Are there any other possible historical allusions within the NHL?
Is Constantine "the archon of the western regions" ?
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/cgp.html
Then the wrath of the archons burned. They were ashamed of their dissolution. And they fumed and were angry at the life. The cities were <overturned>; the mountains dissolve. The archon came, with the archons of the western regions, [1] to the East, i.e., that place where the Logos appeared at first. Then the earth trembled, and the cities were troubled. Moreover, the birds ate and were filled with their dead. [2] The earth mourned together with the inhabited world; they became desolate.
Then when the times were completed, then wickedness arose mightily even until the final end of the Logos. Then the archon of the western regions arose, and from the East he will perform a work, and he will instruct men in his wickedness. [3] And he wants to nullify all teaching [4], the words of true wisdom, while loving the lying wisdom. For he attacked the old, wishing to introduce wickedness and to put on dignity. He was incapable, because the defilement of his garments is great. Then he became angry.
[1] The archon came, with the archons of the western regions to the East
The archon - is this Constantine - conqueror of Rome now heading East? The archons of the western regions - are these the chieftains of the barbarian tribes who led their tribes into battle. Constantine's army largely consisted of barbarian tribes lead by their chieftains.
[2] Background to The Dead = Battles leading up to Constantine's military supremacy
The Battle of Adrianople was fought on July 3, 324,[2] during a Roman civil war, the second to be waged between the two emperors Constantine I and Licinius; Licinius suffered a heavy defeat. What followed, in the words of the historian Zosimus, was "a great massacre": Licinius' army, according to Zosimus, received losses of 34,000 dead. This figure is considered an exaggeration by modern historians.
The Battle of the Hellespont, consisting of two separate naval clashes, was fought in 324 between a Constantinian fleet, led by the eldest son of Constantine I, Crispus; and a larger fleet under Licinius' admiral, Abantus (or Amandus). Despite being outnumbered, Crispus won a very complete victory. All but four of the 200 ships of the Licinian fleet were wrecked, sunk, or captured.
The Battle of Chrysopolis was fought on 18 September 324 at Chrysopolis (modern Üsküdar), near Chalcedon (modern Kadıköy), between the two Roman emperors Constantine I and Licinius. According to the historian Zosimus, "There was great slaughter at Chrysopolis." Zozimus Book 2 reads: “A sharp engagement taking place between Chalcedon and the sacred promontory, Constantine had the superiority; for he fell on the enemy with such resolution, that of a hundred and thirty thousand men, scarcely thirty thousand escaped." - That's 100,000 dead. (Grant states the losses of the Eastern army were exaggerated and were instead between 25,000 to 30,000)
[3] from the East he will perform a work,
and he will instruct men in his wickedness.
Was "The Concept of Our Great Power" (NHC 6.4) written by the "pagan resistance"? Is this work referred to here the publication of the New Testament and LXX Bible Codex and the circulation of this codex by Constantine as a political instrument in the Roman empire?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Bib ... onstantine
The author laments "the final end of the Logos". Which side was he on?
[4] He (the Archon of the West) wants to nullify all teaching
From the perspective of the author, is it that Constantine wants to replace Hellenistic teaching with Christian teaching?
NOTE: Alternative views exist:
Alternative (1):
For example Francis Williams has claimed that the Archon of the West in this work:
- Then the archon of the western regions arose, and from the East he will perform a work, and he will instruct men in his wickedness. And he wants to nullify all teaching, the words of true wisdom, while loving the lying wisdom. For he attacked the old, wishing to introduce wickedness and to put on dignity.
Alternative (2):
Mention of the heresy of the Anomoeans (at 40:7 of this same text) places the text after the emergence of the Arian controversy c.325 CE, although some have commented that this could have been interpolated into an older text.StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 8:04 am Some interpret this as a future prediction. For example, Robert J. Daly, Apocalyptic Thought in Early Christianity, 2009, page 114:
"...a dramatic vision of the coming end of material creation...an age of oppression led by 'the Archon of the Western regions'--a kind of Antichrist figure...."
If so, then, probably not Constantine.
Also, if 40:7 refers to the heresy of the Anomoeans, that is a heresy that is known only after the time of Constantine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomoeanism