HELLENISTS, THE (ol 'EXX-pto-rat). This term occurs twice in the Acts of the Apostles (vi. ; ix. 29) as the designation of a class of persons with whom the Apostles came in contact at Jeru salem at the beginning of the Gospel. In the for mer instance they appear as members of the church at Jerusalem ; in the latter as the decided and violent adherents of Judaism, with whom Paul dis puted, and by whom an attempt was made to de stroy him. The word is found in another passage in tbe received text (Acts xi. 2o) ; but the proper reading there seems to be 'ENXnvas, and so it ap pears in all the critical editions (comp. Alford's note on the place).
All that can with certainty be concluded from the references to this class in the N. T. is, that, on the one hand, they were Jews either by descent or through proselytism, and on the other tbat they were in some way distinct from another class of Jews who are designated 01 'Biepaiol. Could we determine exactly the sense in which this latter designation was used it would enable us to fix the meaning of that with which it is placed in opposi tion ; but unfortunately it is from this very opposi tion that it derives the special meaning which it bears as so placed ; so that we have rather to determine the sense of oi `Eppdiol, from that of 01 'EXXnvicrrai than the reverse.
Uncertainty as to the constitutive difference be tween these two classes seems to have existed from a very early period ; as appears from the Peshito version, which in the one passages gives 1-a-10.-i, Greeks, in the other explains the term as 1_0,001.-6 0001 7-...-S,J? 7ews who knew Greek ; and also from Chrysostom having found it necessary to explain the word to his hearers (Hom. xiv., in Act. App., etc.) It is not surprising, therefore, that a considerable variety of opinion on this point should have emerged. The opinions which have been advanced may be distri buted under the following heads :— I. The distinctive difference between 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 ex pressed in the Peshito, and given by Chrysostom, Theophylact, etc. ; and it is the one which has re ceived the largest number of suffrages in more re cent times. Among its advocates are Joseph Scaliger, Heinsius, Drusius, Grotius, Selden, Hot tinger, Hug, etc.
2. The distinction was partly of country partly of language : the Hebrew being a native of Judrea, and using the Aramaic language; the Hellenist born among the Gentiles, 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. The difference was one of religious history: the Hebrew being a. born child of the covenant ; the Hellenist a proselyte from heathenism. So Beza, Salmasius, Pearson, Basnage, Pfannkuche, etc.
4. The difference was one of princip/e; the Hebrew adhering to one set of beliefs or modes of thought, the Hellenist adopting another. Accord ing to some this difference had the effect of consti tuting the Hellenists into a distinct sect among the Jews, such as the Essenes ; whilst others, without going this length, regard the two classes as stand ing to each other very much in the relation in which parties in the state holding different political views, or parties in the same church having diffe rent aims and modes of regarding religious truth in modern times, inay stand to each other ; the Hebrews being like 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 advocate in Mr. Roberts (Discussions on the Gospels, p. 14S, ff.) According to him 'the Hellenists were those Jews, whether be longing to Palestine or not, who willingly yielded to the influence of Gentile civilisation and habits, and were thus distinguished by their free and liberal spirit ; the Hebrews, again, Ivere the rigid adherents to Judaism, who, in spite of the providen tial agencies, which had been long at work, en deavoured to keep up those peculiar and exclusive usages by which the Jews had for so many cen turies been preserved distinct from all other nations." We are not disposed to reject entirely any of of these opinions. Each of them seems to hal e 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 regarded 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. des yudenthzinis, i. 99 ff., 345 ff.), and had come to a height at the commencement of the Christian era ; 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 be tween the Hebrews and the Hellenists is asserted to have shewn itself in Acts vi. 1, ff. It is in agree ment with this also that Paul should have entered into discussion chiefly with the Hellenist Jews at Jerusalem ; for it is probable that as his early Hellenic culture pointed him out as the person most fitted to meet them on their own ground, he may have been specially set upon this work by the other apostles. The violent hostility which existed against him on the part of the Hellenists is also wholly in harmony with this view of their peculiar characteristic as a party ; for, as all history proves, the least tolerant of argumentative confutation are those who have assumed the pretensions of the en lightened and advanced thinkers of their age. The position which this view assig-ns to the Hebrews as a party is further wholly in accordance with the notices in the N. T. of a party designated ol ix reperoduijr, a phrase which, as Mr. Roberts shews, cannot be taken simply as a periphrase for Jews,' but always canies in it an allusion to some speci ality of doctrinal opinion or religious position. On the other hand, we can hardly accept this as the whole truth of the case. If we simply say that the Hellenists were more free and unfettered in their opinions and usages than the Hebrew, we have only in a very' vague way ascertained their position and the reason of their name. Grant that the Hellenists were the liberal and less fettered party among the Jews, the question still remains, In what did their liberalism shew itself ? Not cer tainly, as Mr. Roberts seems to intimate, in a dispo sition to relax the rigidity of Judaic ceremonial, or to abridge the distinction between Jew and Gentile; for so far as we know anything of the IIellenist party they were as bigotedly zealous for these as were the Hebrews. But if it was not a re/igious liberalism which characterised them, of what kind was it ? To this question any theory which places the sole characteristic of Jewish Hellenism in libe rality of opinion is bound to furnish an answer be fore it can be accepted.