Greek Philosophers at each other’s throats

-Aristotle had written (Μεταφυσικά (Metaphysics), vol.A, 986b, 27) that Xenophanes was far inferior to Parmenides and in fact “slightly boorish”.

-Aristotle called the Cynic philosophers “uneducated”, when he wrote: “….the Antisthenians and the likewise uneducated….” (Μετά τα Φυσικά, (Meta ta fysika – Post Nature) vol.8, 3 (1043b, 24)).

-Aristotle wrote about Protagoras: “while the intellectuals are saying nothing of the sort, they give the impression that they are saying something of significance…” (Μετά τα Φυσικά, (Meta ta fysika – Post Nature) vol.10, 1 (1053b, 4)).

-Parmenides had taken a negative stance towards Heracletus from the beginning. He wrote somewhere: «...οι δε φορούνται κωφοί ομώς τυφλοί τε τεθηπότες άκριτα φύλαυτόν εστι κέλευθος» (Ap. 6, 8). (“..While they stumble about, deaf as well as blind, dazed – mobs without discretion, they, who do nothing but view the “being” and the “non-being” as though they are the same thing..”)

-Heracletus mocked Pythagoras (Ap.81): «Πυθαγόρας κοπίδων εστίν αρχηγός» («Pythagoras is the leader of charlatans».)

-Heracletus snubbed Hesiod, Pythagoras, Xenophanes and Hecataeus, saying (Ap.40): «Πολυμαθίη νόον έχειν ου διδάσκει˙ Ησίοδον γαρ αν εδίδαξε και Πυθαγόρην αύτις τε Ξενοφάνεά τε και Εκαταίον». (“Scholarship does not teach how to acquire intellect. If it did, then it would have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, even Xenophanes and Hecataeus.”

-“When Empedokles told Xenophanes that a wise man cannot be found anywhere, he replied sarcastically : “of course he can’t – it takes a wise man to recognize a wise man” («Εμπεδοκλέους δε ειπόντος αυτώ ότι ανεύρετός εστιν ο σοφός, "εικότως," έφη: "σοφόν γαρ είναι δει τον επιγνωσάμενον τον σοφόν"» Diogenis Laertios, IX, 20).

-As for Epicurus, «the Stoic Diotimus, who was vehemently against him, defamed him in the worst possible manner, by circulating fifty vulgar epistles in the name of Epicurus. The same thing was done by someone else, who had collected loveletters attributed to Chrysippos and rumored them to be Epicurus’ letters. In another instance, the stoic philosopher Posidonius and his circle, along with Nikolaos and Sotion (…) maintained that Epicurus used to frequent hovels and read purification rites (…..) They also claimed that he was a procurer for one of his brothers (….), that he apparently presented as his own certain teachings of Democritus on atoms, and of Aristippus on pleasure; also that he was not a genuine Athenian citizen (…) Epictetus calls him vulgar-mouthed and insults him thoroughly. Even Timocrates – Metrodorus’ brother and student of Epicurus until he abandoned the School - had written in his play titled “Eufrantai” (Delighters) that Epicurus vomited twice a day, because he enjoyed relishing his meals, and that he (Timocrates) himself with great difficulty managed to escape from those nocturnal philosophical discussions (..) Diogenis Laertios, X, 3-6), while Timon, a sceptic and student of Pyrrhon, said of Epicurus: “…he is the most contemptible and most impertinent of all physicists, an insignificant little teacher of children that came over from Samos island, more ill-bred than the animals….” (Diogenis Laertios, X, 3).

