Hellenism

ELLENISMO. – A term coined by J. G. Droysen (in his history of the subject, between 1836 and 1877) to designate the entire historical period from the military expeditions of Alexander the Great beyond Greece to the moment when Rome’s influence definitively extended over the Hellenic and Hellenized countries. E. refers in particular to the history of Greek civilization in non-Greek territories; to the common language that expressed this civilization; and to the art, thought, and life of the Hellenized nations (Egypt, Asia Minor, Persia, Bactria, India, Syria), from the death of Alexander (323 B.C.) to the Battle of Actium (31 B.C.).

I. ORIGINS AND CHARACTER OF E

The historical consequences of Alexander’s exploits were so vast and profound as to make their assessment, even if only a summary one, extremely difficult; they unleashed an impetuous wave of Western civilization that overcame centuries-old barriers and penetrated amid 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 the heart of Asia. Naturally, the vast spiritual transformation and penetration of E. took place neither all at once nor everywhere to the same degree and in the same manner.

In Alexandria a new literature developed, refined and erudite in character, and alongside philosophy the natural sciences, mathematics, mechanics, astronomy, and medicine flourished. Antioch, more closely in contact with the imposing Assyro-Babylonian and Ionian civilization, was the second great center of E., certainly less brilliant, but for that reason no less fruitful through its more or less effective influences on the surrounding regions. Culture, however, was not confined to the metropolises: it spread through the minor centers (Ephesus, Caesarea of Cappadocia, etc.) and into the more distant regions, naturally losing some of its finest and most original characteristics in order increasingly to constitute a type of universal culture, common to many classes of people, the expression of an average and human consciousness, rising above the boundaries of peoples and races.

The unification of culture corresponded to the unification of language. The Greek language, already widely introduced in the past by merchants, spread ever further and began to serve as the international «lingua franca» of Western Asia; it eventually became what it was in fact called, the «common» language, koinè (XVI-XVII). It is the continuation of Attic, though modified and expanded: that is, a language intelligible to all, but faded and uniform, which sounded almost the same, with only very slight local variations, in Egypt and Syria, in official documents and those of public administrations.

As for philosophy, the new systems that arose in the Hellenistic age—the Stoicism of Zanone and the Hedonism of Epicurus—followed the decline of metaphysics to the advantage of ethics. The Academy of Carnonde, instead of the theories of Ideas, defended a probabilistic skepticism. This philosophy of the Hellenistic age entered Rome with Cicero, Lamezio, and Seneca along two currents: radical skepticism (Pyrrhonism) or moderate skepticism.

Giuliano Gennaro

II. HELLENISM AND ITS RELATIONS WITH JUDAISM AND CHRISTIANITY

Along with the Greek language there spread, especially in the cities and among the educated classes, elements of Greek philosophy, religion, morality, and art. Hellenism, however, was not only active but also passive; that is, it received considerable contributions, especially religious ones (from Eastern cults and mysteries), from the civilizations it encountered. Thus arose Hellenistic syncretism, simply called Hellenism.

Some scholars maintain that primitive Christianity was the result of a kind of syncretism born of Jewish and Hellenistic elements. It will therefore be useful to know 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 these are the canonical books of the Maccabees, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus; in addition, the apocrypha (v.) written at this time: Enoch, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Psalms of Solomon and, apparently, also manuscripts discovered in 1947 in the desert of Judah (War between the Sons of Darkness and the Sons of Light). Flavio Giuseppe, Filone Alessandrino, the letter of Pseudo-Aristea, and the rabbinic writings (Miñah, Talmud) preserve useful details for us concerning the Jewish reaction to Hellenism.

For an understanding of the Hellenistic point of view, the writings of Greeks and Romans composed during this period are useful, in those passages dealing with the Jews. Among them especially: Strabone, Plutarco, Dione Cassio, Cicerone, Plinio il Vecchio e il Giovane, Tacito, Svetonio, Seneca, Lucano, the poets Virgilio, Orazio, Ovidio, and the satirists Petronio, Persio Flacco, Marziale, Giovenale.

b) In Palestine. — Hellenism first reached the peripheral cities of Gaza, Ascalon, Dora, Pella, Dion, Filadelfia (ancient Rabbath Ammon), Gadara, and Abila. In Transjordan the Hellenistic Decapolis arose, with an extension to Scitopoli-Bethsan. Under Antico IV Epifane, Hellenism sought violently to penetrate the capital itself. The high priests (v. MENELAO) set a most deplorable example. But the mass of the people resisted and reacted vigorously to the persecution, rising up with Mathaia and his sons Giuda Maccabee, Ionathan, and Simone.

Asmonei (v.), MAGOG (v.), and of his successors, Hellenism attempted to penetrate, at times favored by the rulers and especially by the Sadducees; but the tide was repelled by the mass of Farisei (v.). The Jewish books written in this period show how vigorous was the religious and nationalistic reaction of the majority of the Jews, who remained faithful to the religion of their fathers.

c) diaspora (v.). — Outside Palestine, the Jews were in closer contact with Hellenism. They learned its language, became acquainted with its philosophical and religious doctrines, and inevitably underwent their repercussions; nevertheless, even while speaking and writing in Greek, they remained in substance authentic Jews.

