Demiurge (from the Greek δημιουργός dēmiourgós, Latinized demiurgus, meaning "artisan" or "craftsman", literally
"worker in the service of the people", from δήμιος "of the people" + ἔργον
"work") is a term for a creator deity, a divine artisan or
architect[dubious – discuss] responsible
for the creation of the physical universe.
In the sense of a divine creative principle, the word was introduced by Plato in
Timaeus, 41a (ca. 360 BC). It subsequently appears in a number of different
religious and philosophical systems of Late Antiquity, besides Platonic realism most notably in Neoplatonism and
Gnosticism:[citation needed]
- For Plato, the demiurge is a benevolent creator of the laws or the heaven or of the world in Timaeus.
- Plotinus identified the demiurge as nous (divine
reason), the first emanation of "the One" (see monad). Neoplatonists personified the demiurge as Zeus.
- In Gnosticism, the material universe is seen as evil, and
the demiurge is the evil creator of the physical world.
Alternative Gnostic names for the Demiurge, include Yaldabaoth, Yao or Iao, Ialdabaoth and several other variants. The Gnostics identified the Demiurge with the Hebrew God
Yahweh (see the Sethians and Ophites). He is known as Ptahil in Mandaeanism.
Platonism and Neoplatonism
Plato has the speaker Timaeus refer to the Demiurge frequently in the Socratic dialogue Timaeus circa 360 BC. The title character refers to the demiurge as the entity who “fashioned and shaped” the material world.
Timaeus 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.
Plato's Demiurge is a fleshing out of Hesiod's cosmology from Hesiod's work Theogeny, within the realm of dialectical discourse between Timaeus and the other guests at the gathering in
the dialog of Timaeus (also see Symposium). The concept of artist or creator and even
the Platonist conflict between the poet and philosopher (see Plato's Republic) has
a link in Plato's expression of the demiurge in his works.
For Neoplatonist writers like Plotinus, however, the demiurge represents a second creator or
cause (see Dyad). The first and highest God is the One, the source or the Monad. The Monad emanated the Nous, which
Plotinus referred to figuratively as the demiurge. In this he claimed to reveal Plato's true meaning, a doctrine he learned from
Platonistic tradition that did not appear outside the academy or in Plato's text. Plotinus also
elucidates the equation of matter with nothing or non-being in his Enneads[1] which is to express the concept of idealism in connection with the nous or contemplative faculty within man.[2] This tradition of creator God as nous can be validated in the works of pre
Plotinus philosophers such as Numenius. As well as a connection between Hebrew
cosmology and the Hellenic Platoistic one (see also Philo).[3] Their 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. As Nous, the demiurge is part of
the three ordering principles:
- arche - the source of all things,
- logos - the underlying order that is hidden beneath appearances,
- harmonia - numerical ratios in mathematics.
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 eternal and
transcendent Living Thing in the world of Forms.
Before Numenius of Apamea and Plotinus' Enneads,
no Platonic works ontologically clarified the Demiurge from the allegory in Plato's Timaeus. The
idea of Demiurge was however addressed before Plotinus in the works of Christian writer Justin
Martyr who built his understanding of the demiurge on the works of Numenius.[4]
In relation to the Gods familiar from mythology the Demiurge is identified as Zeus within
Plotinus' works.[5]
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 (“nous”); between this monad and “the many” that follow it. Iamblichus posited a second, superexistent “One”
that is the producer of intellect or soul (“psyche”), 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.
Gnosticism
A lion-faced deity found on a Gnostic gem in
Bernard de Montfaucon’s
L’antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures may be a depiction of the Demiurge.
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 (“fool”), 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.”[6]
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 “wisdom”), 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.”
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 one”).
Samael can also mean "Poison of God." (the el is "of God"). Sm or Sama is the word for poison or venom.[7] This is from Jewish folklore.
Yahweh
Some Gnostic philosophers (notably Marcion of Sinope and the Sethians) identify the evil 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. 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"].
Though from the perspective of the text, this would appear as non sequitur since
now Satan created himself and Good and also the darkness or evil. This then making yet another Satan meaning there where now two Satans in creation the demiurge and his rebellious creation also referred to as
Satan or the accuser. Nor in the Old (see the Septuagint) or New Testament is the cosmos, nature or earth created by the creator referred to as evil.
Rather that presenting Satan as the creator of the world as we know it, the New Testament presents the view that creation has
been subjected to his rule through mankind's defection from the Creator God, Yahweh. As a result, Satan is called "the god of
this world" at (2 Cor. 4:4), and John states that "the whole world lies in the grip of the Wicked One." (1 John 5:19) This, in
fact, is a crucial doctrine often overlooked by those who have difficulty harmonizing the goodness of Yahweh the Creator with the
evil that is evident in the world (see the problem of evil).[8] In the case of Hellenistic philosophy though, the demiurge is defined as nous and
is reconcilled as Good. The demiurge is good because without the demiurge or mind, mankind can not perceive Good or Beauty (see Essentialism and
idealism). This meaning that the demiurge, nous or mind inherits good and beauty from the
source, Monad and or one. By doing so the demiurge is therefore an agent of the good and the beauty.