-Correspondingly, Epicurus “referred to the Platonics as the ‘fawners of Dioysios’ (the tyrant of Syracuse), and Plato himself as ‘golden’, Aristotle as ‘a prodigal, who wasted away his paternal inheritance, was drafted in the army and sold medicines’; Protagoras was labelled a ‘porter’ and the ‘scribe of Democritus’ and ‘a provincial teacher’. He nicknamed Heracletus a “mazist” (attributed to his theory on mazes, ap.125), Democritus was nicknamed “Deliriocritus” (a ranter), Antidorus “Sannidorus” (dope), the Kyzikians (the astronomer and mathematician Evdoxos) he called “the enemies of Hellas”; the dialectics (of Megara, of his friend Socrates, Euclid) he called “envious of everything” and Pyrrhon as “uneducated and uncultured” (Diogenis Laertios X, 7-8). While for his teacher: “Epicurus himself says in his epistles on Nausiphanes: “those things caused him to be beside himself, to the point that he insulted me, calling me ‘professor’.” He also called him a squid, illiterate, a fraud and lecherer.” (Diogenis Laertios, X, 7-8).

-“He (Aristotle) in general was – according to Epicurus – the most harmful opponent for the saving of the lives of those who were preparing themselves –like athletes- for the arena of politics” (Philodemos Περί ρητορικής, (Peri Rhetorikis – On rhetorics) 2, 58, 10-15).

-In one of his two writings against the Epicurians, the “Ει καλώς είρηται το λάθε βιώσας”, (If it is good to live a discreet life) (ch.1 (1128bc), Plutarch stresses that “just as those who, with an unbridled and insatiable ambition, decry any glory in others as though they are their rival lovers, in order to attain it themselves without any competition”, thus Epicurus, instead of “living in obscurity”, proclaimed the ‘discreet lifestyle’ so that the rest of the world would follow his motto, while he reaped glory and stayed out of obscurity – which he should have done,, if he had followed his own motto.

-Plutarch wrote four books against the Stoic philosophers, accusing them –among other things- that the things they dogmatized on were even more absurd than what the poets of ancient Greek mythology asserted.

-Kleanthis had commented that the Peripatetic (Ambulatory) philosophers underwent something similar to that of a lyre, which emits a pleasant sound, but is never able to hear itself. (Diogenis Laertios, VII, 173).

-The Platonic philosopher Arcesilaus had said “I am not moved by flattery”, while the Stoic philosopher Cleanthis replied “I am flattering you, by saying that you say one thing and do another”. (Diogenis Laertios, VII, 171).

-Arcesilaus likened the Epicurians and non-Epicurians to men and eunuchs respectively.(Diogenis Laertios, IV, 6).

-Plato accused the Sophists. Plato not once mentioned the name of Democritus (who had acquired a fame in 5^th century Athens similar to Plato’s today), because he despised him for his materialistic philosophy.

-Plato mockingly called the first of the Cynics –Antisthenes- “a belated in learning old man” (Σοφιστής, Sophistes 251b).

-Antisthenes respectively called Plato “conceited”: «Έσκωπτέ τε Πλάτωνα ως τετυφωμένον» (Diogenis Laertios, VI, 7).

-Plato had accused Aristotle for abandoning him: «Απέστη δε Πλάτωνος έτι περιόντος· ώστε φασίν εκείνον ειπείν, "Αριστοτέλης ημάς απελάκτισε καθαπερεί τα πωλάρια γεννηθέντα την μητέρα."» (He moved away while Plato was still nearby, which made them say “Aristotle pushed us away, like a new-born foal from its mother”) (Diogenis Laertios, V, 2).

-“Timon vituperated the Academics with the following words: The Academics’ insipid redundancies” (Diogenis Laertios, IV, 67).

-The philosopher Menedemus “snubbed the teachers of Plato’s and Xenocrates’ school” (Diogenis Laertios, II, 134).

-Diogenis the Cynic made fun of Plato and his philosophy. “Diogenis the Cynic called Euclid’s (not the mathematician) school ‘gall’, while Plato’s dissertation he called ‘waste’”. (Diogenis Laertios VI, 24, 26, 40, 53).

-Theopompos in his work Ηδυχάρη (Edichare) says: “There is nothing that is truly one, since even the number two is barely one, as Plato says”. (Diogenis Laertios, III, 26).

