Demiurge
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Demiurge, The Craftsman or Creator, in some belief systems, is the deity responsible for the creation of the physical universe.
The word derives from the ancient Greek δημιουÏγός (dÄ“miourgós, Latinized demiurgus). In Classical Greek, the word means “artisan†or “craftsman†(literally "worker in the service of the people": δήμιος (dÄ“mios) “the peopleâ€(deriv. of dêmos the people) + á¼”Ïγον (ergon) “ workerâ€). It is used of a creator (of the laws or the heaven) or the creator (of the World) in Plato.
The demiurge appears in a number of different religious and philosophical systems, most notably Platonism and Gnosticism. The precise nature and character of the Demiurge however varies from system to system, being the omnibenevolent Great Architect ÎœÎγας ΑÏχιτÎκτων του ΣÏμπαντος of creation in Neoplatonism[citation needed], though the word in Greek for architect would be αÏχιτÎκτων not δημιουÏγός. Finally to the creator as well as the personification of evil in Gnosticism. The Demiurge was identified with Zeus in Neoplatonism. In Gnosticism, alternative names are used for the Demiurge, including Yaldabaoth, Yao or Iao, Ialdabaoth and several other variants, the Gnostics identified the Demiurge with the Hebrew God Jehovah (see the Sethians and Ophites). He is known as Ptahil in Mandaeanism.
Contents[hide] |
[edit] Platonism & Neoplatonism
 |
| Part of a series on Platonism |
| Platonic idealism |
| Platonic realism |
| Middle Platonism |
| Neoplatonism |
| Articles on Neoplatonism |
| Platonic epistemology |
| Socratic method |
| Socratic dialogues |
| Theory of forms |
| Platonic doctrine of recollection |
| Individuals |
| Plato |
| Socrates |
| Discussions of Plato's works |
| Dialogues of Plato |
| Metaphor of the sun |
| Analogy of the divided line |
| Allegory of the cave |
Plato refers to the Demiurge frequently in the Socratic dialogue Timaeus circa 360 BC as the entity who “fashioned and shaped†the material world. Plato describes the Demiurge as unreservedly benevolent and hence desirous of a world as good as possible. The world remains allegedly imperfect, however, because the Demiurge had to work on pre-existing chaotic matter.
However it should be remembered that in the Platonic system matter is non-being and that the word chaos literally means a void. Plato's representation of the Demiurge in the Timaeus is therefore allegorical and the Demiurge should be understood as being essentially the same as the God of theism. Plato's Demiurge is a fleshing out of Hesiod's cosmology within the realm of dialectical discourse. Plotinus however, elucidates the equation of matter with nothing in his Enneads "Matter is therefore a non-existent" Ennead 2, Tractate 4 Section 16. This being inline with the idea that Plotinus was clarifying what was established in Platonistic tradition but not available outside the academy or in Plato's text. This idea of clarification of Plato's teachings continued through the Middle Platonists such as Numenius to the Neoplatonists such as Plotinus.
The Demiurge is not the supreme deity of Plato or Neoplatonism. He occupies a place in the celestial hierarchy of Hypercosmic and Cosmic Gods. He is to the three Cosmic hierarchies what the One is to the Hypercosmic Gods.[citation needed]
Plato in Timaeus states that it is "blasphemy to state that the universe was not created in the image of perfection or heaven". The Demiurge creates the Cosmos in the image of the ineffable and transcendent God, the One, the source or the Monad.
In Plato's Timaeus dialogue, the World Soul or creator spirit exists with the Demiurge they are not separate but are of one another:
Plato, Timaeus, 34 "Now God did not make the soul after the body, although we are speaking of them in this order; for having brought them together he would never have allowed that the elder should be ruled by the younger; but this is a random manner of speaking which we have, because somehow we ourselves too are very much under the dominion of chance."
Though previous to Numenius of Apamea and Plotinus' Enneads, there is no Platonic works that ontologically clarify the Demiurge from the allegory in Plato's Timaeus.
