What is an Archon? I am. (2024)

The History of the Archons of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and their Investiture as Practiced in the United States

The usage of the title archon (ἄρχων) has roots deep within the history of the Roman Empire and even has particular usage in Ancient Greece as well. In general, titles and offices have played a tremendous role both in the civil and ecclesiastical spheres of Byzantine history, therefore, there have been grand ceremonies celebrating the investiture of individuals bestowed with these ranks. Even though the grandeur and importance of these titles have, for the most part, been diluted or lost over time, 1 they are still used to this day in some form and, despite some thoughts to the contrary, they are not totally devoid of meaning. Though the title archon is found in a multiplicity of places and also holds a variety of meanings, that which will concern our study is primarily how it is used in the Byzantine ecclesiastical setting. What was the role of the archon historically and how has this role been passed on to our own times? What did the service for the investiture consist of and how does this compare to the services of the investiture today at the Ecumenical Patriarchate and in the United States? Finally, and most importantly, how do we understand this title and this service as being connected with local communities for their edification and participation in ecclesiastical life? Throughout the course of this study, we will hope to answer these questions and others as we delve into the history, tradition, and liturgical reality surrounding the person of the archon and the investiture service as practiced at the Ecumenical Patriarchate and in the United States. First, however, it would be helpful to more clearly define the term archon and to see how this word has developed over the centuries even from the 1 By this, one means both that the grandeur of holding said offices is not as prodigious as it once was and that certain titles have been eliminated over time due to practical reasons.

Arche

Of Cosmocrators and Cosmic Gods: The Place of the Archons in De mysteriis

Daimonic Imagination: Uncanny Intelligence, 2014

In the second chapter of De mysteriis, Iamblichus (AD c.245–325) quotes his interlocutor, Porphyry (AD 234–c.305), as having asked: “what is the sign of the presence of a god, an angel, an archangel, a daemon, or of some archon or a soul”? With this query, Iamblichus launches into an exhaustive discourse detailing the epiphanies revealed by the aforementioned beings. When discussing the κρείττονα γενή (“superior classes”), Iamblichus had previously restricted his discourse to the four groups known to so many of the Platonists before him—θεοί (“gods”), δαίμονες (“daimones”), ἥρωες (“heroes”), and ψυχαὶ ἄχρατοι (“pure souls”). Yet, his response to Porphyry’s question includes αρχάγγελος (“archangels”), άγγελος (“angels”), and two varieties of ἄρκοντος (“archons”). Although angels were mentioned by Porphyry and several Middle Platonists, the inclusion of archons in Neoplatonic hierology is uniquely Iamblichean. What then is the nature of these archons? Thus far, studies of Iamblichus have neglected to deal with the issue of the archons in a thorough manner. The secondary literature that does mention them relegates them either to footnotes or a paragraph at most. This paper’s purpose is to remedy this gap in scholarship and to explore the origin of the idea and the resulting role of the archons in De mysteriis. In particular, I will argue that the conventional assignation of both archontic classes as being below the heroes in the hierarchy of the superior classes is incorrect, and that it can be demonstrated that the cosmic archons are not only ontologically prior to the daimones, but are also identical with the visible gods.

Female archons

In a world that is progressively valuing diversity and inclusivity, these female archons provide a glimpse into the mosaic of leadership that exists beyond the visible surface.

The Hypostasis of the Archons 1-18 revisited: a close reading

A close reading of the Hypostasis of the Archons shows that gnostic texts and even excerpts should be studied without referring to gnostic characteristics supposedly shared by many texts. The chosen Hyp Arch excerpt does not know the names of Yaldabaoth and Sabaoth, and distinguishes carefully between Eve and "the woman". As a consequence the second generation : Cain, Abel and Seth all have different ancestors.

"Archiatres id est medicus sapientissimus" - Changes in the meaning of the term archiatros in the Roman Empire.

The outlines of the changes of the term archiatros and his Latin equivalent archiater are clear: initially the word denoted a court physician but in the 2nd Century CE, a new meaning appeared, that of a public physician. Only in late antiquity can one identify archiatros as an honorary title, one denoting a famous, skilled doctor. The inscription of C. Proculeius Themison from Alexandria (7 CE) does not fit into this scheme. In this paper, I argue that the title of Themison should be viewed as an honorary one, indicating that the honorary usage of archiatros began sooner, as previously thought. The inscription from Themison also affords an opportunity to re-examine the term archiatros, and to investigate, whether the use of the term in a flattering manner can be traced in Greek and Latin inscriptions.

Subverting Sexual Violence, Critiquing Worldly Power: A Reading of the Roman System of Punishment and Entertainment in the Hypostasis of the Archons

2015

�he Hypostasis of the Archons, also known as the Nature or Reality of the Rulers, is an early Christian 1 retelling of the Genesis creation story preserved in the Nag Hammadi codices. 2 There are two clear sections to this text. The first is the reshaping of the Genesis creation narrative, and the second is Eleleth’s revelation to Norea. In this manner the Hypostasis of the Archons echoes many themes found in other Nag Hammadi texts. For example, the Apocryphon of John is among those Nag Hammadi sources that retell a similar creation myth, Eleleth’s revelation includes familiar Nag Hammadi figures such as Yaldabaoth, Sophia,

Archelaus and the throne

Annuaire de la Faculté de Philosophie, 2020

The philosopher Plato claims that the Macedonian king Archelaus was the illegitimate son of Perdiccas II and a slave, and that he allegedly killed all the legitimate heirs to the throne and used force to seize the royal power in Macedonia. Though this story was well known in ancient times, modern scholars dispute it, either fully or partially; nevertheless, all attempts to prove that it is unfounded are based on assumptions and a conjecture of circumstantial arguments. The reanalysis of our sources, as well as a comparison with suitable examples concerning the succession of royal power in Macedon point out that succession issues in Aegae were not, however, completely clear-cut; that the silence of Thucydides concerning the transfer of power, until he had introduced Archelaus as king, though not decisive, may nevertheless be indicative; that the position of Archelaus in terms of succession was complicated, regardless of whether he was a legitimate son; and finally, that, if nothing else, the story of Plato deserves much greater scrutiny and should by no means be disregarded due to academic inertia, as is usually the case.

"The Ark of Liberties" The Ecumenical Throne

The Office of the Protos Archon in Bithynia and Thrace

JOURNAL OF ANCIENT HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY, 2015