AUDI. — A heretic, born in Mesopotamia, whom Theodoret describes as “Syrian by origin and language,” A. was, in the 4th century, archdeacon of the Church of Edessa. In the time of Constantine he came into conflict with the Church because he refused to accept the paschal computation prescribed by the Council of Nicaea. A. clung to the ancient custom of his country of celebrating Easter together with the Jews, basing this on an “apostolic diataxia,” that is, an old—now lost—recension of the Syriac Didascalia (v. Ed. Schwartz, Christliche und jüdische Ostertafeln, in Abhandlungen der kgl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Philologisch-Historische Klasse, new series, 8 [1905], p. 110). His exaggerated ascetic zeal increasingly estranged him from the true Church, to which he reproached usury and the lust of priests (Epiphanius, Panarion, 70, 1; Theodore bar Kōnaj, Book of Scholia, XI, p. 195). According to Theodoret (Hist. eccl., IV, 10, 4), however, these accusations were merely a pretext. Exiled to Scythia, he continued to act as a missionary among the Goths until the time of Athanaric, founding “monasteries” for anchorites.
The spread of the sect in the second half of the 4th century is noted by Epiphanius, who states that at his time the number of adherents was small. It is, however, incorrect to say that the Audians had nearly disappeared by about 375 (as G. Krüger maintains in A. Hauck, Realenc. für prot. Theol. u. Kirche, 3rd ed., II, p. 217, 30); the Life of Rabbūl demonstrates instead the continuity of the sect into the 5th century.
According to Epiphanius, A. would have been orthodox, although schismatic. The bold fanaticism of the Audiani did not allow common prayer with members of the Church. Apart from this, the only doctrine to reproach in A. would be his anthropomorphism, namely the thesis that the image of God in man is the human body (Gen. 1:26) and therefore God too would have a body (Epiphanius, 70, 2, 3; 70, 6, 1; cf. Theodore bar Kōnaj, op. cit., p. 195). This indulgent judgment of Epiphanius is explained by his struggle against Origen. According to St. Jerome (Contra Johann. Hieros., 11: PL 23, 364), Epiphanius, accused of anthropomorphic heresy, would have condemned their doctrine. Epiphanius’ evaluation influenced later authors. Even Philoxenus of Mabbūg (Epistle to the Monks) regards the Audiani as schismatics and not as heretics, but St. Ephrem’s judgment is harsher; Theodoret, then, considers A. a true heretic. In his view, the Audiani professed secret doctrines (Hist. eccl., loc. cit., pp. 228, 14) and taught, like the Manichees, that God had created neither fire nor darkness. Later tradition in the Syrian Church attributes to A. and his followers Gnostic doctrines (cf. the texts collected by H. C. Puech, Fragments de l'Apocalypse d'Allogène, in Mélanges Cumont, Brussels 1936; Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire orientales et slaves, IV, II, p. 935).
The question arises whether Gnosticism was introduced later into the sect or whether it was part of A.’s doctrine from the beginning. Puech is of the opinion that the introduction of non-canonical apocalyptic books among the Audiani, books also used by the Sethian Gnostics, such as the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Apocalypse of John, the Book (or Apocalypse) of the Strangers, the Book of Questions (perhaps by Mary? cf. Puech, op. cit., p. 951, n. 5), and the Acts of John, would have transformed A.’s schism into a true heresy (id., op. cit., p. 962). Our view, however, is that A.’s doctrine underwent no such transformation. His central anthropomorphic idea is related not only to Jewish exegesis of Gen. 1:26 (cf., on this, Aptovitzer, in Revue des études juives, 75 [1922], pp. 1 ff.), but—what is more important—also to the anthropomorphic doctrine of the Pseudo-Clementines (cf. Am. Struker, Die Gottesbeihildlichkeit des Menschen in der christl. Literatur der ersten zwei Jahrhunderte, Münster 1913, pp. 60 ff.), that is, to a Judeo-Christian speculation that had contacts with the Gnosticism of the aforementioned apocalyptic books.