HELLENISTIC SYNAGOGAL PRAYERS in the Apostolic Constitutions (100 - 380 AD) Questions

[rakovsky]

The Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers are a set of prayers in Books 7-8 of the 4th century Apostolic Constitutions that Christians adapted from synagogue prayers.

The Prayers start on p. 677 in Charlesworth's The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: https://books.google.com/books?id=RU77ekrD_vIC
The Apostolic Constitutions Vol 7, Chapter 26 and Chapter 33 are the first two of these Prayers. Here is vol. 7 of the Apostolic Constitutions: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07157.htm

Scholars tend to think that the Apostolic Constitutions were written in Syria. Wikipedia's entry on the Apostolic Constitutions notes its importance for liturgical traditions:

The Apostolic Constitutions is an important source for the history of the liturgy in the Antiochene rite. It contains an outline of an anaphora in book two, a full anaphora in book seven (which is an expansion of the one found in the Didache), and the complete Liturgy of the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, which is the oldest known form that can be described as a complete divine liturgy.

Pieter Van Der Horst explains how the prayers appear taken from Judaism:

In AC 7:33-38 we find six prayers in Greek that are now generally regarded as christianized versions of six originally Jewish prayer texts, namely, the first six of the Seven Benedictions for the Sabbath morning service. The existence of these benedictions is attested already in the earliest rabbinic literature (Mishnah, Rosh ha-Shana 4.5; early third century CE) and they consist of the first three and the last three benedictions of the Shemoneh Esreh (the Eighteen [Benedictions]), also called the Tefillah (= the Prayer par excellence), plus a middle benediction for the sanctification of the day.
...
To give just one clear instance: the second prayer, in AC 7:34, ends with a clause in which God is called “the reviver of the dead” (ho zôopoios tôn nekrôn) just as the corresponding Hebrew benediction (also the second one, Gevuroth) ends with praise of God as “the reviver of the dead” (mechayyeh ha-metim). These striking verbal similarities and equivalents, coming as they do in a prayer collection and appearing for the most part in their proper order, constitute a convincing corpus of evidence to suggest that AC 7.33–38 is a Greek version of the Hebrew Seven Benedictions (Fiensy 1985: 134). It is unknown when the Greek translation and Christian revision of these benedictions was undertaken, but according to most scholars that must have taken place between 150 and 350 CE, most probably in the third century CE.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8018.shtml

(Question 1) Are the Apostolic Constitutions Arian, and does this apply to the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers in them?
Wikipedia notes:

The author is unknown, even if since James Ussher it was considered to be the same author of the letters of Pseudo-Ignatius, perhaps the 4th-century Eunomian bishop Julian of Cilicia.
The best manuscript[5] has Arian leanings, which are not found in other manuscripts because this material would have been censured as heretical.[

The Catholic Encyclopedia describes the author this way:

The strikingly characteristic style of the many interpolations in the Apostolic Constitutions makes it evident that the compilation, including the "Apostolic Canons", is the work of one individual... As early as the middle of the seventeenth century, Archbishop Ussher, recognizing the similarity of the theological thought, the peculiar use of Scripture, and the strongly marked literary characteristics in the Apostolic Constitutions and in both the interpolations of the seven epistles of Ignatius and the six spurious epistles attributed to the Bishop of Antioch, suggested the identification of the Pseudo-Clement [ie. the author of this work] with the Pseudo-Ignatius[who authored the Arian forged epistles of Ignatius]...

That he was not rigidly orthodox—;for he uses the language of Subordinationalism—is also evident; yet he was not an extreme Arian. But whether he was an Apollinarian, as Dr. Funk would infer from his insistence in denying the human soul of Our Lord, or a Semi-Arian, or even a well-meaning Nicæan whose language reflects the unsettled views held by not a few of his misguided contemporaries, cannot be determined. For, whatever his theological views were, he does not seem to be a partisan or the champion of any sect...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01636a.htm

The Biblical Training website summarizes the Apostolic Constitutions like this:

Eight books on church pastoral and liturgical practice, they are attributed to Clement of Rome, but were compiled by an Eastern Arian in the late fourth century. Rejected because of heretical influence by the Trullan Council in 692, they had little regulative influence on the Greek Church, although excerpts are found in Eastern collections of canon law. Material from earlier works such as the Didascalia (early third century) and the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (c.200-220) is taken over and brought up to date.

https://www.biblicaltraining.org/librar ... stitutions

The Orthodox Encyclopedia says that the author uses some fully Orthodox formulas about the second person of the Trinity, such as: "Only-begotten and born before all creatures", "We confess Christ not as a simple man, but as God the Word and as a man".
The Orthodox Encyclopedia also says:

