Information of Apostolic Constitutions ? A research topic

If anyone has an angle on this, or preferable something to recommend I look into, please tell me.

So over time, I've discovered SOME accusations of heresy are not always well founded, where one verse, or one work, is used to determine the entire theology of an ancient sect. Clearly this is not enough information. The wikipedia article claims the apostolic constitutions is a 4th century document, and that the "best manuscripts" have "Arian leanings". I'm skeptical of this for multiple reasons. For one, Monophysitism/Miaphasytism is not heretical, it merely describes the natures of Christ a bit differently. In essence it's the same. That's an example of a "heresy" turning out not to be one. Now Arianism is definitely heresy, but I'd like to see for myself if there's any foundation of "Arian" leanings in the apostolic constitutions. I could have sworn that the document is 2nd century, and Arianism wasn't a thing then anyway. That was the heyday of Gnostic heresy. if it is 4th century, it makes it more credible. Secondly, Arianism largely gained popularity among Germans, not in the middle east. This leads me to further skepticism toward the claim.

Edit:

sorry i forgot to put it that way.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

DMB

So over time, I've discovered accusations of heresy are not always well founded

Really? When people kill for Christ (and they did, with great gusto), 'heresy' is as well founded as can be. Maybe you're talking 'logic'.

Secondly, it's not wise to assume a major writer (eg Arianism, Marcion, etc) is the beginning. More often it's the end-point. The ideas they expressed can be seen considerably earlier ... most in 2nd Temple writings. They weren't 'new ground'.

Your 2nd century memory is likely Didache?

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1076394#Comment_1076394

No no. I thought I had EDITED that to correct it! I mean SOME accusations of heresy aren't well founded, sometimes by modern day researchers, or by contemporary church writers. Didache I think is 1st century.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1076395#Comment_1076395

Does this help?

[quote]

1. Apostolic Constitutions
This composition reworks and weaves together several older sources, chief of which are the third–century church order known as the Didascalia Apostolorum (forming books 1–6 of the work), the Didache (in book 7), and the Apostolic Tradition (in book 8). It is generally agreed that it was written in Syria, and probably in Antioch, between 375 and 380. It is unlikely to be much earlier than that, because it includes a reference to the feast of Christmas, which was then only just beginning to make an appearance in Eastern churches, and it is unlikely to be much later, because its doctrine of the Holy Spirit is incompatible with the definition agreed at the Council of Constantinople in 381. The identity and theological position of the compiler, on the other hand, have been long debated. Indeed, the orthodoxy of the document became suspect at an early date, and it was thought by the Trullan Synod (691–692) that heretics must have falsified the original apostolic work. Photius, the patriarch of Constantinople (d. 891), criticized the whole compilation for its Arianism, although subsequent opinion was divided over this question.
Among modern scholars, Funk in his 1905 edition of the text (which has generally been treated as definitive) tended to play down the heterodoxy of the work by preferring orthodox variant readings wherever possible and by claiming that any suspect formulae came from the compiler’s source and thus antedated the Arian controversy.66 Cuthbert H. Turner criticized Funk’s textual methods and argued strongly for an Arian compiler,67 and Bernard Capelle later demonstrated that the text of the Gloria in Excelsis found in the Apostolic Constitutions was not the original form of the hymn, as had been thought, but that the compiler had changed a hymn addressed to Christ into one addressed to the Father.68 Because of similarities of language with the longer recension of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, scholars have usually concluded that the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions, whatever his theological stance, was also the interpolator of these letters. The most recent contributions to the authorship debate are by Georg Wagner (who drew linguistic parallels with the writings of Eunomius),69 Dieter Hagedorn (who attributed the composition to an obscure bishop named Julian by a comparison of literary parallels),70 and Marcel Metzger, who built on Hagedorn’s suggestion and concluded that, although Julian’s commentary on Job is much more explicitly Arian than the more moderate subordinationism of the Apostolic Constitutions, this difference could be explained by the fact that the latter was a liturgical work and so drew on traditional material. Metzger did not think, however, that its compiler could be considered a strict Arian.71 He has also published a new edition of the text that makes use of a wider range of manuscripts and is free from the orthodox bias of Funk’s edition;72 our translation has been made from his Greek text

Paul F. Bradshaw, Maxwell E. Johnson, and L. Edward Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary, ed. Harold W. Attridge, Hermeneia—a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2002), 9–10.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1076431#Comment_1076431

It does help. So it seems a complete mess. We really don't know right?

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1076431#Comment_1076431

Don't yell at me here but i'm skimming the book. I had to sail the high seas to get it if you know what I mean. but some of this looks a lot like hair splitting to me. Subordinationism of function I'd say, isn't heresy, even thought I don't agree with it. Subordinationism of ontology is. Some of the earliest Church Fathers seems to have had a subordination of function, but certainly not ontology. This is very preliminary, but "child" suggesting subordination, may or may not actually be the original intent. But if it's only subordination of function, it's more or less in line with Tertullian.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1076436#Comment_1076436

We really don't know right?

Yup, you're a great forum addition where "We really don't know" is commonly the best answer. I'm glad you're satisfied with it.

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1076440#Comment_1076440

Heh......

Barnabas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1076440#Comment_1076440

So based on what i'm reading so far, I'm leaning toward it not having an arian source. The arabic manuscript has Trinitarian and language seemingly hostile to even subordination of function. I'm referencing page 114 according to the scan of the page on a pdf. Corresponding Latin does not exist, but Ethiopic (I assume Ge'ez) and Coptic does. Ethiopic uses extremely similar, explicitly language. The Coptic doesn't, but it has Tanitarian formulae in it.