ELKENISMO

HELLENISM. - A term coined by J. G. Droysen (in his history on the subject, between 1836 and 1877) to designate the entire historical period from the military campaigns of Alexander the Great outside Greece to the moment when the influence of Rome definitively extended over Hellenized and Hellenic lands. Hellenism denotes in particular the history of Greek civilization in non-Greek territories, the common language that expressed this civilization, its art, thought, and the life of the nations (Egypt, Asia Minor, Persia, Bactria, India, Syria) that were Hellenized, from the death of Alexander (323 BC) to the Battle of Actium (31 BC).

I. ORIGINS AND CHARACTER OF HELLENISM

The historical consequences of Alexander’s exploits were so vast and profound as to render even a summary assessment exceedingly difficult; they brought a powerful wave of Western civilization that broke through age-old barriers and penetrated among entirely different civilizations. The infiltration of Greek culture into the East had certainly begun much earlier, but with Alexander it deepened and extended as far as Asia. Naturally, this vast transformation and spiritual penetration of Hellenism did not occur suddenly nor uniformly in all places or in the same manner.

In Alexandria, a new literature of refined and scholarly character developed, and alongside philosophy, the natural sciences, mathematics, mechanics, astronomy, and medicine contributed to II. Antioch, in closer contact with the imposing Assyro-Babylonian and Iranian civilizations, became the second great center of Hellenism, less brilliant perhaps, but no less fruitful in its influence, whether more or less effective, on the surrounding regions. Yet culture was not confined to the metropolises; it spread to smaller centers (Ephesus, Caesarea in Cappadocia, etc.) and even to the most distant regions, naturally losing some of its finest and most original traits to become increasingly a universal type of culture, common to many classes of people, an expression of a median and human consciousness, rising above boundaries and races.

The unification of culture corresponded to the unification of language. The Greek language, already widely introduced by merchants in earlier times, spread further and began to serve as the lingua franca of the Near East, eventually becoming, as it was indeed called, the common language, the *koine* (κοινή). It is a continuation of Attic, though modified and broadened, a language intelligible to all, yet colorless, uniform, which sounded nearly the same with only slight local variations in Egypt, Syria, and in the official documents and public administrations.

As for philosophy, the new systems that arose in the Hellenistic age—Zeno’s Stoicism and Epicurus’s hedonism—followed the decline of metaphysics in favor of ethics. Carneades’ Academy, instead of the theory of ideas, defended a probabilistic skepticism. This philosophy of the Hellenistic age took root in Rome through Cicero, Lucretius, and Seneca, following two currents: radical skepticism (Pyrrhonism) or moderate skepticism.

Giacomo Gennaro

II. HELLENISM AND ITS RELATIONS WITH JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

With the Greek language, elements of Greek philosophy, religion, morality, and art spread, especially in the cities and among the educated classes. Hellenism, however, was not only active but also receptive; it received significant contributions, particularly religious ones, from the cultures it encountered (from the cults and mysteries of the East). Thus arose Hellenistic syncretism, simply called Hellenism.

Some skeptics argue that primitive Christianity resulted from a kind of syncretism born of Jewish and Hellenistic elements. Hence the need to examine the relations between Hellenism and Judaism, and between Hellenism and Christianity.

1. Hellenism and Judaism

a) Sources. — For the vast period of Hellenism before Christ, we have relatively few reliable sources concerning Palestine. Among them are the canonical books of the Maccabees, the *Wisdom* of Solomon, and *Ecclesiasticus*; also the apocryphal works (v.) written during this time: *Enoch*, the *Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs*, the *Psalms of Solomon*, and, it seems, the codices discovered in 1947 in the Judean Desert (*War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness*). Flavius Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, the Letter of Pseudo-Aristotle, and rabbinic writings (Mishnah, Talmud) preserve useful details about the Jewish reaction to Hellenism.

