Carl Griffin, International Area Studies
On December 9, 1993, I was informed by letter that I had been chosen as a recipient of the Research and Creative Work Scholarship. I was delighted at the time at the prospect of exploring my proposed research topic, and am now pleased to report the results of that research. Perhaps a brief review of my topic is in order.
1 Maccabees, a book of the “Catholic” Apocrypha, is a vitally important historical work that chronicles much of the Maccabean period of Jewish history (c. 190-100 B.C.E.). It is a pastiche of public and private documents sewn together by the narrative of an anonymous author; a work at once tantalizing for the value of its content, yet suspect for the exclusiveness of its witness. Most or all of the documents embedded in it have been condenmed as forgeries or corrupt, though in the latter half of this century the skepticism towards these documents has somewhat ebbed. In his important work, Klaus-Dietrich Schunk maintains optimistically that the documents contained in 1 Maccabees are to be considered ‘genuine,’ which however does not rule out that they suffered small stylistic alterations by the one who incorporated them into the text. Only the writing of Areus tacked onto the letter of Jonathan (12:6ff.), in my opinion (along with Schiirer and Bickermann), is to be considered an ancient Jewish propagandistic forgery (Propagandafdlschung)-the author of 1 Maccabees certainly did not make it himself, since 12:6ff. has to be considered genuine, but probably found it already associated with the letter of Jonathan in transmission. 1
The “writing of Arens” rejected by Schunk and almost all scholars is found in 1 Maccabees 12:20-23, putatively a copy of a letter sent from the Spartan King Arens to Onias, the High Priest in Israel.
Arens, king of the Spartans, to Onias the high priest, greeting. It has been found in writing concerning the Spartans and the Jews that they are brethren and are of the family of Abraham. And now that we have learned tbis, please write us concerning your welfare; we on our part write to you that your cattle and your property belong to us, and ours belong to you. We therefore command that our envoys report to you accordingly (Maccabees 12:21-23). One can see straightway why the letter would be suspect. Would a Greek power write to a petty, distant vassal-state like Judea? And claim to be their brethren through the blood of Abraham? And pledge to them their property? A poorly contrived forgery, many scholars conclude, for these and numerous other reasons.
My studies have led me to other conclusions. As indicated in my proposal, my research on the letter has focused on three areas of inquiry. First, I have studied the letter itself, the idiom and usage of its Greek, and its immediate literary context, and have found that while its presence in 1 Maccabees is arguably intrusive, its language evidences semitisms generally absent in 1 Maccabees that would mark it as a translation document or the product of a Semitic scribe, and that it even follows certain Aramaic (semitic) epistolographic conventions rather than Greek. That the Greek sender would compose the letter in Aramaic or Hebrew is eminently logical; the Jews in the period of its composition were not yet hellenized. A copy of this same letter is found in Josephus (Antiquities 12:226-27), and while his version has smoothed out some of its rough semitic flavor, the same basic elements are present. More importantly, Josephus’ version contains a revealing addition that mentions the courier who brought the letter, describes the seal markings, and notes enigmatically, “The writing is (or, letters are) square.” This may be saying in effect that the letter was written in square Aramaic characters, instead of the curved Greek, making the letter originally semitic in language. In any event, the differences that exist between the letter as preserved in 1 Maccabees and Josephus would indicate that both are independent translations of a semitic original, which, while not proving the letter authentic, at least suggests that it is not the product of 1 Maccabees’ redactor, simply appropriated at a later date by Josephus.
Secondly, my examination of the broader historical and literary context has proved illuminating. Historically, the Arens mentioned as the sender of the letter is doubtless Arens I (309-265 B.C.E.), a vigorous king who engaged in the most aggressive foreign policy Sparta had seen in decades, or would ever see again. In view of his general policies, contact with remote and minor Judea is not out of the question, especially when one notes his anti-Egyptian allies, who would have found Judea a prime starting point for any offensive against Egypt. Previous objections to this historical possibility I have shown, I believe, to be unconvincing. Furthermore, a study of period diplomatic correspondence shows the document to conform to most conventions, one of which is most striking. As noted above, many have found the Spartans kinship claim with the Jews absurd, especially their claim to be children of Abraham. But epigraphical remains_pro:vide_dazens of_~xamJll~s_ Qf such_lgg_sl;rip claims in diplomatic exchanges, and in numerous cases the kinship is mythological or otherwise impossible. In certain cases these claims have even been made with non-Greek peoples. In summary, the document displays a laconic brevity hitherto unseen (there is no surviving Spartan correspondence, so it may even be typical), but in general the letter appears authentic to its period and putative function.
Last of all, an investigation of past scholarship has revealed certain trends that have possibly caused scholars to reject the Arens letter’s authenticity. One should note, for example, that in the 16th century, anti-semitic notions held by Christians began to surface in programmatic attacks against the historicity of Jewish literature (exception being taken with the Bible, which had to wait another 300 years to be attacked historically). A prime target was the books of Maccabees, because they were themselves, not just historical but histories. Furthermore, the general skepticism that has pervaded German historical thought from the early 19th century until today has tended to abwerten (devalue) all historical documents. Schunk, cited above, is one of the few exceptions to this general trend. His evaluation is quite enlightened. Still, I do not believe that he has gone far enough. I can find no compelling reason to reject the letter of Arens as anything but authentic.
While the fruits of my research have not yet been submitted to a scholarly journal, time and resources wanting, an earlier draft of my findings was submitted to the Phi Kappa Phi annual undergraduate paper competition, and my submission was given the First Place Award for the senior category. On March 22, 1994, I gave a brief address on the topic of my paper and received a certificate of award. For that opportunity and for much of what I have learned in these past several months, I am very much indebted to the support of your office and its sponsoring institution. Thank you.