But the compiler of the Apo.Const. doesn't use the Nicean terminology ("consubstantial") and sometimes runs to expressions, close to Arianism (The Father begets the Son 'by goodwill' (eudokia); 'With will and power and goodness'); in describing the image of the Incarnation of God the Word, elements are considered of the heresy of Apollinarianism ('in the latter days descending from the heavens and taking flesh and being born from the Virgin Mary'; 'God the Word underwent the Cross'); Elements of subordinationism are contained in the christology and pneumatology of the Apostolic Constitutions; 'God the Word, serving God and His Own Father in the working of everything';

http://www.pravenc.ru/text/75742.html

(Question 2) What do you think about the distinction that van der Horst claims exists between Biblical Jewish vs. greek and Christian ideas of God's goodness?
In commenting on the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, Van der Horst writes:

In §1, it is stated that God ‘is good by nature.’ God’s goodness is mentioned frequently in the Bible and often in Jewish prayers (Daniel 3:89 LXX; Psalms of Solomon 5.2; Prayer of Manasseh 11). But there it is not an inherent or essential quality of God; evil, too, may come from God. That it is God’s very nature (physis) to be good is, however, a typically Greek idea. A belief in the inherent goodness of god or the gods was widely shared by the Greek philosophers; see, e.g., Plato, Republic 379b1, Timaeus 29e1-2. This Greek idea was also adopted by Jewish and Christian philosophers such as Philo, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, but the rabbis and other Jews retained the biblical idea that both good and evil come from God’s hand.

It seems to me that Christian theology would agree that God is ultimately good, and that both good and bad/evil come from God too, as he is the ultimate origin.
I don't take Isaiah 45:7 to mean that God creates evil per se, but that he does create calamities. The verse goes (New International Version): "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things."

(Question 3) Does the Orthodox practice of having assistants with circular angel fans with long staffs on either side of their bishop or priest come from, or is recorded in, the following passage in Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer 12?:

When this is done, let the deacons bring the gifts to the bishop at the altar; and let the presbyters stand on his right hand, and on his left, as disciples stand before their Master. But let two of the deacons, on each side of the altar, hold a fan, made up of thin membranes, or of the feathers of the peacock, or of fine cloth, and let them silently drive away the small animals that fly about, that they may not come near to the cups. (Apost. Const. 12:)

(Question 4) Isn't Wisdom / Sophia considered in Orthodox Christian tradition to be a reference to the Holy Spirit?
Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer 12 says:

And You have not only created the world itself, but hast also made man for a citizen of the world, exhibiting him as the ornament of the world; for You said to Your Wisdom: "Let us make man according to our image, and according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowls of the heaven." [Genesis 1:26]

Does this passage reflect the meaning of the use of the plural by God when creating the world, since God speaks His Wisdom using the pronouns "us" and "our"?
That is, Wisdom is one of the Three persons that compose God Himself, Wisdom belongs to God, God is making Man in God's own image, and by saying "us" and "our", God implies that Wisdom is a person too?

(Question 5) Are the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers correct that God rejected Cain's sacrifice because he was an abhorred wretch?
In the story of Cain and Abel, Cain killed Abel out of jealousy because God rejected Cain's sacrifice. The Synagogal Prayers imply that God rejected the sacrifice because Cain was a wretch. But this sounds anachronistic, as I don't see anything in the story of Cain and Abel showing that Cain was a wretch before he killed his brother.
The story of Cain and Abel is in Genesis 4:2-8:

2. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
3. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
4. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
5. But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
6. And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
7. If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
8. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

The Russian theologian Lopuhin notes that Paul (Heb.11:4) says that Abel's sacrifice was fuller than the sacrifice of Cain,

ie. more responded to the main idea of sacrifice, since it was penetrated with a live faith, under which, more than all, was understood faith in the promised Messiah. THe sacrifice of Cain, to the contrary, carried in himself the spirit of pride, vainglory, high-handedness, and outward religiousity, creating a fully understandable barrier to its success. Because, judging by the context, the differing success of these sacrifices became known to their performers, then doubtlessly, the abovementioned divine relation to them was expressed by Cain with an obvious, outward sign. [eg. a heavenly fire that took the sacrifice.]

Paul writes in Hebrews 11:4 that Abel's offering was "by faith":

“By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he had witness borne to him that he was righteous, God bearing witness in respect of his gifts: and through it he being dead yet speaketh” (11:4).

Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer 12 distinguishes the brothers' sacrifices this way:

And while You accepted of the sacrifice of Abel [Genesis iv] as of an holy person, You rejected the gift of Cain, the murderer of his brother, as of an abhorred wretch.