To understand the Hellenistic perspective, we turn to the writings of Greeks and Romans composed during this period, particularly those concerning the Jews. Among these, especially Strabo, Plutarch, Cassius Dio, Cicero, Pliny the Elder and the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, Seneca, Lucan, the poets Virgil, Horace, Ovid, the satirists Petronius, Persius, Juvenal, Martial, and Juvenal.

b) In Palestine. — Hellenism first reached the peripheral cities of Gaza, Ashkelon, Dora, Pella, Dion, Philadelphia (ancient Rabbath-Ammon), Gadara, and Abila. In Transjordan, the Hellenistic Decapolis arose, with a further extension at Scythopolis-Bethshean. Under Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Hellenism attempted to force its way even into the capital itself. The high priests (v. JASON, LYSI MACUS, MENAEAS) set a poor example. But the masses resisted and reacted strongly to the persecution, rising up under Mattathias and his sons Judas Maccabeus, Jonathan, and Simon.

During the Hasmonean period (v.), under Herod the Great (v.) and his successors, Hellenism attempted to penetrate further, sometimes aided by rulers and especially by the Sadducees, but the wave was repelled by the masses led by the Pharisees (v.). The Jewish books written in this era show how immense was the religious and nationalistic reaction of the majority of Jews, who remained faithful to the religion of their fathers.

c) Diaspora (v.). — Outside Palestine, Jews were in greater contact with Hellenism. They made use of its language, became acquainted with its philosophical and religious doctrines, and inevitably suffered its repercussions; yet, even while speaking and writing in Greek, they remained in substance authentic Jews.

The *Wisdom of Solomon*, written in Greek by an Alexandrian Jew, reveals the attitude of such Jews. Even Philo, who had accepted some philosophical principles of Hellenism, remained a Jew and sought to defend the Bible through allegorical exegesis. In Egypt, the Jews built a temple at Leontopolis, translated the Bible into Greek (v. SEPTUAGINT), and sought to enhance their esteem among Hellenists by circulating the legend of the Seventy-two Interpreters, popularized by Pseudo-Aristotle.

Josephus Flavius, a Jewish priest transplanted to Rome, though writing some works in Greek, did not abandon his character as an authentic Jew.

In conclusion, it may be said that even in the Diaspora, Hellenism only grazed the surface of Judaism without deeply affecting its religious substance.

2. Hellenism and Christianity

The Gospels show that Jesus, although He had traveled to the Decapolis and the Hellenized regions of Tyre, Sidon, and Caesarea Philippi, had no doctrinal dealings with pagan Hellenists; indeed, He limited His personal mission to the Palestinian Jews. He clearly affirmed that His doctrine came from the Father. When Greeks (pagans) wished to speak with Him, they had to do so through the mediation of Philip (John 12:20-22).

All the authors of the New Testament (except Matthew, who wrote in Aramaic for Palestinian Jews) wrote in Greek. From Hellenism, however, they retained only the common language (*koine*) and certain marginal elements; the substance of their teaching they all derived from Christ, the Son of God, the revealer.

In favor of the Hellenistic Jews, the Apostles instituted the deacons (v.), who have Greek names (Acts 6). Peter was the first to open the door of Christianity to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Barnabas and Saul at Antioch and in Asia Minor converted the pagans without requiring them to pass through Judaism. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) solemnly proclaimed that observance of Mosaic precepts was not necessary for salvation. Thus the way was opened for the entry of pagans, steeped in Hellenism, into the Church; but this was not the entry or fusion of Hellenism into Jewish Christianity. Rather, it was a total conversion to the new religion founded by Christ.

St. Paul, Apostle of the Gentiles, after his vision on the road to Damascus, purified his Judaism by adhering to the revelations of Christ who had seized him and to apostolic tradition. His superficial knowledge of Hellenism served him in smoothing the path to Christ for the pagan world, but it never constituted the substance of his teaching.

