Can the books of Kings be considered a Greek tragedy?
There's a nice kingdom. The chosen people are on top of the world. Then their king builds a temple to other Gods, and they lose everything. The story was written in Greek. Even today, there are seminary students required to learn Greek. As recently as 1922, knowing Greek and Latin was required for admittance to Yale.
Euripides invented tragedy long before the Greek bible was written. Are most of the stories in the books of Kings a complete fabrication? The wealth of king Solomon is described in the exact same way the Greeks described the wealth of Persian kings. The size of territory needed to obtain that wealth is only possible in an empire the size of ancient Persia. The size and power of Solomon's kingdom is also consistent with none other than ancient Persia.
Isn't it more likely the writers of the new testament were influenced by the abundant writings of the centuries that preceded them, rather than pre-literate stories over a millennium old? There are two conditions which preserve stories by word of mouth: 1. Illiteracy 2. The lack of competing stories.
Aeschylus wrote plays that were carbon dated, as old as 478 B.C. Since then, thousands of other stories were written in Greek. Most of which were extant when the Greek bible was written. Isn't it more likely the books of Kings, and other biblical tragedies can trace their roots back to Euripides, rather than having been passed down the better part of a millennium by slaves?
Even before the ascendancy of Athens, the Corinthians had plays. It roughly coincides with when Homer is supposed to have existed. Theaters are conducive to memory. Being enslaved for a millennium isn't. Nor was the Mahabharata a story told by slaves. Rather, Brahmans, who are second in rank only to their king, memorized and told long stories to their king and other Brahmans.
Is there a significant ethnic difference between slave and captor? Why wouldn't stories from the victors be told instead of the losers? That's normally the case. The Greeks were the first to write history from the perspective of the loser. Euripides being foremost among this tradition. Why wouldn't stories from the perspective of Egyptian, Assyrian, or Babylonian slave masters be in circulation instead of stories from their slaves? Athenians had a highly literate population because of democracy.
- Anonymous2 months ago
No. It has noting to do with the Greeks.
- brother truckerLv 72 months ago
They were influenced by a lot of cultures, Rome more than any. Romans hadnt spoken much Latin for years. They spoke Greek predominantly
- A Yahoo UserLv 72 months ago
A - It was authored in Hebrew, not Greek
B - It is not a "tragedy" in the sense of the term "Greek tragedy". That is: it is not a play. It was not authored as a play and was not performed or intended to be performed as a play.
- 2 months ago
in symbology maybe, in reality its supposed to be the history of kings for Israel. with contradictions of course, but the contradictions do not make the books less history, just debatable on the area concerned