’Hermopolis. Les quatre conditions présentent au début de la création en parallèle de la Genèse celles représentées par l’Ogdoade d’Hermopolis. Cependant, plutôt que les éléments de la création ayant une volition qui leur est propre, le texte les dépeint comme des objets inanimés qui se déplacent selon le sens de la parole d’Yahvé.
Récits de création de la Genèse écrits comme histoire
La structure narrative de la wayyiqtol des comptes création Genèse montre que l’auteur / redactor(s) destiné à leur public à comprendre les comptes comme prenant place dans l’histoire. Si on choisit d’accepter l’historicité des comptes création ne fait aucune différence avec ce problème. L’auditoire original comprend les comptes de création Genèse comme décrivant un événement historique basé sur la structure narrative de le wayyiqtol.
Éléments polémiques dans les récits de création de la Genèse
Certaines parties des textes création Genèse s’écarter non seulement des concepts égyptiens, mais ils constituent aussi une polémique contre les dieux égyptiens. La portée du présent document ne permet pas une liste exhaustive des éléments polémiques dans les comptes de création Genèse. Cependant, quelques-uns seront mentionnés.
Création de Dieu de la lumière le premier jour avant la création des luminaires quatrième jour forme une polémique contre le Dieu soleil, Atoum-Re. Cela montre que la source de lumière ne provient pas avec le soleil ou la lune (Re, le Dieu-soleil ou Thot, le Dieu de la lune), mais avec le Dieu hébreu qui se distingue de la lumière et la création.
Un autre élément polémique se trouve dans le fait que l’auteur ne nomme pas le soleil et la lune. Il fait simplement référence à eux comme la plus grande lumière et la lumière moindre. Il voulait simplement démythification des luminaires, il aurait pu utiliser l’hébreu vm #v# ‘soleil’ et j^r@y’ ‘Lune’. De ne pas nommer le soleil et la lune, il les distances davantage de déités qui leur est attribuées en Egypte.
Les éléments polémiques dans les comptes de création Genèse impliquent que l’auteur a vu une nécessité pour son auditoire de comprendre qu’Yahvé et pas les dieux égyptiens, est le seul vrai Dieu et créateur du monde. Par exemple, un élément important du récit de l’exode concerne la bataille entre Yahvé et les dieux égyptiens (Pharaon lui-même étant le Dieu-soleil incarné). Dans le contexte de la mort du premier-né en Égypte Yahvé déclare dans Exode 12:12, « contre tous les dieux de l’Egypte j’exercerai des jugements. »
Lors de la naissance d’Israël en tant que nation, les Hébreux ont vu les dieux égyptiens, pas le babylonien, comme s’opposant à Yahvé. Par conséquent, une polémique de création qui établit Yahweh comme créateur à la place de dieux égyptiens semble plus plausible que celle qui oppose les dieux Babyloniens.
La présence de deux récits de la création dans la Genèse peut résulter de la nécessité des Hébreux pour réfuter les deux traditions égyptiennes de création, à savoir, la tradition de la façon dont le cosmos est née et la tradition comment les humains et les animaux est en cours. Un récit de la création ne suffirait pas pour argumenter contre le point de vue en Égypte depuis les Egyptiens vu la création de l’univers et la création de l’homme de deux manières distinctes, à savoir, la création par la parole divine et création en formant. Pour suffisamment argumenter contre les deux, deux comptes de création ont été nécessaires.
Genèse 1:1-2:3 dépeint élohim comme créant le cosmos par sa parole. Bien que la création de l’homme et la femme devient le couronnement de Dieu dans sa semaine de la création, les détails de comment il a fait les reçoit peu mention autre que leur création comme l’image de Dieu. Pour un compte rendu plus détaillé de l’homme et de la création de la femme, le lecteur doit consulter le deuxième récit de la création Genèse.
Genèse 2:4-25 montre Yahvé-Dieu créant l’homme et les animaux de la terre. Yahvé-Dieu fait homme sur la terre et lui insuffle le « souffle de vie ».
À travers les comptes de la création de deux, Yahvé-Elohim est indiqué comme étant supérieures aux dieux de l’Égypte. Il crée par la parole divine, mais demeure transcendant. Contrairement à Ptah, il n’a pas d’incarner la création pour la commande, ni il ne nécessite pas de l’assistance d’un autre Dieu ou démiurge. Tout simplement, qu’il parle ou agit, et la création est terminée. Il a aussi crée par l’homme hors de la terre. Contrairement à Khnoum, il ne nécessite pas l’aide d’une épouse. Il crée l’homme et lui insuffle la vie. Ainsi, à travers les comptes de la création de deux, Yahvé-Dieu démontre sa capacité à accomplir tous les actes créatifs des dieux égyptiens.