-Timon, in his play on words with Plato’s name, had said: «ως ανέπλασσε Πλάτων πεπλασμένα θαύματα ειδώς»). (just as Plato used to recreate odd banalities) (Diogenis Laertios, III, 26).

-Alexis in his work Αγκυλιώνα (Angylion) writes: “You speak of things you don’t know of. Go and run alongside Plato, and you will learn everything about soap and onions” (Diogenis Laertios, III, 27).

-Amphis in his work Δεξιδημίδη (Deximedes) writes: “O Plato, the only thing that you know is how to frown, knitting your brow modestly, like a snail.” (Diogenis Laertios, III, 28).

-Alexis in his work Παράσιτο (Parasitos) writes: “Rather than ranting alone with Plato”. He is also mocked by Anaxilas in his work Βοτρυλίων (Votrylion), Κίρκη (Circe) and Πλούσιες (Plousies). (Diogenis Laertios, III, 28).

-Loukianos derided Aristotle („the most obscene of all flatterers”) in his work Νεκρικοί διάλογοι Διογένους και Αλεξάνδρου (Dialogues of the Dead: Diogenes and Alexander), he also derided Empedocles (pompous, obtuse) in the (Dialogues of the Dead: Menippos and Aeakos), Plato („experienced in the art of flattering tyrants“), in his (Dialogues of the Dead: Menippos and Aeakos), and Socrates (sophist, pseudo-brave) in the (Dialogues of the Dead: Menippos and Cerberus).

-Julian recommended the reading of Pythagoras, of Plato, of Aristotle and the Stoic philosophers, but not the works of Pyrrhon (Sceptic philosopher) and Epicurus (Epistle to Arsakios). He also wrote a treatise against the Cynics. Albeit not a Cynic himself, he nevertheless gave advice to a Cynic on how to be a Cynic.

-The Neo-Platonic, Paganist philosopher Iamblichos who was a student of Porphyrios and who greatly influenced the thinking of Julian, in his work “Αβάμμωνος διδασκάλου προς την "Πορφυρίου προς Ανεβώ επιστολήν αποκρίσεις και των εν αυτή απορημάτων λύσεις” (Abammon the tutor’s Responses and solutions to the epistle of Porphysrios to Anebo) characterizes the Greeks immature by nature, with no esoteric world, incapable of discovering the truth by themselves; he accuses them of distorting with their fastidiousness all the things that they learnt from other peoples (Ιστορία του Ελληνικού Έθνους, History of the Hellenic Nation – published by Ekdotiki Athinon S.A., vol.6, page 513). Why would he say something like that, given that he was a Paganist?

-Philosophers did not limit themselves to insulting each other; Plato had actually attempted to burn Democritus’ books, but didn’t get too far, not because he changed his mind and abandoned the mentality of an ancient Greek Inquisitor, but because they convinced him that no matter how many books he burnt, they were already in the possession of many other people (Diogenis Laertios IX, 40: «Πλάτωνα θελήσαι συμφλέξαι τα Δημοκρίτου συγγράμματα, οπόσα εδυνήθη συναγαγείν, Αμύκλαν δε και Κλεινίαν τούς Πυθαγορικούς κωλύσαι αυτόν, ως ουδέν όφελος· παρά πολλοίς γαρ είναι ήδη τα βιβλία»). (Plato, having wished to burn the writings of Democritus, as many as he could collect, was hindered by the Pythagorians Amyclas and Kleinias, who convinced him that it would be of no use, as those writings were already possessed by many)

The “Sin” of Humility

by Thomas Fleming October 9th, 2009

Humility is the great moral skandalon (stumbing block) of Christianity, in much the same way that Christ—the God who became man, suffered, and died a humiliating death—was the skandalon to the Jews. Thus it is a little amusing to read the complaints of so many uneducated neopagans—most of them anti-Semites—against Christian humility. Their reaction is exactly that of the well-bred Jew of Jesus’ time.

