Euripides, the Phoenicians and the Jews

The Greek writer and tragedian Euripides is one of the best known of the figures of classical antiquity as he was frequently associated with famous Socrates - the tutor of Plato - by his fellow Athenians and often got into all sorts of trouble because of it. What is interesting to us about Euripides is not that he mentions jews directly, but rather - as I have pointed out in relation to Homer - (1) that he mentions them indirectly by his frequent mentions of the people the jews originally came from: the Phoenicians.

It is important to understand that the jews that we know today and have known since the fall of Alexander the Great were - in the time before Alexander - a not particularly noteworthy people and were hardly distinct from their neighbours in what later became known to the Greeks as Syria. Indeed, as I have pointed out more than once - although most notably in my article on Homer - the jews in the period before their incorporation in the Roman Empire by Pompey the Great and the formalization of this status under the Emperor Augustus were just a small insignificant tribe to whom we find occasional references in inscriptions but whom were not the major player in regional affair the Tanakh claims.

If we view the jews in their proper context as a religious fringe sect of Phoenician civilization and culture at this time - albeit one that had already substantially diverged from orthodox Phoenician religious ideas (although they were still polytheistic) - then we can understand that references to the Phoenicians prior to the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty (in the second century B.C.) can be broadly taken as indicative of jewish behaviour about the same time. However we should note - as I have recently done in my article on Pausanias - (2) that references to the Phoenicians after the fall of Alexander the Great (in the fourth century B.C.) and the rise of the Hasmonean dynasty (in the second century B.C.) can be said to refer to the Phoenicians alone, because by this point the jews had developed into a separate religious system and culture based on the cumulative decrees and actions by fanatical Yahweh purists like the Prophet Nehemiah.

This is a novel concept for many, but it is readily appreciable that understanding this opens up some broad vistas for anti-jewish critique given that the piracy and perfidy of Phoenicians comes in for quite a lot of criticism in the Greek literature of this time.

If we examine the extant works of Euripides we note that in 'Phoenissae' ('Phoenician Women') he cites the Greek city states as constantly warring with Phoenicians who are to suffer the pain that only Ares - the god of war - can inflict. (3) Further in the tragic narrative - named largely after its chorus of Phoenician attendants to the Temple of Apollo - we are told by Euripides that the Phoenicians are foreigners and non-Greeks. (4)

Indeed, this echoes the view of Euripides' near contemporary Thucydides who asserted that in Sicily for example Greeks and Phoenicians lived in community with each other, but that the Phoenicians were still foreigners and non-Greeks in spite of certainly being able to speak Greek in many instances (the origin of the term 'barbarian'). (5)

This suggests to us that the Phoenicians were interacting in a hostile way with the Greeks of Sicily in an anticipation of the epic and extremely violent conflict between the Greeks and jews in ancient Alexandria which began in the Ptolemaic era (after the fall of Alexander the Great) and continued to the invasion of Egypt by the forces of Islam.

That there is some hostile intent is suggested by Euripides' reference to the 'Phoenician calls' of the chorus in 'Phoenician Women' given that while Euripides' use of language might at first suggest that this has to do with their specific language (i.e., their calling in the Phoenician language to Jocasta) this also has to be balanced with the context of Jocasta's reaction in that their 'Phoenician calls' have revived her old limbs somewhat so she can walk in order to see her son. (6)

It is of course possible that Euripides meant nothing more than that the calls of the Phoenician women have summoned her, but this seems unlikely given that the 'Phoenician calls' are explicitly said to have imbibed new life into her and have in some way persuaded her to make a special effort in addition to Jocasta just wanting to see her son.

I would point out that this suggestion is not unlike the sirens of Homer's 'Odyssey' where the beautiful song of monsters (and non-Greeks were considered somewhat borderline monsters by the Greeks) lures well-meaning Greeks onto the proverbial rocks. In this specific case Jocasta's son Polyneices has married a foreign (possibly Phoenician) wife and preferred his foreign relatives over his Greek ones meaning that he has forsaken everything that was Greek for the allure of all that is foreign and barbarian. (7)

This clearly suggests that the Phoenicians - and by extension the jews - are considered undesirable and untrustworthy (like Homer's sirens) by Euripides.

We further learn about Euripides' fundamental dislike the Phoenicians when we note the consistent allusion to them as being pre-eminent seafarers when he talks of how fast Phoenician ships are (8) and that they make high quality nautical equipment. (9) This is compounded by the implications of remarks Euripides makes about how Phoenicians can become acceptable and make good in the eyes of the Gods if they adopt Greek ways, but that most of them don't. (10)

These mentions might seem overtly positive until we place them in the context of what Euripides' near contemporary Thucydides pointed out in relation to Phoenician mastery of the sea. Namely that they were pirates and specifically targeted the Greeks. (11) Further we given a clue by Homer in relation to what one of the principal objects of this piracy was: to gain slaves which could be sold for profit back in Phoenicia. (12)

This suggests that while Euripides was a man walking an intellectual tight-rope in Athens: he also had a significant political bone to pick with the Phoenicians given that he might - in isolation - seem to be complimenting the Phoenicians (and in sense is) but in complimenting their seafaring abilities: he also alludes to the piracy and slave-trading the Phoenicians engaged in. This is something that would have been more readily understood by his contemporary audience as opposed to a modern one as with any work of fiction: it is informed by the events around the time it is written.

Indeed if we factor into our understanding Euripides description of the misery of Greeks being reduced to slavery (13) and of the desirability of rescuing Greeks reduced to that social condition by foreigners (what Euripides calls their 'torment') (14) then we can see that it is possible to argue that Euripides was actually making a kind of social commentary on the problem of Greeks being taken as slaves by foreigners (most likely the Phoenicians) and the desirability of - like in the Odyssey - (15) recovering them but not freeing barbarian slaves who are being civilized by the Greeks. (16)

In summation then we can see that Euripides was in all likelihood a staunch critic of the Phoenician pirates and slave-traders who pillaged their way with impunity across the Mediterranean Sea in his time and that in commenting on this social evil of his day: we can see in his words a critique of the jews before they came to be known as the jews.

References

(1) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/homer-the-phoenicians-and-the-jews

(2) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/pausanias-palestine-and-the-jews

(3) Euri. Phoe. 240

(4) Ibid. 280

(5) Thuc. 6:2

(6) Euri. Phoe. 301

(7) Ibid. 330-350

(8) Euri. Hel. 1270; 1451

(9) Euri. Herak. 940

(10) Euri. Bacch. 216-225; 1268-1273

(11) Thuc. 1:8

(12) Hom. Ody. 8:265-293

(13) Euri. Orest. 1430-1432

(14) Euri. Iphig, Taur. 450

(15) Hom. Ody. 15:422-484

(16) Euri. Phoe. 208-210