In relation to the Gods familiar from mythology the Demiurge is identified as Zeus within Plotinus' works.[1]
[edit] Gnosticism
Like Plato, Gnosticism also presents a distinction between the highest, unknowable “alien God†and the demiurgic “creator†of the material. However, in contrast to Plato, several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme Being: his act of creation occurs in unconscious imitation of the divine model, and thus is fundamentally flawed, or else is formed with the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine in materiality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to the problem of evil. In the Apocryphon of John circa 200AD (several versions of which are found in the Nag Hammadi library), the Demiurge has the name “Yaltabaoth,†and proclaims himself as God:
- “Now the archon (ruler) who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the second is Saklas (“foolâ€), and the third is Samael. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, ‘I am God and there is no other God beside me,’ for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come.â€[2]
[edit] Yaldabaoth
“Yaldabaoth†literally means “Child, come here†in a Semitic language. For example, the Hebrew word for “young girl†is “yalda,†and for “come†is “bo.†Thus, most probably “yaldabaoth†is a declension of “young girl†and “come,†together meaning “young girl, come hither†(the language’s identification as Hebrew itself is doubtful).
Gnostic myth recounts that Sophia (Greek, literally meaning “wisdomâ€), the Demiurge’s mother and a partial aspect of the divine Pleroma or “Fullness,†desired to create something apart from the divine totality, and without the receipt of divine assent. In this abortive act of separate creation, she gave birth to the monstrous Demiurge and, being ashamed of her deed, she wrapped him in a cloud and created a throne for him within it. The Demiurge, isolated, did not behold his mother, nor anyone else, and thus concluded that only he himself existed, being ignorant of the superior levels of reality that were his birth-place.
The Gnostic myths describing these events are full of intricate nuances portraying the declination of aspects of the divine into human form; this process occurs through the agency of the Demiurge who, having stolen a portion of power from his mother, sets about a work of creation in unconscious imitation of the superior Pleromatic realm. Thus Sophia’s power becomes enclosed within the material forms of humanity, themselves entrapped within the material universe: the goal of Gnostic movements was typically the awakening of this spark, which permitted a return by the subject to the superior, non-material realities which were its primal source. (See Sethian Gnosticism.)
Under the name of Nebro, Yaldabaoth is called an angel in the apocryphal Gospel of Judas. He is first mentioned in “The Cosmos, Chaos, and the Underworld†as one of the twelve angels to come “into being [to] rule over chaos and the [underworld].†He comes from heaven, his “face flashed with fire and whose appearance was defiled with blood.†Nebro’s name means rebel. Nebro creates six angels in addition to the angel Saklas to be his assistants. These six in turn create another twelve angels “with each one receiving a portion in the heavens.â€
[edit] Samael
“Samael†literally means “Blind God†or “God of the Blind†in Aramaic (Syriac sæmʕa-ʔel). But this being is considered not only blind, or ignorant of its own origins, but may in addition be evil; its name is also found in Judaica as the Angel of Death and in Christian demonology. This leads to a further comparison with Satan.
Another alternative title for the Demiurge, “Saklas,†is Aramaic for “fool†(Syriac sækla “the foolish oneâ€).
[edit] Yahweh
Some Gnostic philosophers (notably Marcion of Sinope and the Sethians) identify the Demiurge with Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament, in opposition and contrast to the God of the New Testament. Still others equated the being with Satan. Catharism apparently inherited their idea of Satan as the creator of the evil world directly or indirectly from Gnosticism. Or, they may well have gotten the idea directly from the New Testament, which refers to Satan as “The God [‘ho theos’] of this age†in Second Corinthians 4:4. Also, the New Testament asserts that the “whole world lies in the power of the evil one†in 1 John 5:19. Though nowhere in the New Testament is the creator of the world or the universe identified as Satan, although Yahweh declares in Isaiah 45:7 that He “makes light and creates darkness [Hebrew "choshekh"]. Nor in the Old (see the Septuagint) or New Testament is nature or earth created by the creator referred to as evil.
For some Satan is in character being the Father of the original lie, as the creator of the physical world as we know it; having coerced the first sin representing human kind missing of the mark. This distinguishes the God of the Old Testament from the God of the New; the God of the New possessing a single purpose unblemished by the uncertainty that duality implies.
[edit] Neoplatonism & Gnosticism
It appears that Gnosticism attributed falsehood, fallen or evil to the concept of a creator in at least the Judeo-Christian and Hellenic paganism traditions. Though sometimes the creator is from a fallen, ignorant or lesser rather than evil perspective in some Gnosticism traditions (see Valentinian). The Neoplatonic philosopher Plotinus addressed within his works what he saw as un-Hellenic and blasphemious to the demiurge of Plato. An example of vilifing the Judeo-Christian creator would be to attribute the term “Kosmokrator†(found in the New Testament) to the Old Testament creator as the fallen Gnostic demiurge (see Marcion and the Cathars). Though this would be at one point also to diverge from Philo and Plato as well as the New Testament. If one sees the attribute of Creatorship as inherent in the concept of “God,†and therefore the title “The God of this Age†applied to Satan it becomes a powerful indicator that Satan is indeed the creator. Though this would indicate that all "Gods" where creators and also that any God that created people (Demiurge) was evil. Other modern-day Cathars see a further indication of this in the epithet “Kosmokrator†Koine Greek, kosmokratoras, which literally means cosmos-sovereign, or even cosmos-might, which is applied to Satan in Ephesians 6:12, as a possible further indication of the creatorship of Satan and his identity with the Demiurge.
