But the thing is, Alexander did not leave it as an uninhabited ruin. He slew most of its people, but its king, his family, and other people were allowed to remain living there, and within a decades, Tyre was apparently a normal city again.neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sun Aug 28, 2022 12:42 amI'm sure various commentaries would have something on that point to enlighten us. If Alexander left it an uninhabited ruin then I would expect the prophecy was written some time when it was still in that condition. Do you know when it was rebuilt or where, exactly (thinking it may not have been on the "rock" in the sea, the place that was destroyed by Alexander)?
Consulting Book 2 of Arrian’s Anabasis of Alexander, reveals the following facts.
Chapters 16 and 18 reveal that the old Temple of Heracles was on the Island, not on the mainland.
Chapter 18 reveals that Tyre was located entirely upon an Island.
Chapter 25 reveals that Tyre was not completely destroyed, nor even stripped of all inhabitants. To the contrary, Alexander left unmolested in Tyre all Tyrians who sought refuge in its temple of Heracles, as well as its royal family.
If you were to assert that a royal family and refugees in a temple, when living as the only inhabitants within a city, are so few in number that they cause the city to cease to be a city but to become something else, such as a village or a town, then this attitude towards what constitutes a city is explicitly contradicted by the Bible, which presents single families as founding cities (rather than as founding villages that become cities): cf. Genesis 4:17, Judges 1:23-26.
Further confirming my claim that Alexander the Great did not totally destroy Tyre in any sense (either by completely stripping it of all Tyrian inhabitants or by destroying it totally), Jidejian, Nina (2018). TYRE Through The Ages (3rd ed.). Beirut: Librairie Orientale. pp. 119–141. ISBN 9789953171050 says that within fewer than 30 years of Alexander’s siege, Tyre was a powerful enough city to be besieged again.