St. Paul shows the substantial independence of Christianity both from Judaism and from Hellenism, writing to the Corinthians: “The Jews demand signs, the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles...” (1 Cor 1:22-24).

A good popular presentation with essential bibliography on this complex problem is given by L. Allevi, who demonstrates, among other things, that St. Paul takes a clear and decisive stand “against all dangers and attempts to alter or Hellenize Christian doctrine” (p. 72).

With regard to pagan mysteries, from which it has been claimed that Christian sacraments derive, he concludes: “The ancient ritual mysteries have not at all served to give rise to similar rites among Christians; they could only suggest the name to be given to the new rites, which are of a different origin and nature” (p. 108).

Comparing Christian science with Hellenistic science, he observes: “In Greece, thought from its very dawn took control of the direction of life, which had hitherto been held by religion... with Christianity this basis of life is shifted; it becomes moral rather than intellectual” (p. 165).

G. Bardy notes that the religion of the Savior was not announced to souls entirely empty, nor did it empty those who had the courage to accept it... but it is certain that Christianity did not derive from Hellenism, nor did it derive naturally from the religion of Israel to which it is connected.” St. John, using the term *logos*, drawn from Hellenism, understands it, if anything, without alteration. Hellenism, by giving the ancient world a common language and spreading the great idea of the unity of the human race, prepared the way for Christianity, but did not give it its essence. The new religion, having to express itself in Greek with the language of the ancient pagans, Christianized it, impressing upon Greek words and expressions new meanings, coining new terms more suited to express the new great realities revealed by the Savior.

III. Religion

From a religious point of view, however, Hellenization was superficial, and Greek traditions remained a dead letter for the cosmopolitan populations of the new cities. Foreign gods took on Greek names, but their character and nature remained unchanged. Political decline was accompanied by a shift in religious orientation. Hitherto, religion had been centered around the city and its institutions; citizens practiced the traditional cults of the phratry, the tribe, and the state. The decline of the cities destroyed the prestige of their tutelary deities, which had been unable to save them, and, according to the hymn to Demetrius Poliorcetes, either had no ears, or did not exist, or did not care about men.

Nevertheless, the ancient cults retained, at least apparently, the importance and forms of traditional worship: official acts were placed under the protection of the gods, territories were consecrated to divinity, statues were carved by the best artists, and festivals were celebrated with splendor. Priests offered the customary sacrifices, and numerous writers took an interest in the cults, writing about festivals, mysteries, rites, and oracles, etc. But the ancient gods were invoked more out of habit than faith; festivals became more occasions for banquets, entertainment, and license than acts of heartfelt worship. The interest of the writers was historical and antiquarian rather than religious, fostering the pride of the inhabitants rather than their faith. The artists commissioned to carve statues represented men, not gods. Individualism spread and triumphed: religion became an individual affair, not an obligation of good citizenship; the objects of worship were no longer the ancient polytheistic gods, but those that the individual preferred, the ones most ready to help them—the “saving” gods that were never invoked in vain. Asclepius, the most recent god of the Greek pantheon, became the favorite of the sick, who flocked to his sanctuaries seeking healing and material and moral aid; oracles were consulted for the success of personal enterprises. Foreign deities were readily invoked and assimilated to one’s own, and the same formula and offering could be addressed to a multiplicity of gods. The name of Zeus was given to so many deities that it lost almost all cultic value and assumed the general meaning of “god.” Inscriptions attest that this syncretism was widespread and grew ever stronger and more invasive. Yet it was precisely this syncretism that contributed to the destruction of the city gods and drove individuals to seek elsewhere.

Restless, troubled spirits, desiring to repose trust in one or more deities and to find a solution to the problem of the afterlife, were drawn to the mystery cults (v. *Misteri*), which dispelled uncertainties and scruples through purification rites and promised a blessed immortality. Precise norms for obtaining initiation into the mysteries were laid down in various religions. New mystery religions penetrated from Egypt and Asia Minor: the mysteries of Isis, of Cybele, of Sabazius, etc. Religious associations flourished, which Plato condemned in his *Republic* as sources of superstition and disorder, especially those with secret rites and initiations. All this satisfied those seeking comfort in their sufferings, spiritual and sensory emotions.