This, however, would be incorrect, since “Kosmokratorâ€â€”with cosmos (Greek κόσμο) and κÏάτοÏας ("kratia"), as in dÄ“mokratikós, or "democratic" does not mean to create but to rule, direct or influence. The understanding of “Kosmokrator†incorrectly as a "creator" uses the Koine component for "cratic" or "krator" as to mean "creator" instead of rule. Koine Greek κοσμοκÏάτοÏας, which literally means "world-ruler" and is applied to Satan in Ephesians 6:12, ("against the world-rulers (κοσμοκÏάτοÏας/Δείτε επίσης) the darkness of age") would, if mistranslated, lead to an indication of the power of Satan and his identity with the Demiurge. The same logic would lead to the mistranslation of the word democrat to mean "people creator" rather than "rule by the people". Where as demiurge would mean "people creator" rather than "people ruler" as the term Kosmokrator would imply the power to rule, direct or influence. This would also mean that by the Platonic divine ontology that the demiurge, being the agent of the one, as creator only, was not the true ruler of cosmos. The true ruler being the source, one or monad who's will the demiurge was fulfilling. This then would mean per Gnosticism, that the Monad was the "Kosmokrator†and therefore evil. Since the demiurge did the will of the one or Monad (see Plotinus). This usage also would vilify the logos[3] as it was used by Heraclitus. Logos being the ruling or guiding principle of the universe. Though it is speculative that the demiurge returned to the One or Monad once creation was complete (see Justin Martyr). This would also be a different understanding of St Paul's passage which was referring to men of power falling under the influence of evil as in the world-rulers (since the word Kosmokrators in Ephesians is plural meaning many rulers) of the darkness of the age.
[edit] Neoplatonic Criticism
Gnosticism's conception of the Demiurge was criticised by the Neoplatonist philosopher Plotinus. Plotinus is noted as the founder of Neoplatonism, a movement noted as being orthodox (Neo)Platonism. His criticism is contained in the ninth tractate of the second of the Enneads. Therein, Plotinus criticizes his opponents for their appropriation of ideas from Plato:
- From Plato come their punishments, their rivers of the underworld and the changing from body to body; as for the plurality they assert in the Intellectual Realm—the Authentic Existent, the Intellectual-Principle, the Second Creator and the Soul—all this is taken over from the Timaeus. (Ennead 2.9.vi; emphasis added from A. H. Armstrong's introduction to Ennead 2.9)
Of note here is the remark concerning the second Creator and Soul. Plotinus criticizes his opponents for “all the novelties through which they seek to establish a philosophy of their own†which, he declares, “have been picked up outside of the truthâ€; they attempt to conceal rather than admit their indebtedness to ancient philosophy, which they have corrupted by their extraneous and misguided embellishments. Thus their understanding of the Demiurge is similarly flawed in comparison to Plato’s original intentions. Where as Plato's demiurge is good wishing good on his creation, gnosticism contends that the demiurge is not only the originator of evil but is evil as well. Hence the title of Plotinus' refutation "Enneads" The Second Ennead, Ninth Tractate - Against Those That Affirm the Creator of the Kosmos and the Kosmos Itself to be Evil: [Generally Quoted as "Against the Gnostics"]. Plotinus marks his arguments also with the disconnect or great barrier that is created between the mind's noumenon (see Heraclitus) and the material world (phenomenon) by believing the material world is evil. This symptom of alienation or somnolence was also later expressed by Eric Voegelin in his critique of Gnosticism.
The majority view tends to understand Plotinus’ opponents as being a Gnostic sect—certainly, (specifically Sethian) several such groups were present in Alexandria and elsewhere about the Mediterranean during Plotinus’ lifetime, and several of his criticisms bear specific similarity to Gnostic doctrine (Plotinus pointing to the gnostic doctrine of Sophia and her emission of the Demiurge is most notable amongst these similarities). The Body and the cosmos as a prison or evil. Scholars of note who have held this view include A.H. Armstrong, who published a highly influential translation of the Enneads in 1966, through the Harvard University Press. As well as modern scholar John D Turner and scholar John M Dillon.