La preuve a démontré l’utilisation de l’imagerie création égyptienne dans les comptes de création Genèse. Cependant, plutôt que de discréditer les comptes de création Genèse comme un emprunt direct de croyances égyptiennes, la preuve démontre que l’auteur / redactor(s) possédait une connaissances des croyances égyptiennes et prononça contre ces concepts qui allaient à l’encontre de vérité.
Conclusion
En conclusion, l’auteur / redactor(s) des comptes création Genèse partage certains concepts de la composition du monde avec les autres cultures du Proche-Orient antiques. Cependant, c’est surtout avec la vision du monde de l’Egypte que l’auteur / redactor(s) sont familiers. Preuve de cela réside dans les nombreuses allusions aux motifs de création égyptien tout au long de la comptabilité de création Genèse. Mais, plutôt que d’être une affaire d’emprunt direct, ils démythification des concepts égyptiens et forment une polémique contre les dieux égyptiens. Ainsi, ils élèvent Yahvé-Dieu comme le seul vrai Dieu, qui est transcendant et qui est toute puissante. Il parle de son désir, et il s’agit de passer. Il ne nécessite pas l’assistance d’autres dieux pour accomplir les actes de création. Lui seul possède la puissance et les moyens nécessaires pour procéder à la création du monde. Ce livre a compilé une liste des plus importants parallèles entre la cosmologie égyptienne et les comptes de création Genèse et a montré cette cosmologie égyptienne et les comptes de création Genèse partagent plus d’affinité entre eux que les comptes de création Genèse partagent avec la cosmologie babylonienne.
Voir aussi:
Genesis 1-2 In Light Of Ancient Egyptian Creation Myths
Study By: Tony L. Shetter
(…)
Genesis Creation Accounts in Their Historical Context
The people who lived in the ancient Near East all shared similar ideas concerning how the world came into existence. Although the ancients shared many views in common with one another, differences existed among them as well. In Babylon, creation results from a bloody battle of the gods. Marduk slays Tiamat, and splits her in two forming the heaven. However, in Egyptian creation, no violent struggle exists among the gods. Hebrew creation introduces another difference. Only one God exists who is distinct from his creation.
Historical Relationship between Hebrews and Egyptians
Since the Hebrew and Egyptian concepts of creation share more in common with one another than the Hebrew and Babylonian, this suggests that the author or redactor of the Genesis creation accounts possessed greater knowledge of Egyptian than Babylonian cosmology, or a the very least held a worldview that was closer to the Egyptian than the Babylonian worldview. If the Pentateuch was written by Moses who was educated in the courts of Egypt, the use of Egyptian ideas in the Genesis creation account should not be surprising.
Hatshepsut and Moses
Omar Zuhdi, suggests Hatshepsut as the daughter of Pharaoh who drew Moses from the water. While problems exist with his theory, as he admits, it remains as a valid possibility.
As mentioned previously, Hatshepsut’s temple at Deir el-Bahari in Thebes contains a wall-relief which depicts Khnum fashioning her and her ka out of clay on his potter’s turntable. Khnum’s consort, Heket, kneels by the potter’s wheel and offers the clay effigy the breath of life, symbolized by the ankh. The assertion put forth by this wall-relief, namely, that Khnum personally made Hatshepsut, validates her right to rule.
If Hatshepsut adopted Moses as her son, he would have known about the cult of Khnum since his stepmother’s right to rule depended upon Khnum’s creation of her. Moses’ familiarity with Khnum may explain the Egyptian imagery found in the second Genesis creation account (Gen 2:4-25). Here, Yahweh-Elohim forms man out of the ground and breathes the breath of life into his nostrils causing the man to become a living being.
Demythologizing: The Historicization of Myth
As McCurley has shown, Yahweh often does in history the actions claimed by other gods in the mythologies of Israel’s neighbors. This process, known as ‘demythologizing,’ occurs in the Genesis creation accounts. The first creation story in Genesis demythologizes the cosmogony of Hermopolis. The four conditions present at the beginning of creation in Genesis parallel those represented by the Ogdoad of Hermopolis. However, rather than the elements of the creation having a volition of their own, the text portrays them as inanimate objects which move according to the direction of Yahweh’s word.