Peter Galling in the Answers in Genesis website suggests that Cain might not have legitimately known ahead of time how to make the right sacrifice, but that his reaction to the failure of his sacrifice showed that he had a wretched personality:

It could have been that God hadn’t given specific instructions for sacrifices, and thus that Cain legitimately didn’t realize his offering was inferior in type or quality.[GALLING'S NOTE: It is possible to do the wrong thing with the right attitude.] But if so, when God convicted him, Cain was defiant. The Bible says
“And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. So the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it’” (Genesis 4:5b–7).
God provided a “way out,” but Cain, in his pride and stubbornness, allowed sin to rule over him—ultimately driving him to commit the first murder. He (as we all) are responsible for our response to be repentant when being confronted with our wrongdoing. Cain was anything but repentant. He wanted to make the rules, and he didn’t want to change his ways.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-char ... -offering/

(Question 6) What does the "positive law" refer to in Prayer 12 below?

For You are truly holy, and most holy, the highest and most highly exalted for ever. Holy also is Your only begotten Son our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, who in all things ministered to His God and Father, both in Your various creation and Your suitable providence, and has not overlooked lost mankind. But after the law of nature, after the exhortations in the positive law, after the prophetical reproofs and the government of the angels, when men had perverted both the positive law and that of nature, and had cast out of their mind the memory of the flood, the burning of Sodom, the plagues of the Egyptians, and the slaughters of the inhabitant of Palestine, and being just ready to perish universally after an unparalleled manner, He was pleased by Your good will to become man...

Philip Schaff's edition has:

For Thou art truly holy, and most holy, the highest and most highly exalted for ever. Holy also is Thy only begotten Son our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, who in all things ministered to His God and Father, both in Thy various creation and Thy suitable providence, and has not overlooked lost mankind. But after the law of nature, after the exhortations in the positive law, after the prophetical reproofs and the government of the angels, when men had perverted both the positive law and that of nature, and had cast out of their mind the memory of the flood, the burning of Sodom, the plagues of the Egyptians, and the slaughters of the inhabitant of Palestine, and being just ready to perish universally after an unparalleled manner, He was pleased by Thy good will to become man, who was man’s Creator...

Richard Cresswell's translation goes:

And Holy is also thine Only-Begotten Son, our Lord and God Jesus Christ, who in all things, both in manifold creation, and in commensurate providence, ministering unto thee his God and Father, did not overlook the lost race of men, but, after the natural law, after the legal ordinance, after the prophetic warnings, after the tutelage of angels, when men had corrupted both the positive and natural law, and had cast out of their recollection the deluge and the conflagration [of Sodom]...

My crude reading of the Russian translation (http://yakov.works/acts/04/2/constit_apost.htm) is that it says:

but after the natural law, after the legal exhortation, after the prophetic denunciations and petitions of angels, when they corrupted with what was placed* and the natural law and from memory they rejected the flood, the Sodomite burning...

*not "the positive law"

I didn't come across the Greek text.

Wikiquote defines positive law this way: "Positive law (Latin: lex posita) is the term generally used to describe man-made laws which bestow specific privileges upon, or remove them from, an individual or group." (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Positive_law)
Thomas Aquinas in the medieval period discussed the "positive law", but I am not aware of early Christian writers using this term.

(Question 7) Is the Synagogal Prayer's description of the Last Supper's cup holding both wine and water a Biblical concept or one that arose long after apostolic times?
Here is how Chapter 12 in the Apostolic Constitutions describes this part of the Last Supper:

In like manner also "He took the cup," and mixed it of wine and water, and sanctified it, and delivered it to them, saying: "Drink all of this; for this is my blood which is shed for many, for the remission of sins: do this in remembrance of me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do show forth my death until I come."

In the Orthodox Church, the Eucharistic chalice is prepared using both wine and hot water.

(Question 8: SEE BELOW) What do you think of the claim in Synagogal Prayer 16 that Elijah did not die?
In the Old Testament, God gave Elijah a chariot that carried him into the sky. But I think that this Biblical story did not actually imply that Elijah spent the rest of his life in heaven and avoided death, because a later Biblical passage described Elijah being in another part of Israel. It seems rather that while the chariot carried Elijah into the sky, he didn't stay up there for the rest of his life.
The Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries makes the following argument against Elijah remaining in heaven:

“…10. So the Edomites revolted from under the hand of Judah to this day. The same time [also] did Libnah revolt from under his hand; because he had forsaken the LORD God of his fathers.
11. Moreover, he made high places in the mountains of Judah, and caused the inhabitants of Jerusalem to commit fornication, and compelled Judah to [do the same].
12. And there came a writing to him from Elijah the prophet, saying, Thus saith the LORD God of David thy father: Because thou hast not walked in the ways of Jehoshaphat thy father, nor in the ways of Asa king of Judah….” (Chronicles II, 21: 10-12)

In this passage, it says that Elijah sent a letter (writing) to the king of Judah, whom he reprimanded for his irreverent behavior. What is of special interest here though, is that chronologically, Elijah had sent this ‘writing’ AFTER his “ascent towards Heaven”. This undoubtedly verifies that Elijah remained on earth, from whence he sent the letter. Unless Heaven has a postal service?……….

