There are always exceptions, but since in folkish heathenry the appeal to legitimacy is via blood and leadership, folkish heathens by and large have a very limited appetite for scholarship and the traditions they actually hearken back to are those of the 70s and 80s when McNallen, Murray, et al. were making pronouncements on what was valid and what wasn't. So they draw on Rydberg but not on other scholars . . . and they lose patience pretty soon with the minutiæ of reconstruction, because they think the established modern traditions have authority, and they are impatient with hairsplitting on what that tradition regards as non-essential. (An example I care about as a scholar and a heathen is the meaning of ergi.)

Not that it matters much because your focus here is on Hellenism, and as you point out both divisions are present there as they are in heathenry, it's just the "folkish-universalist" one goes almost unnoticed.

Frith,
M