However, other scholars such as Christos Evangeliou have contended that Plotinus’ opponents might be better described as simply “Christian Gnostics,†for the reason that several of Plotinus’ criticisms are as applicable to orthodox Christian doctrine as they are to Gnosticism. Also, considering the evidence from the time, Evangeliou felt the definition of the term “Gnostics†was unclear. Thus, though the former understanding certainly enjoys the greatest popularity, the identification of Plotinus’ opponents as Gnostic is not without some contention. Currently in the case of Christos Evangeliou it is yet to be seen if he still holds this view. One since Plotinus' teacher and founder of Neoplatonism Ammonius Saccas was a noted Christian and Plotinus never mentions Christianity in any of his works where as Plotinus' pupil Porphyry names Christians by name in Porphyrys' Against the Christians. Also later A. H. Armstrong identified the “Gnostics†that Plotinus was attacking as Jewish and Pagan in his introduction to the tract in his translation of the Enneads. Armstrong eluding to Gnosticism being a sort of Hellenic philosophy heresy of sorts, who later engaged Christianity (see Neoplatonism and Gnosticism) and Neoplatonism. Armstrong did this by using Michelle Puerch’s study of the Sethian library found at Nag Hammadi as the basis that all Gnostic groups shared a “common†core or library of text from which they drew common or core beliefs. These core beliefs are defined in works like the Apocalypse of Adam.
John D. Turner professor of religious studies at University of Nebraska and famed translator and editor of the Nag Hammadi library stated that the text Plotinus and his students read was Sethian gnosticism which predates Christianity, see Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. It appears that Plotinus attempted to clarify how the philosophers of the academy had not arrived at the same erroneous conclusions (such as Dystheism or misotheism for the creator God as an answer to the problem of evil) as the targets of his criticism.
[edit] Comparisons
[edit] Cerinthus
According to the heresy of Cerinthus (who shows Ebionite influence), the ancient Hebrew term Elohim, the “uni-plural name,†often used for God throughout Genesis 1, can be interpreted as indicating that a hierarchy of ancient spirits (“angels or godsâ€) were co-creators with a Supreme Being, and were partially responsible for creation within the context of a “master plan†exemplified theologically by the Greek word Logos. Psalm 82.1 describes a plurality of gods (Ê”elÅhim), which an older version in the Septuagint calls the “assembly of the godsâ€; however, it does not indicate that these gods were co-actors in creation. (Unless one translates Genesis 1:1 literally as “in the beginning the gods [elohim] created the heaven and the earth.â€) Also according to this theory, an abstract similarity can be found between the Logos (as applied to Jesus in the Gospel according to St John) and Plato’s Demiurge. However, in John 1:1, which reads: “in the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God and the Word was God,†the Logos is clearly one single being, not an assembly or group. Further, typical Christian theology identifies Jesus as the second person in the holy and undivided Trinity, thus rejecting the notion that the world was created by an ignorant or even malevolent demiurge (“uni-plural†or not) in co-action with a separate, higher and unknowable god.
[edit] Iamblichus
The figure of the Demiurge also emerges in the theoretic of Iamblichus (a Neoplatonist), in which it acts as a conjunction between the transcendent, incommunicable “One†that resides at the summit of his system, and the material realm. Through the Neoplatonic theurgy of Iamblichus one unites with the demiurge and therefore the monad the end result of return is called henosis (see Theurgy, Iamblichus and henosis).
The initial dyad that Iamblichus describes consists of the One, a monad whose first principle is intellect (“nousâ€); between this monad and “the many†that follow it. Iamblichus posited a second, superexistent “One†that is the producer of intellect or soul (“psycheâ€), completing the dyad mentioned above. The former and superior “One†is further distinguished by Iamblichus as the spheres of the intelligible and the intellective; the latter sphere is the domain of thought, while the former comprises the objects of thought. Thus, a triad is formed of the intelligible nous, the intellective nous, and the psyche.
Of this intellectual triad Iamblichus assigned the third rank to the Demiurge. The figure is thus identified with the perfected nous, the intellectual triad being increased to a hebdomad. As in the theoretic of Plotinus, nous produces nature by the mediation of the intellect, so here the intelligible gods are followed by a triad of psychic gods.