Wisdom, written in Greek by an Alexandrian Jew, reveals to us the attitude of these Jews. Filone too, although he had accepted certain philosophical principles of Hellenism, remained a Jew and endeavored to defend the Bible by resorting to allegorical exegesis. In Egypt the Jews built a temple at Leontopoli, translated the Bible into Greek (v. SETTANTA), and sought to increase its esteem among Hellenists by recounting the legend of the seventy-two interpreters, popularized by Pseudo-Aristea.

Giuseppe Flavio also, a Jewish priest transplanted to Rome, though writing some works in Greek, does not belie his character as an authentic Jew.

In conclusion, it may be said that even in the diaspora Hellenism had touched only the surface of Judaism, without profoundly affecting its religious substance.

2. Hellenism and Christianity

The Gospels show that Jesus, although he had gone into the Decapolis and the Hellenized regions of Tyre, Sidon, and Caesarea Philippi, had no doctrinal relations with Hellenistic pagans; indeed, he limited his personal mission to the Palestinian Jews. He clearly affirmed that he had learned his doctrine from the Father. When the Greeks (pagans) wished to speak with him, they had to employ the mediation of Filippo (Io. 12, 20-29).

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

In favor of the Hellenistic Jews, the Apostles instituted the deacons (v.), who bear Greek names (Act. 6). S. Pietro was the first to open the door of Christianity to an uncircumcised man (Act. 10). Barnaba and Saulo, in Antioch and Asia Minor, converted pagans without making them pass through Judaism. The Council of Jerusalem (Act. 15) solemnly proclaimed that observance of Mosaic norms was not necessary for salvation. Thus the way was opened for the entrance into the Church of pagans reared in Hellenism; but this was not the entrance, or fusion, of Hellenism into Jewish Christianity, but rather total conversion to the new religion founded by Christ.

S. Paolo, apostle of the Gentiles, after the vision of Damascus had purified his Judaism, adhering to the revelations of Christ who had seized him and to apostolic tradition. His superficial knowledge of Hellenism served him to smooth the way to Christ for the pagan world, but it never constituted the substance of his teaching.

S. Paolo demonstrates the essential 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 scandal to the Jews, folly to the Gentiles...” (I Cor. 1, 22-24).

A good popular exposition, with an essential bibliography on this complex problem, is provided by L. Allevi, who demonstrates, among other things, that s. Paolo takes a clear and firm position “against all the dangers and attempts at alteration or Hellenization of Christian doctrine” (p. 72).

Concerning the pagan mysteries, upon which Christian Sacraments are alleged to depend, he concludes: “The ancient mystery rites did not in any way influence the birth of similar rites among Christians; they could only suggest the name to be given to the new rites, of entirely different origin and nature” (p. 108).

Comparing Christian knowledge with Hellenistic knowledge, he observes: “In Greece thought, from its very emergence, takes possession of the direction of life, hitherto held by religion... with Christianity this basis of life is shifted: from intellectualistic it becomes moral” (p. 165).

G. Bardy notes that the “religion of the Savior was not proclaimed to souls entirely empty, nor did it empty those that had the courage to accept it... but it is quite certain that Christianity was not derived from Hellenism, nor was it naturally derived from the religion of Israel, with which it is connected.” S. Giovanni, in using the term logos, borrowed from Hellenism, understands it in a very different sense. By giving the ancient world a common language and spreading the great idea of the unity of humankind, Hellenism prepared the ways for Christianity, but did not give it what was essential. The new religion, obliged to express itself in Greek through the language of the ancient pagans, Christianized that language, impressing new meanings upon Greek words and expressions, and coining new terms better suited to express the new great realities revealed by the Savior.

III. RELIGION

From the 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 Greek names, but their character and nature remained unchanged. Political decline was accompanied by a different religious orientation. Until then, religion had been centered on 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 divinities, who had been unable to save them and who, according to the hymn to Demetrius Poliorcetes, either had no ears, did not exist, or did not care about human beings.

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 the divinity, images were carved by the finest artists, and festivals were celebrated with splendor; priests offered the customary sacrifices, while numerous writers took an interest in the cults and wrote about festivals, mysteries, cults, oracles, and so forth. But the ancient gods were invoked more from habit than from faith, and festivals increasingly became occasions for banquets, entertainment, and license rather than acts of heartfelt worship. The interest of writers was historical and antiquarian, not religious; it fostered the pride of the inhabitants, not their faith. The artists commissioned to carve the images represented men, not gods. Individualism spread and triumphed: religion became an individual affair and was no longer an obligation of the good citizen; the objects of worship were no longer the ancient civic gods, but those whom the individual preferred, those most ready to help him, the “savior” gods who were never invoked in vain. Asclepius, the most recent god of the Greek Olympus, became the favorite of the crowds who flocked to his sanctuaries in search of healing and material or moral assistance; oracles were consulted for the success of one’s own undertakings. People readily turned to foreign divinities, which were assimilated to their own and fused into a single formula and a single offering. The name of Zeus was given to so many divinities that it almost lost all cultic value and assumed the general meaning of “god.” Inscriptions attest that this syncretism was widespread and became increasingly strong and pervasive. Yet it was precisely this syncretism that helped destroy the gods of the city and drive individuals to seek elsewhere.

