AUDIO. — Founder. In Mesopotamia, according to the Syrian Theodore—of Syrian origin and speech—A. in the 4th century was archdeacon of the Church of Edessa. In the time of Constantine he came into conflict with the Church by refusing to accept the paschal computation prescribed by the Council of Nicaea. A. preserved the ancient custom of his country of celebrating Easter together with the Jews, basing this on an apostolic “diátaxis,” 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 Kônaj, Book of Scholia, XI, p. 195). According to Theodore (Hist. eccl., IV, 10, 4), however, these accusations were merely a pretext. Exiled in Scythia, he acted 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 attested by Epiphanius, who states that at his time the number of adherents was small. It is false, however, to say that the Audians had nearly disappeared by 375 (as G. Krüger, in A. Hauck, Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 3rd ed., II, p. 217, 30); the Life of Rabbula instead demonstrates the continuity of the sect into the 5th century.
According to Epiphanius, A. would have been orthodox, though schismatic. The fanaticism of the Audians did not permit 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 hence that God also has a body (Epiphanius, 70, 2, 3; 70, 6, 1; cf. Theodore bar Kônaj, op. cit., p. 195). This indulgent judgment of Epiphanius is explained by his struggle against Origen. According to St. Jerome (Contra Iohann. Hieros., 11: PL 23, 364), Epiphanius, accused of anthropomorphic heresy, would have condemned their doctrine. Epiphanius’ evaluation influenced later authors. Even Philoxenus of Mabbug (Epistle to the Monks) regards the Audians as schismatics and not as heretics, but St. Ephrem’s judgment is harsher; Theodore, moreover, considers A. a true heretic. In his view, the Audians 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 Syriac Church attributes Gnostic doctrines to A. and his followers (cf. the texts collected by H. C. Puech, Fragments de l’Apocalypse d’Allegóne, in Mélanges Cumont, Brussels 1936; Annuaire de l’Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire orientales et slaves, IV, 11, p. 935). The question arises whether Gnosticism was introduced later into the sect or whether it formed part of A.’s doctrine from the beginning. Puech is of the opinion that the introduction of non-canonical apocalyptic books among the Audians—books also used by the Gnostic Sethians, such as the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Apocalypse of John, the Book (or Apocalypse) of the Strangers, the Book of Questions (perhaps of Mary? cf. Puech, op. cit., p. 951, n. 5), and the Acts of John—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 connected not only with Jewish exegesis of Gen. 1:26 (v. , on this, Aptowitzer, in Revue des études juives, 75 [1922], pp. 1 ff), but—more importantly—also with the anthropomorphic doctrine of the Pseudo-Clementines (v. ARNON. Stulcken, Die Gottesebenbildlichkeit des Menschen in der christl. Literatur der ersten zwei Jahrhunderte, Münster 1913, pp. 60 ff), that is, with a Judeo-Christian speculation that had contacts with the Gnosticism of the cited apocalyptic books.