The name, according to its derivation, whether the original verb ('EX\r;i'i?^w) be taken, according to the common aiaalogy of similar forms (/(jj^ijw, cittikI^o), $t- XnnriZoj'), in the general sense of adoptinfj the spirit and character of Greeks, or, in the more limited sense, of using the Greek language (Xenophon, A nab. vii, 3, 25), marks a class distinguished by peculiar habits, and not by descent. Thus the Helllenists as a body included not only the proselytes of Greek (or foreign) parentage (oi aejiof-itvoi "EXX?jv£e, Acts xvii, 4 (?); ol (Tefiui-iH'oi Trpoffi'lXvTOi, Acts xiii, 43; oi (Tsfi6fxevoi,Acts xvii, 17), but also those Jews who, by settling in foreign countries, had adopted the prevalent form of the current Greek civilization, and with it the use of the common Greek dialect, to the exclusion of the Aramaic, which was the national representative of the ancient Hebrew. Helle- nism n-as thus a type of life, and not an indication of or- igin. Hellenists might be Greeks, but when the latter term is used ('E\X7]vet;, John xii, 20), the point of race and not of creed is that which is foremost in the mind of the -ttTiter. (See Jour. Sac. Lit. Jan. and April, 1857.) — Smith, s. V. See Grecian.
1. As to the particular class in question, referred to in the Acts, the following are the different opinions that have been held: 1. That the distinctive difference be- tween them was simply one of language, the Hebrews speaking the Aramaic of Palestine, the Hellenists the Greek. This is the most ancient opinion, being that expressed in the Peshito, and given by Chrysostom, Theophylact, etc. ; and it is the one which has received the largest number of suffrages in more recent times. Among its advocates are Joseph Scaliger, Heinsius, Dru- sius, Grotius, Selden, Hottinger, Hug, etc.
2. That the distinction was partly of country, partly of language : the Hebrew being a native of Judaja, and using the Aramaic language ; the Hellenist born among the GentOes, and using the speech of the country of which he was a native. So Erasmus, Lightfoot, Bengel, Wahl, De Wette, Davidson, Alford, Baumgarten, etc.
3. That the difference was one of religious historg, the Hebrew being a born child of the covenant, the Hel- lenist a proselyte from heathenism. So Beza, Salmasius, Pearson, Basnagc, Pfannkuche, etc.
4. That the difference was one of princijile : the He- brew adhering to one set of Ijeliefs or modes of thought, the Hellenist adopting another. According to some, this difference had the effect of constituting the Helle- nists into a distinct sect among the Jews, such as the Es- senes ; whilst others, without going this length, regard the two classes as standing to each other very much in the relation in which parties in the state hokling differ- ent poUtical views, or parties in the same Church having different aims and modes of regarding religious truth in modern times, may stand to each other; the Hebrews being Uke the Conservative or High-Church party, while the Hellenists advocated a more progressive, unfettered, and comprehensive scheme of thinking and acting. This latter view, in its substance, has recently found an able
HELLENIST
175
HELLENIST
advocate in Mr. Roberts (Binciissiaiis on the Gospels, p. 148 sq.). According to iiim, " the IhUmists were those Jews, wliether belonging to Palestine or not, who will- inglj' j-ielded to the influence of Gentile civilization and liabits, and were thus distinguished by their free and liberal sjiirit ; the Ilebreics, again, were the rigid adhe- rents to Judaism, who, in spite of the providential agen- cies which had been long at work, endeavored to keep up those peculiar and exclusive usages by which the Jews had for so rtianj^ centuries been preserved distinct from all other nations."
We are not disposed to reject entirely any of these opinions. Each of them seems to have an element of truth in it, though the contributions they make to the whole truth on this subject are by no means of equal importance. The last alone points to what must be re- garded as the fundamental and formative characteristic of Hellenism among the Jews. There can be no doubt historically that some such distinction as that to which it refers did subsist in the Jewish nation (see Jost, Gesch. (les Jitdeiitlmm^, i, 99 sq., 345 sq.), and had come to a height at the commencement of tlie Christian rera ; and nothing can be more probable than that the existence of such a distinction should manifest itself in the very way in which the distinction between the Hebrews and the Hellenists is asserted to have shown itself in Acts vi, 1 sq. It is in agreement with this, also, that Paul shoidd have entered into discussion chiefly with the Hellenistic Jews at Jerusalem ; for it is probable that as his earl}' Hellenic culture pointed him out as the person most fitted to meet them on their own gromid, he may have been specially set upon this work by the other apostles. — Kitto, s. v. Still this diiference of views could hardly of itself have constituted so marked and obvious a distinction as is implied in the various texts above cited, unless it had been exhibited in some out- ward characteristic ; and no external sign could have been more certain, natural, and palpable than that fa- miliar use of the Greek language which at once betray- ed a foreign Je^v, to whom it was vernacular, in contrast with the Palestinian Jew, by whom Greek, although too prevalent in that age everywhere to have been unknown to any, was nevertheless always spoken with a Hebrew coloring and accent. See Disi'ersiox.