Restless and tormented spirits, desiring to rest with confidence in the divinity or divinities and to find a solution to the problem of the afterlife, were drawn toward the mystery cults (v. MISTERI), which calmed uncertainties and scruples through purification practices and offered the hope of a blessed immortality, together with precise rules for attaining II. The Eleusinian, Orphic, Samothracian, and Andanian mysteries benefited from this desire for a more intense religious life. New mystery religions entered from Egypt and Asia Minor: the mysteries of Isis, Cybele, Sabazius, and so forth. Religious associations flourished—associations that Plato proscribed in his Republic as a source of disorder and superstition, especially those involving secret rites and initiation. All this satisfied those seeking comfort from their troubles and spiritual and sensory emotions.

The educated classes—that is, a small minority—sought in philosophy an answer to the problem of life and divinity and peace of mind. New formulas were proposed, accepted enthusiastically by their followers, modified by their disciples, and then abandoned in favor of new solutions. With regard to 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 (ἐνεξίδι) that pervades the universe; the sage enjoys perfect happiness and is a god on earth. Yet Stoicism did not oppose popular religion or traditional practices. Epicurus, convinced that human unhappiness derives from fear of the afterlife and the supernatural, sought to destroy both and to demonstrate that everything is generated by collisions of atoms, and that the soul itself, a conglomeration of atoms, dissolves at death; the gods were beings superior to man, more beautiful and happier, who lived in the spaces between the worlds and neither harmed nor helped. Nor did the skeptics completely deny the gods: there is no proof, they said, either affirmative or negative, of their existence; therefore the sage follows the religious practices of the society to which he belongs, without pronouncing either for or against the beliefs of the crowd. Even more destructive might have been Euhemerism. Evemerus of Messene taught that the gods of mythology were merely men who had lived many centuries earlier, had benefited humanity, and had been deified by popular tradition. This facile rationalism may have prepared minds to accept a new cult that was just then beginning to make its way: the deification of contemporaries, especially the ruler. Those who still believed in a divine power recognized its manifestation in a mighty individual, the ruler; those who did not believe could see in the cult of the ruler a repetition of what had occurred with Zeus or Dionysus. Nevertheless, neither the influence of Euhemerism nor that of any philosophical school should be exaggerated. Even for those who followed one or another of these doctrines, philosophy did not always replace the ancient beliefs; for the great mass of their contemporaries, moreover, it remained a dead letter.

The ancient cult of heroes perhaps helped to make the new religion of the ruler acceptable. The mysteries too, by weakening and almost eliminating the distance between man and divinity, prepared the way for this religious monstrosity, which the ancient gods would have punished. It may also have been accepted because of the growing need for religious novelty, a need characteristic of periods of restlessness and decline. In any event, the ruler’s religion does not seem to have been more than a token of political loyalty, a bond among peoples that left the individual free to accept any religion or, perhaps, to reject them all.

Among both the people and the educated classes, magic and astrology enjoyed great favor. One should not believe that this was a phenomenon peculiar to Hellenism. In this period there was simply a wider diffusion and more abundant evidence of II. What characterizes Hellenism is that magic and astrology were almost codified and became sciences. Numerous magical recipes have come down to us that purported to subject the inanimate world, living beings, and the gods themselves to the individual will. The Egyptian papyri preserve a vast collection of invocations, prayers, hymns, and magical formulas that enlist, in the most serene and chaotic syncretism, all religions, gods, demons, and biblical patriarchs. Astrology (v.) exerted a powerful influence among both the people and the educated classes; it claimed to read the will of the gods and human life in the stars.

Even the irreligious and indifferent took precautions against evil and magical influences. Signs and omens occupied an important place in the individual’s life; amulets intended to protect against risks and dangers were extremely common; people resorted to purifications. The portrait of the superstitious man in Theophrastus, despite all its exaggerations, can give some idea of private religion, composed of small individual practices that were sometimes superstitious; people also eagerly pursued apparitions.

Per alcuni l'e. segna una decadenza religiosa, per altri è sentitamente e profondamente credente. Un giudizio netto è difficile, perché le fonti fanno conoscere solo alcune classi sociali e anche queste in parte. La grande massa sentì l'attrattiva della divinità e cercò nella religione un conforto e una guida. Mancò ogni unità religiosa, le città non sepperò fondere i loro culti particolari in una religione unica per il mondo greco. L'unificazione avverrà con il cristianesimo.

Luisa Banti