Here is the passage in Prayer 16:

And let the bishop say: O You who is by nature immortal, and has no end of Your being, from whom every creature, whether immortal or mortal, is derived; who made man a rational creature, the citizen of this world, in his constitution mortal, and added the promise of a resurrection; who did not suffer Enoch and Elijah to taste of death:
(Apostolic Constitution vol. 8, chp. 41)

[DCHindley]

rakovsky,

From what I can gather from Wikipedia, the Apostolic Constitutions drew from the following five main sources:

• Books 1 to 6 are a free re-wording of the Didascalia Apostolorum
• Book 7 is partially based on the Didache.
• Book 8 is composed as follows:
o chapters 1-2 contain an extract of a lost treatise on the charismata
o chapters 3-46 are based on the Apostolic Tradition, greatly expanded, along with other material
o chapter 47 is known as the Canons of the Apostles and it had a wider circulation than the rest of the book.

Books 7 & 8, besides that which derives from the sources indicated above, are interspersed with 16 prayers that bear striking similarity to Jewish Synagogal prayers: Book 7.26.1-3 (1); 33.2-7 (2); 34.1-8 (3); 35.1-10 (4); 36.1-7 (5); 37.1-5 (6); 38.1-8 (7); 39.2-4 (8); Book 8.5.1-4 (9); 6.5-8 (10); 9.8f (11); 12.6-27 (12); 15.7-9 (13); 16.3 (14); 40.2-4 (15) and 41.2-5 (16).

Unfortunately, like all things Wiki, there is confusion. When I go to to the Wiki pages for the Didascalia Apostolorum and the Apostolic Canons, they are both said to derive from the Didache in some way. The Apostolic Tradition seems to have not survived in Greek, only Syriac and Ethiopic. What passes for the Ethiopic of the Didascalia may be a "Readers' Digest" version of the Apostolic Constitutions.

While I am attempting to see what I have in my library, I'm not sure what I may find. There is a withering array of versions which may not have the exact relationships the titles might suggest.

What drew your attention to this article in Charlesworth's collection?

DCH

[rakovsky]

Nice reply. To answer your last question, I am reading all the potential first century writings about Christianity, and the Early Writings website dates it to 100 AD or later, which is right at the end of the first century.

[rakovsky]

For Question 4:

(Question 4) Isn't Wisdom / Sophia considered in Orthodox Christian tradition to be a reference to the Holy Spirit?
Hellenistic Synagogal Prayer 12 says:

And You have not only created the world itself, but hast also made man for a citizen of the world, exhibiting him as the ornament of the world; for You said to Your Wisdom: "Let us make man according to our image, and according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowls of the heaven." [Genesis 1:26]

This brings up a curious issue, because I vaguely remember reading that God's Wisdom/Sophia could refer to either Christ/the Logos or to the Holy Spirit.
1 Corinthians 1:23-24 identifies it with Christ/Logos:

But we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

For Question 6: *What does Positive Law mean in the Apostolic Constitutions?), the Greek text can be found here: https://archive.org/details/didascaliae ... /page/n575
On the Greek Textkit forum, Jeidsath explained:

In the first link you give, the Greek is νομικὴ παραίνεσις. From the words, I would think that meant "legal exhortation." (And that's what you got independently for the Russian now that I scroll down.) ... Lampe quotes this section in his entry for παραίνεσις.
And in the Latin, it is rendered as "legalis admonitio"

So "Positive Law" in the Apostolic Constitutions refers to "legal exhortation".

For Question 8:

(Question 8) What do you think of the claim in Synagogal Prayer 16 that Elijah did not die?
In the Old Testament, God gave Elijah a chariot that carried him into the sky. But I think that this Biblical story did not actually imply that Elijah spent the rest of his life in heaven and avoided death, because a later Biblical passage described Elijah being in another part of Israel

I reviewed the Biblical texts and now I believe that it means that Elijah was taken up to stay in the heavens, not just transported across the sky. There are alot of reasons, like how Elijah left Elisha his robe, Elisha was crying (which he wouldn't if Elijah was just transported to another place in Israel), and Israelites looked for Elijah but couldn't find him. The story of a letter coming from Elijah is curious, but there are explanations compatible with him being in the heavens, like if an angel brought it, or if the story is referring to an event before Elijah's ascension.