Genesis Creation Accounts Written as History
The wayyiqtol narrative structure of the Genesis creation accounts shows that the author/redactor(s) intended their audience to understand the accounts as taking place in history. Whether or not one chooses to accept the historicity of the creation accounts makes no difference with this issue. The original audience understood the Genesis creation accounts as describing a historical event based on the wayyiqtol narrative structure.
Polemical Elements in the Genesis Creation Accounts
Certain parts of the Genesis creation texts not only diverge from Egyptian concepts but they also form a polemic against the Egyptian gods. The scope of this paper does not permit an exhaustive listing of the polemical elements in the Genesis creation accounts. However, a few will be mentioned.
God’s creation of light on day one before the creation of the luminaries on day four forms a polemic against Atum-Re, the sun god. This shows that the source of light does not originate with the sun or the moon (i.e. Re, the sun-god or Thoth, the moon-god), but with the Hebrew God who is distinct from the light and the creation.
Another polemical element is found in the fact that the author does not name the sun and the moon. He simply refers to them as the ‘greater light’ and the ‘lesser light.’ If he intended to merely demythologize the luminaries, he could have used the Hebrew vm#v# ‘sun’ and j^r@y` ‘moon.’ By not naming the sun and the moon, he further distances them from the deities attributed to them in Egypt.
The polemical elements in the Genesis creation accounts imply that the author saw a need for his audience to understand that Yahweh, and not the Egyptian gods, is the one true God and Creator of the world. For example, a major component of the Exodus narrative concerns the battle between Yahweh, and the Egyptian gods (Pharaoh himself being the sun-god incarnate). In the context of the slaying of the first-born in Egypt Yahweh declares in Exodus 12:12, “against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments.” During the birth of Israel as a nation, the Hebrews saw the Egyptian gods, not the Babylonian, as opposing Yahweh. Therefore, a creation polemic that establishes Yahweh as creator in place of the Egyptian gods seems more plausible than one that opposes the Babylonian gods.
The presence of two creation stories in Genesis may result from the need of the Hebrews to refute the two Egyptian creation traditions, namely, the tradition of how the cosmos came into being, and the tradition of how humans and animals came into being. One creation story would not suffice to argue against the views in Egypt since the Egyptians saw the creation of the universe and the creation of humans in two distinct ways, namely, creation by divine word, and creation by forming. In order to sufficiently argue against both, two creation accounts were needed.
Genesis 1:1-2:3 portrays Elohim as creating the cosmos by his spoken word. Although the creation of man and woman becomes God’s crowning achievement in his creation week, the specifics of how he made them receives little mention other than their creation as the image of God. For a more detailed account of man and woman’s creation, the reader must consult the second Genesis creation account.
Genesis 2:4-25 shows Yahweh-Elohim creating man and animals from the earth. Yahweh-Elohim forms man out of the earth and breathes into him the “breath of life.”
Through the two creation accounts, Yahweh-Elohim is shown to be superior to the gods of Egypt. He creates by divine word, yet remains transcendent. Unlike Ptah, he does not have to embody the creation to command it, neither does he require assistance from another god or demiurge. He simply speaks and/or acts, and the creation is completed. He also creates by forming man out of the earth. Unlike Khnum, he does not require the aid of a consort. He creates the man and breathes life into him. Thus, through the two creation accounts, Yahweh-Elohim demonstrates his ability to perform all the creative acts of the Egyptian gods.
The evidence has shown the use of Egyptian creation imagery within the Genesis creation accounts. However, rather than discrediting the Genesis creation accounts as a direct borrowing of Egyptian beliefs, the evidence shows that the author/redactor(s) possessed a knowledge Egyptian beliefs and argued against those concepts that were contrary to truth.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the author/redactor(s) of the Genesis creation accounts share certain concepts of the makeup of the world with other ancient Near Eastern cultures. However, it is especially with Egypt’s worldview that the author/redactor(s) are familiar. Evidence for this lies in the many allusions to Egyptian creation motifs throughout the Genesis creation accounts. But, rather than being a case of direct borrowing, they demythologize the Egyptian concepts and form a polemic against the Egyptian gods. Thus, they elevate Yahweh-Elohim as the one true God, who is transcendent and who is all powerful. He speaks his desire and it comes to pass. He does not require the assistance of other gods to perform the acts of creation. He alone possesses the power and means necessary to effect the creation of the world. This paper has compiled a list of the more significant parallels between Egyptian cosmology and the Genesis creation accounts, and has shown that Egyptian cosmology and the Genesis creation accounts share more affinity with one another than the Genesis creation accounts share with Babylonian cosmology.