The virtue of humility is praised throughout the New Testament. The texts of the Gospels are studded with admonitions, parables, and tales, all designed to inculcate this teaching: the banquet at which we are not to take a seat of honor, the Pharisee who thanked God he was not like other men, Christ’s washing the feet of his disciples, the Roman centurion, used to giving orders, who thought himself so unworthy that it was not fitting that the Lord should enter his house. St. Paul’s epistles constantly warn against getting puffed up or people who think they are something—a marvelous phrase in Greek, where the word for something is the monosyllabic unaccented word ti.

The natural man, the old Adam—whether Christened or not—rebels against humility. What, am I supposed to put myself on par with a Third World savage or an effeminate neopagan? In one sense, yes. None of us is perfect as Our Lord would have us perfect. We all fall short, not just of the glory of God but of the human glory we were created to enjoy. If we wish God to forgive our failings, then we must not be too proud to forgive the failings of others: “Forgive us our debts/trespasses, as we forgive our debtors/those who trespass against us.”

This is, admittedly, a different moral universe from what is portrayed in most pagan literature, Homeric (though not Vergilian) epic in particular. Homer’s heroes are passionate and self-willed men, worthy even of some respect from the vastly more powerful gods. Yet this contrast is somewhat misguided, as it is sometimes stated, if it is intended to be a contrast of civilizations. In the first place, Homer is rather like the Old Testament of the Greeks, and the code of the Homeric warrior—”always do the best”—undergoes a good deal of refinement at the hands of poets and philosophers. Euripides and Menander, no less than Aristotle and Epictetus, would have had a good deal to say about some of the behavior of Homeric heroes—the lying of Odysseus, for example, the cruelty to captives.

But even within the context of Homer, there is a moral code that condemns excessive self-assertion. The quarrel between the equally arrogant Agamemnon and Achilles, with which the Iliad begins, is not a good thing for the army that suffers untold casualties as a result. Agamemnon, at least, comes to his senses, but Achilles is implacable, as his friend and comrade Ajax points out in the Embassy scene. In fact, he has become a monster, who hopes that the Greeks and Trojans will kill each other and leave only himself and Patroclus to sack Troy. Even the gods are afraid to interrupt his bestial mistreatment of Hector’s corpse.

Achilles temperament is characterized by hybris, an overweening self-confidence and self-importance that treats social equals with contempt. This is the great sin of Greek popular morality, the subject of countless tragedies. A man who behaved this way on the streets of Athens—slapping a citizen or pushing him—might be taken to court for hybris, as Demosthenes did to an enemy.

For Aristotle, who is one of the best guides to Greek folk wisdom, the proper attitude is a mean between self-effacing meekness and strutting arrogance. His student Theophrastus brilliantly portrays what the Greeks disliked in this quality of arrogance in his character sketches of men who are obnoxious, ambitious in petty matters, ungenerous, arrogant, and oligarchic, that is, domineering. Such types are simply not gentlemanly, what the Athenians called kalos kai agathos, fair and brave.

Later schools of philosophy went further in the direction of Christianity. The great Neoplatonist Plotinus sometimes sounds like a Christian saint, in his understanding and forbearance. It is arrogance—the arrogance of the Gnostics—that gets him angry. The Epicureans, who strove for untroubled peace of mind, avoided self-assertion, while the Stoics, whose morality so often anticipates Christianity, reminded themselves and their listeners and readers of how unimportant even the most lofty and powerful men are. The Stoic code is seen to best advantage in the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who did his duty completely and spent most of his adult life in the field against the savage Germans, when he would have vastly preferred to be at home with his books. This superb man, nonetheless, tells himself over and over both to be worthy of his family and his job and not to let his position as divine ruler go to his head. The most nearly Christian Emperor was also a persecutor of Christians, whom he believed to be stubborn and arrogant.