Learned circles, that is, a small minority, sought the answer to the problem of life and divinity and the peace of the spirit in philosophy. New formulas were proposed, enthusiastically accepted by their followers, modified by their disciples, and then abandoned in favor of new solutions. With regard to the official religion, the various schools were often more indifferent than opposed. Stoicism, which we know chiefly through its later representatives, taught a vague pantheism: God is a breath (πνεῦμα) that permeates the universe; the sage enjoys perfect happiness and is a god on earth; yet it did not oppose popular religion or tradition. Epicurus, convinced that human unhappiness stems from the fear of the afterlife and the supernatural, strove to destroy both and to demonstrate that all things are generated by collisions of atoms, that the soul itself, a conglomeration of atoms, dissolves at death; the gods would be beings superior to man, more beautiful, happier, living in the spaces between worlds, neither interfering nor aiding. Nor did the skeptics entirely deny the gods: there is, they said, no proof, either affirmative or negative, of their existence; therefore the sage observes the religious practices of the society to which he belongs without pronouncing in favor of or against the beliefs of the multitude. More destructive might have been Evhemerus of Messene, who taught that the gods of mythology were merely men who had lived many centuries earlier and had benefited humanity, thus becoming deified by popular tradition. This facile rationalism may have disposed minds to accept a new cult that was just beginning to gain ground, as contemporaries, especially the sovereign, defined II. Those who still believed in a divine power recognized its manifestation in a powerful individuality, that of the sovereign; those who did not believe could see in the imperial cult a repetition of what had happened with Zeus or Dionysus. Yet one must not exaggerate the influence of Evhemerus or of any philosophical school. Even for those who followed one or another of these doctrines, philosophy did not always replace ancient beliefs; for the great mass of contemporaries, it remained a dead letter.

The ancient cult of heroes may have helped to bring about acceptance of the new religion of the sovereign. The mysteries, too, by attenuating or even eliminating the distance between man and divinity, prepared the way for this religious monstrosity that the ancient gods would have abhorred. Perhaps it was also accepted because of a growing need for religious novelty, a need characteristic of restless and decadent cities. In any case, the imperial cult does not seem to have been anything more than a token of political loyalty, a bond between peoples that left the individual free to accept any religion—or even to repudiate them all.

Among both the common people and the educated, magic and astrology enjoyed great favor. One must not think that this was a phenomenon peculiar to the age; it merely enjoyed greater diffusion and more abundant evidence. Characteristic of the age was the fact that magic and astrology were almost codified into sciences. Numerous magical recipes have come down to us, purporting to subject the inanimate world, living beings, and even the gods themselves to individual will. Egyptian papyri preserve a vast array of invocations, prayers, litanies, and magical formulas that draw, in the most eclectic and chaotic syncretism, on all religions, gods, demons, and biblical patriarchs. Astrology (v.) also had a strong influence among both the people and the learned, claiming to read in the stars the will of the gods and human destiny.

Even the irreligious and indifferent protected themselves against evil and magical influences. Signs and omens held an important place in the life of the individual; amulets to ward off risks and dangers were in common use; purifications were resorted to. The portrait of the superstitious man in Theophrastus, despite its exaggerations, gives an idea of private religion, made up of small individual practices, sometimes superstitious; people ran after apparitions.

To some, the age marked a religious decline; to others, it was deeply and sincerely religious. A clear judgment is difficult, for the sources reveal only certain social classes and even these only partially. The great mass felt the attraction of divinity and sought in religion consolation and guidance. There was no religious unity; the cities could not fuse their particular cults into a single religion for the Greek world. Unification would come with Christianity.