Voir aussi:
Appendix One: The Old Testament as History
Study By: Bob Utley
From the Series: The Study Bible Commentary Series, Old Testament
Christianity and Judaism are historical faiths. They base their faith on historical events (accompanied by their interpretations). The problem comes in trying to define or describe what is « history » or « historical study. » Much of the problem in modern theological interpretation rests on modern literary or historical assumptions projected back onto Ancient Near Eastern biblical literature. Not only is there not a proper appreciation of the temporal and cultural differences, but also of the literary differences. As modern western people we simply do not understand the genres and literary techniques of Ancient Near Eastern writings, so we interpreted them in light of western literal genres.
The nineteenth century’s approach to biblical studies atomized and depreciated the books of the Old Testament as historical, unified documents. This historical scepticism has affected hermeneutics and historical investigation of the Old Testament. The current trend toward « canonical hermeneutics » (Brevard Childs) has helped focus on the current form of the Old Testament text. This, in my opinion, is a helpful bridge over the abyss of German higher criticism of the nineteenth century. We must deal with the canonical text that has been given us by an unknown historical process whose inspiration is assumed.
Many scholars are returning to the assumption of the historicity of the OT. This is surely not meant to deny the obvious editing and updating of the OT by later Jewish scribes, but it is a basic return to the OT as a valid history and the documentation of true events (with their theological interpretations). A quote from R. K Harrison in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 1, in the article, « Historical and Literary Criticism of the Old Testament » is helpful.
« Comparative historiographic studies have shown that, along with the Hittites, the ancient Hebrews were the most accurate, objective, and responsible recorders of Near Eastern history. . Form-critical studies of books such as Genesis and Deuteronomy, based on specific types of tablets recovered from sites that include Mari, Nuzu, and Boghazköy, have shown that the canonical material has certain nonliterary counterparts in the cultures of some Near Eastern peoples. As a result, it is possible to view with a new degree of confidence and respect those early traditions of the Hebrews that purport to be historiographic in nature » (p. 232).
I am especially appreciative of R. K. Harrison’s work because he makes it a priority to interpret the Old Testament in light of contemporary events, cultures and genres.
In my own classes on early Jewish literature (Genesis – Deuteronomy and Joshua), I try to establish a credible link with other Ancient Near Eastern literature and artifacts.
A. Genesis literary parallels from the Ancient Near East
1. Earliest known literary parallel of the cultural setting of Genesis 1-11 is the Ebla cuneiform tablets from northern Syria dating about 2500 b.c., written in Akkadian.
2. Creation
a. The closest Mesopotamian account dealing with creation, Enuma Elish, dating from about 1900-1700 b.c., was found in Ashurbanipal’s library at Nineveh and several other places. There are seven cuneiform tablets written in Akkadian which describe creation by Marduk.
1) the gods, Apsu (fresh water – male) and Tiamat (salt water – female) had unruly, noisy children. These two gods tried to silence the younger gods.
2) one of the god’s children, Marduk, helped defeat Tiamat. He formed the earth from her body.
3) Marduk formed humanity from another defeated god, Kingu, who was the male consort of Tiamat after the death of Apsu. Humanity came from Kingu’s blood.
4) Marduk was made chief of the Babylonian pantheon.
b. « The creation seal » is a cuneiform tablet which is a picture of a naked man and woman beside a fruit tree with a snake wrapped around the tree’s trunk and positioned over the woman’s shoulder as if talking to her.
3. Creation and Flood – The Atrahasis Epic records the rebellion of the lesser gods because of overwork and the creation of seven human couples to perform the duties of these lesser gods. Because of (1) over population and (2) noise, human beings were reduced in number by a plague, two famines and finally a flood, planned by Enlil. These major events are seen in the same order in Genesis 1-8. This cuneiform composition dates from about the same times as Enuma Elish and the Gilgamesh Epic, about 1900-1700 b.c. All are in Akkadian.
4. Noah’s flood
a. A Summerian tablet from Nippur, called Eridu Genesis, dating from abut 1600 b.c., tells about Zivsudra and a coming flood.
1) Enka, the water god, warned of a coming flood
2) Zivsudra, a king-priest, saved in a huge boat
3) The flood lasted seven days
4) Zivsudra opened a window on the boat and released several birds to see if dry land had appeared
5) He also offered a sacrifice of an ox and sheep when he left the boat
b. A composite Babylonian flood account from four Summerian tales, known as the Gilgamesh Epic, originally dating from about 2500-2400 b.c., although the written composite form was cuneiform Akkadian, is much later. It tells about a flood survivor, Utnapishtim, who tells Gilgamesh, the king of Uruk how he survived the great flood and was granted eternal life.