There are differences, albeit not vast, between the highest pagan understanding of humility and the Christian teaching. For Plotinus, the Epicureans, and the Stoics, the point to humility is that it frees the mind from unimportant distractions, to gain wisdom and understanding, and to live a philosophical life. In this, they were perhaps a bit freakish by ordinary standards, and it was even more bizarre for ordinary Christians to practice the extraordinary virtues of the philosophers—the point that Justin Martyr makes in his apologia addressed to Marcus Aurelius. The Christian is humble out of his love and gratitude to his God and saviour whose virtues he wishes to emulate and with whom he wishes to spend eternity. Still, serious decent pagans and good Christians outwardly behaved in much the same way. The late 4th century aristocrat Paulinus of Nola, was a very saintly man but, even after his conversion, he also remained every inch a gentleman.

By the time of Constantine, as pagans and Christian moralities converged, the more obvious contrast was with the northern European barbarians. In the Greco-Roman view, Celts and Germans acted like children. Livy portrays the Celts as strutting and boasting and threatening great deeds before a battle, but when they are stoutly resisted by more disciplined Romans, they flee in disarray. Caesar, admittedly disingenuous, portrays Ariovistus the German as boastful, and this is a constant theme of ancient writers, There is, admittedly, an element of propaganda in this, but since the barbarian nations did not learn to read and write, it is their own fault if we only hear the Roman side of the story. The Germans were bigger and generally stronger than the Romans, but the civilized discipline of the Romans prevailed against the German berserkers time after time. Even in the sixth century, Justinian’s armies eliminated the Gothic Kingdom of Italy. When the Goths surrendered to Belisarius at Ravenna, they apologized to their women, claiming that the vastly larger Roman army was made up of huge warriors. When the the small army of Eastern runts marched into the city, the women reviled their brave German husbands, brothers, and sons.

The Germans are a great nation, and they have made very important contributions to our common civilization. Some of their accomplishments must be due to their robust vigor and native talents, but they did not learn to put those talents to good use until they were civilized by the Roman Church and Roman civilization. Even crazy Nietzsche, a Lutheran pastor’s son whose hatred of Catholicism knew no bounds, confessed that Luther had unleashed the Germans from classical civilization and given them license to return to their native swinishness. This is much too harsh, both on Luther and on the Germans, but that was the opinion of the leading guru of neopaganism.

As Christian moral theology was developed, it had to take account of the nuances of situations–and of our barbarian ancestors’ propensities to self-love and arrogance. St. Thomas, in his discussion of humility in the Summa Theologiae, takes up the argument that humility is not a virtue because it is not recognized as such by Aristotle. He points out that Aristotle’s account of the virtues has to do with civic life, which concerns man’s subordination to man, while Christian humility is the subordination of man to God. This is a brilliant and concise way of making an important statement. Insofar as Christians hold important social or public positions, whether as Pope or Emperor or as officer or father, they have a duty to maintain a position that we have a duty to respect. What could be more lordly than the procession of Pope and cardinals in St. Peter’s, and yet those same princes of the Church are supposed to humble themselves to their confessors. A father may not think himself “better” than his sons, but he is in a position of authority and must insist upon his sons’ respecting that authority. In this way, it is entirely possible to maintain a complex hierarchy—and no hierarchy was more complex than what developed, East and West, in the Christian Roman Empire—while celebrating humility as one of the main virtues of Christian life.

St. Alphonsus has a fine treatment of superbia (pride) in Book V of his Theologia Moralis. Here is a crude summation of some of what he says, Alphonsus defines pride as “an inordinate (that is disproportionate) appetite for one’s own preeminence (excellentia)” of such a sort as does not wish to be subject either to God or to one’s human superiors. Pride is not complete so long as it does not reject property authority, divine or human. HeSD distinguishes between venial and mortal acts of pride. Mortal sins include expressions of pride aimed at harming our fellow men or are directed against the love of God. (Neopagans take care!) . Pride is a mortal sin when someone laps up praise for something that is a mortal sin. When someone introduces new customs or fashions into a commonwealth, foreseeing that by his example he would be imposing a moral necessity on others that they make expenditures beyond their ability and later would be unable to feed themselves or satisfy their creditors, he sins gravely, but it is only a venial sin if someone dresses extravagantly out of mere lightwittedness. It is also a sin to pretend, out of pride, to vices that one does not actually practice (such as the neopagan metrosexuals who claim to be playboys.)