[edit] Non-Western traditions
[edit] Hinduism Vedic
Within the vast Hindu Vedic tradition, there are many different stories associated with the creation of the material world. These are traditionally explained away within the cyclic notion of time with the idea that different entities might be responsible for the creations of different iterations of the material universe, and so there is no fundamental inconsistency in having different stories for creation.
In relation to Neoplatonism, the figure in which most closely appears to resemble the Demiurge is Isvara inasmuch as the Demiurge is a personal, creator God. In comparison with Brahman which equates with the transcendent and ineffable One.
Brahma, a member of the Trimurti, is sometimes considered to be the creator of the universe.
In the Matsya Purana, the actual act of creating the current material universe is performed by the human Manu after its last version is destroyed in pralaya while he is rescued by Vishnu. Manu then sings/chants the universe into existence and creates the various gods along the way.
[edit] Siberian Shamanism
In the shamanic religion of the ancient Turks and other Siberian nomads, Bai-Ulgan was the force behind creation. Inasmuch as Siberian shamanism may be said to parallel Gnostic cosmological beliefs, Bai-Ulgan has been compared to the Demiurge.
[edit] Pirahã Cosmology
The term demiurge may be applied to a figure that recreates the world after a catastrophe, even if the world existed in a previous form. Among the Pirahã of Amazonas, Brazil, the demiurge Igagai recreated the world after its destruction in a cataclysm that came about when the moon was destroyed. In the cataclysm, all the animals died and all light disappeared from the world, and the higher levels of the cosmos almost fell on top of the earth. Igagai restored the structure of the cosmos, and created the animals that the Pirahã know today.[4]
[edit] References in popular culture
- In the Philip K. Dick novel, Valis.
- In the 1996 LucasArts game Afterlife, the player is referred to as the Demiurge. The goal of the game is to build and manage both a Heaven and a Hell to provide rewards and punishments for the inhabitants of the local planet.
- In the animated series Æon Flux, the Demiurge is a god-like entity that Aeon Flux and the Monican resistance want to release into space in order to free the planet from its influence while Trevor Goodchild hopes to use the Demiurge to bring "peace" to the world in his own image. All the while, the Demiurge is using supernatural delusion to pit the two sides against each other.
- Michael Demiurgos is a principal character in the DC/Vertigo comic book series Lucifer. In this depiction, Michael was created by Yahweh with the demiurgic power to enable the physical creation of the universe. Michael was eventually taken outside of creation by Lucifer, where he released his demiurgic power, allowing Lucifer to create a second universe. Later, Michael's daughter Elaine Belloc became the demiurge.
- Demiurg (Демиург in Russian) is one of the primary characters of "Overburdened with Evil" (ОтÑгощенные злом, 1988), a novel by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky. The origin of the name is referred to a Gnostic belief system, in which Demiurge is an entity that produces matter which is inherently overburdened with evil.
- Demiurge is a central concept in the role-playing game Nine Worlds. Players portry Archons, mortals with special powers whose actions as a group represent the will of the Demiurge.
- Marvel Comics has an entity known as the Demiurge that was responsible for creating the life on Earth. Mating with Gaea during a demon crisis, Demiurge fathered Atum, who in turn destroyed or defeated many evil primordial gods such as Set and Chthon.
- Games Workshop Warhammer 40,000 universe has an alien race known as the Demiurg who are great miners and builders.
[edit] References
- ^ In Fourth Tractate 'Problems of the Soul' The Demiurge is identified as Zeus.10."When under the name of Zeus we are considering the Demiurge we must leave out all notions of stage and progress, and recognize one unchanging and timeless life."
- ^ The Nag Hammadi Library (see Nag Hammadi)
- ^ Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.11.8)
- ^ Gonçalves, Marco Antonio. 2001. O mundo inacabado. Ação e criação em uma cosmologia amazônica: Etnografia Pirahã. Rio de Janeiro: Editora da UFRJ. [pp. 39-41]
[edit] See also
- Archon
- Brahma
- Bythos
- Christ Pantokrator
- Christian anarchism
- Conceptions of God
- dystheism
- First International Conference on Neoplatonism and Gnosticism
- Gnosticism
- Johannite
- Mandaean
- Melek Taus
- Neoplatonism
- Neoplatonism and Gnosticism
- Platonism
- Sethianism
- Svantovit
- YHWH
- Theistic Satanism
- Timaeus
- Urizen
- Yaw
Categories: Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007 | All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since March 2007 | Heresy | Creator deities | Gnostic demons | Gnostic deities | Platonic deities | Dualistic gods | Conceptions of God | Anti-Gnosticism | Philosophy