1) Ea, the water god, warns of a coming flood and tells Utnapishtim (Babylonian form of Zivsudra) to build a boat
2) Utnapishtim and his family, along with selected healing plants, survived the flood
3) The flood lasted seven days
4) The boat came to rest in northeast Persia, on Mt. Nisir
5) He sent out three different birds to see if dry land had yet appeared
5. The Mesopotamian literature which describes an ancient flood draws from the same source. The names often vary, but the plot is the same. An example is that Zivsudra, Atrahasis, and Utnapishtim are all the same human king.
6. The historical parallels to the early events of Genesis can be explained in light of man’s pre-dispersion (Genesis 10-11) knowledge and experience of God. These true historical core memories have been elaborated and mythologicalized into the current flood accounts common throughout the world. The same can also be said of: creation (Genesis 1-2) and human and angelic unions (Genesis 6).
7. Patriarch’s Day (Middle Bronze)
a. Mari tablets – cuneiform legal (Ammonite culture) and personal texts written in Akkadian from about 1700 b.c.
b. Nuzi tablets – cuneiform archives of certain families (Horite or Hurrian culture) written in Akkadian from about 100 miles SE of Nineveh about 1500-1300 b.c. They record family and business procedures. For further specific examples, see Walton, pp. 52-58.
c. Alalak tablets – cuneiform texts from Northern Syria from about 2000 b.c.
d. Some of the names found in Genesis are named as place names in the Mari Tablets: Serug, Peleg, Terah, Nahor. Other biblical names were also common: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Laban, and Joseph.
8. « Comparative historiographic studies have shown that, along with the Hittites, the ancient Hebrews were the most accurate, objective and responsible recorders of Near Eastern history, » R. K Harrison in Biblical Criticism, p. 5.
9. Archaeology has proven to be so helpful in establishing the historicity of the Bible. However, a word of caution is necessary. Archaeology is not an absolutely trustworthy guide because of
a. poor techniques in early excavations
b. various, very subjective interpretations of the artifacts that have been discovered
c. no agreed-upon chronology of the Ancient Near East (although one is being developed from tree rings)
B. Egyptian creation accounts can be found in John W. Walton’s, Ancient Israelite Literature in Its Cultural Context. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990. pp. 23-34, 32-34.
1. In Egyptian literature creation began with an unstructured, chaotic, primeval water. Creation was seen as developing structure out of watery chaos.
2. In Egyptian literature from Memphis, creation occurred by the spoken word of Ptah.
C. Joshua literary parallels from the Ancient Near East
1. Archaeology has shown that most of the large walled cities of Canaan were destroyed and rapidly rebuilt about 1250 b.c.
a. Hazor
b. Lachish
c. Bethel
d. Debir (formerly called Kerioth Sepher, 15:15)
Archaeology has not been able to confirm or reject the biblical account of the fall of Jericho (cf. Joshua 6). This is because the site is in such poor condition:
a. weather/location c. uncertainty as to the dates of the layers
b. later rebuildings on old sites using older materials
Archaeology has found an altar on Mt. Ebal that might be connected to Joshua 8:30-31 (Deuteronomy. 27:2-9). It is very similar to a description found in the Mishnah (Talmud).
2. The Ras Shamra texts found at Ugarit show Canaanite life and religion of 1400’s b.c.
a. polytheistic nature worship (fertility cult)
b. El was chief deity
c. El’s consort was Asherah (later she is consort to Ba’al) who was worshiped in the form of a carved stake or live tree, which symbolized « the tree of life »
d. their son was Ba’al (Haddad), the storm god
e. Ba’al became the « high god » of the Canaanite pantheon. Anat was his consort
f. ceremonies similar to Isis and Osiris of Egypt
g. Ba’al worship was focused on local « high places » or stone platforms (ritual prostitution)
h. Ba’al was symbolized by a raised stone pillar (phallic symbol)
3. The accurate listing of the names of ancient cities fits a contemporary author, not later editor(s)
a. Jerusalem called Jebus, 15:8; 18:16,28 (15:28 said the Jebusites still remained in part of Jerusalem)
b. Hebron called Kiriath-arba, 14:15; 15:13,54; 20:7; 21:11
c. Kiriath-jearim is called Baalah, 15:9,10
d. Sidon is referred to as the major Phoenician city, not Tyre, 11:8; 13:6; 19:28, which later became the chief city
jcdurbant 