Humility remains a stumbling block for even the most virtuous of pagans, but it is by no means an insurpassable obstacle to a pagan appreciation of Christian civilization. Even Gibbon admired great Christians like the last Constantine or Pope Leo IV, who defended Rome against the Saracens. What I suspect is really going on, when young neopagans—mostly urban metrosexuals—attack Christian humility is that that they are yearning to escape from their position as peripheral males and think that in the Wagnerian myths that can embrace a manhood they will never attain. In any event, their attack on Christian humility is as ill-informed as it is malicious, and there is a serious question whether it is useful to do any business with people who, without taking the trouble to learn anything, insist on reviling the religion of their supposed allies

More on Neo-Paganism

User Adamantios speaks again on the Neo-Pagan trend

"Message From A Hellenic Nationalist Comrade On Golden Dawn and Neo-Paganism" post on Hellenic Nationalist Blog


"Anyone who supports -- or even tolerates -- Neo-Paganism is not a nationalist or could ever be as long as they hold such traitorous beliefs.

Neo-Paganism is a Western import. It's roots trace directly to the Worldwide Theosophical Society that was established by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky in 1875 in the United States. All Neo-Pagan movements and factions, to one extent or another, are ideologically based on this organization's principles and, all of them, without exception, originate from the creation of this organization. Although there are a few highly confused individuals (mostly in the diaspora) who are Neo-Pagan and believe themselves to be "nationalists", the extreme majority of Neo-Pagans are New Age spiritualists who advance egalitarianism, promiscuity, secularism, democracy, and other anathemas. The commonality between Neo-Pagans of the first variety and the second is that they both lack all comprehension of ancient Hellenic civilization. Indeed, many times they have never read a single piece of ancient Greek literature (but still speak about ancient Greek philosophers as if they were experts on the matter) or, if in the diaspora, can not even speak demotic Greek (let alone any form of ancient Greek).

Regarding paganism in ancient Greece, it is not strange at all that every great Hellene from that period highly criticized and/or rejected that dark and barbaric religion in one form or another. Such individuals include (but are not limited to): Xenophon the Kolofonios, Heraclitus, Anaximandros, Ebedocles, Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Mitrodoros, Protagoras, Herodotus, Aristodimos, Dimosthenes, Pindar, Prodikos, Antisthenes, Theofrastos, Euripides, Socrates, Plato, the Stoics, Karniades, Theodoros the Kyrinaios, Leukippos, Dimocritus, Epicouros, the Sophists, the Cynics, St. Julian the Philospher and Martyr, and Klimis the Alexandrean. It's also worth mentioning that ancient paganism was exceedingly degenerate. Homoeroticism, sexual orgies, pedophilia, temple prostitution, and even bestiality were widespread in Greece precisely because these things were promoted as a result of the demented actions of the mythical gods. This is why the greatest Hellenes came into conflict with the religion (and, as a result, were often exiled, sentenced to death, or murdered by pagan fanatics).

Orthodoxy, on the other hand, is an ethical, civilized religion (and which ironically has more in common with Socratic/Platonic philosophy than paganism ever did). It is an integral part of Hellenism, rooted in our culture, and is inseparatable from Hellenic Civilization. Thus, it's rejection constitutes both a cultural and historical rejection of Hellenism. And that is essentially what treason is. Furthermore, Orthodoxy -- as proven by countless miracles (including the Holy Fire miracle that occurs every single year) is the One True Faith. Anyone who would reject the Truth of Orthodoxy for any other religious, political, or philosophical belief is, along with being a traitor to Hellenism, a fool."

On Neo-Paganism & Helleno-Christian traditions

User Adamantios @ Serbhellenic Forums

I agree that our ancestors were not barbarians. That said, just as today some Greeks are indeed barbarians (e.g. those that engage in savage acts like abortion, those that have accepted barbaric Western belief systems, etc.), it goes to reason that there existed barbaric Greeks in ancient times as well. It is absurd to believe that every ancient Greek was enlightened (compared to other peoples), even if that was a popular belief amongst many. Savagery and barbarism exists in all peoples, in all eras. It's only a matter of how pronounced that barbarism is.

Although, again, I would not say that our ancestors were barbarians, as that implies that all of them were, I would say that many indeed were. If you deeply examine ancient Greek history, you'll find a lot of things that were very wrong with society: abortion and infanticide were very widespread, homosexuality (especially between man and boy) was accepted and somewhat popular, and people were very superstitious due to the dark religion of paganism. The thing that differentiates ancient Greeks from other pagan peoples is that, alongside with the typical barbaric practices associated with paganism, we had very enlightened scientists, mathematicians, physicians, poets, philosophers, and other thinkers. It is they and not the common Greek that gave ancient Greece its sophistication and distinction from barbarians; without these people, ancient Greece would have been no different from any other ancient pagan society. It is no surprise then that many of these enlightened ancient Greek individuals had rejected the pagan gods in one way or another -- mainly because the gods (according to mythological narratives), through their petty and cruel actions towards one another and towards humankind, gave a bad example for people to follow.

User Snake Logan says:

Keep in mind that Hellenic Polytheism is a home grown religion unlike Christianity.

This statement demonstrates a lack of understanding of both Greek neo-paganism and of Christianity. Greek neo-paganism, like all neo-paganisms, is a Western import and its roots trace directly to the Worldwide Theosophical Society that was established by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky in 1875 in the United States. All neo-pagan movements and factions, to one extent or another, are ideologically based on this organization's principles and, all of them, without exception, originate from the creation of this organization.

Although there are numerous types of neo-pagans in Greece, most are one of two things: disillusioned leftists who have accepted a New Age interpretation of ancient Greek paganism or misguided pseudo-nationalist reactionaries who, above all, hate Jews and, consequently, have convinced themselves that Christianity is a "Jewish heresy" and that by becoming neo-pagans that they are "super-Greeks". Both groups, despite their differences, have something in common. They know as much about Hellenism as they do about Christianity: in other words, nothing at all.

As for Christianity, both theologians and secular historians agree that Hellenism played a major role in its development:

[1] "Primitive Christianity was Greek in form and character, Greek from first to last, Greek in all its forms of dogma, worship and policy". --A. Cleveland Coxe

[2] "The task of our time, in the Orthodox world, is to rebuild the Christian-Hellenic culture, not out of the relics and memories of the past, but out of the perennial spirit of our Church, in which the values of culture were truly christened. Let us be more Hellenic in order that we may be truly Christian". --Georges Florovsky

[3] "The Greek Church reminds us of the time when the tongue, not of Rome, but of Greece, was the sacred language of Christendom. It was a striking remark of the Emperor Napoleon that the introduction of Christianity itself was, in a certain sense, the triumph of Greece over Rome; the last and most signal instance of the maxim of Horace, Graecia capla ferum victorem cepit (captive Greece took its rude captor captive)". --Arthur P. Stanley

[4] "God spoke his revelation in the world of the Greek spirit and the Roman imperium and the Church guards this truth framed in the Greek speech of her sacred Book... The Church will continue to speak Greek even if... Hellas descend into the abyss of utter oblivion". --Hugo Rahner

Although contemporary Westerners (who have in modern times Judaized their false forms of Christianity) often speak of a "Judeo-Christian tradition", such a thing has never existed in genuine Christianity (which is only represented by Orthodoxy). Rather, what has existed is a Helleno-Christian tradition.