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 (see Sethianism and
the ophites). 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. While the concepts such as
syzygies (see Valentinus) and the soul and
spiritual as good and the body and the material universe as evil would indeed reflect a very distinct and clear duality as it is expressed within the Sethian and other gnostic traditions (also see
Mind-body dichotomy). The vilification of the creator (demiurge) of the material
world, rather that being the faculty of perceiption as in nous (Essentialism and
idealism) and or an actual being as in the case of Yahweh and Judaeo Christianity is to both
traditions foreign and not documented as a traditional perspective in either tradition.[9]
Neoplatonism and 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
blasphemous to the demiurge of Plato. An example of vilifying 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,” then the title “The God of this Age” applied to Satan
becomes a powerful indicator that Satan is indeed the creator. 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.
However, “Kosmokrator”—with cosmos (Greek κόσμο) and κράτορας ("kratia"), as in dēmokratikós, or "democratic" does not mean to create but to rule, direct or influence. Koine Greek κοσμοκράτορας, which
literally means "world-ruler" and is applied to Satan in Ephesians 6:12,
("against the world-rulers (κοσμοκράτορας/Δείτε επίσης) the darkness of age") would, by this Gnostic interpretation, lead to an
indication of the power of Satan and his identity with the Demiurge. This usage would according to some vilify the
logos[10] as it was used by
Heraclitus, meaning the ruling or guiding principle of the universe. 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 not one ruler) of the darkness of
the age this then meaning many evil rulers not just one.
Neoplatonic Criticism
- See also: Plotinus and Neoplatonism and Gnosticism
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 truth”;
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 nous or 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.[11]
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 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. 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.
Christian heresies
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 gods”) 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
(ʔelōhim), which an older version in the Septuagint calls the “assembly of the gods”;
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.”) 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.
Non-Western mythologies
- Further information: Creator deity and creation myth
Hinduism
In relation to Neoplatonism, the figure in which most closely appears to resemble the Demiurge in Hinduism 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, figures as the creator of
the universe in Hindu mythology.
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.
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.[citation needed]
Pirahã cosmology
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.[12]
References in popular culture
- In the Philip K. Dick novel, Deus Irae there are
implicit references to the architect of the Third World War, Carleton Leufteufel, as a demiurge, with his death resultant in
temporary reversion of the desolate landscape of post-apocalyptic America. In Valis, there is a
more explicit acknowledgement of gnostic theological concepts, such as the demiurge and sophia.
- 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"
(Отягощенные 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 portray Archons,
mortals with special powers whose actions as a group represent the will of the Demiurge.
- In the role-playing game Kult, the Demiurge is an
evil being who imprisoned humanity in a world of illusions in order to keep them ignorant of their true nature and power, so that
he might rule over them. At the time where the game takes place, the Demiurge has vanished and as a result the illusion-prison is
crumbling.
- 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.
References
- ^ Plotinus "Matter is therefore a non-existent" Ennead 2, Tractate 4 Section
16
- ^ Schopenhauer wrote of this Neoplatonist philosopher: "With Plotinus there
even appears, probably for the first time in Western philosophy, idealism that had long been current in the East even at that
time, for it taught (Enneads, iii, lib. vii, c.10) that the soul has made the world by stepping from eternity into time, with the
explanation: 'For there is for this universe no other place than the soul or mind' (neque est alter hujus universi locus quam
anima), indeed the ideality of time is expressed in the words: 'We should not accept time outside the soul or mind' (oportet
autem nequaquam extra animam tempus accipere)." (Parerga and Paralipomena, Volume I, "Fragments for the History of Philosophy," §
7)Similarly, professor Ludwig Noiré wrote: "For the first time in Western philosophy we find idealism proper in Plotinus
(Enneads, iii, 7, 10), where he says, "The only space or place of the world is the soul," and "Time must not be assumed to exist
outside the soul." [5] It is worth noting, however, that like Plato but unlike Schopenhauer and other modern philosophers,
Plotinus does not worry about whether or how we can get beyond our ideas in order to know external objects.
- ^ Numenius of Apamea was reported
to have asked “What else is Plato than Moses speaking Greek?” Fr. 8 Des Places
- ^ "Plato is just the Greeks Moses Numenius", Frag. 8 (Des Places) The
Neoplatonic Writings of Numenius Translated by Kenneth Guthrie Selene Books ISDN 0-933601-03-4
- ^ 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)
- ^ Ben-Yehuda's Pocket Dictionary, Pocket Books 1961, 1964.
- ^ Numenius of Apamea was reported to have asked “What else is Plato than
Moses speaking Greek?” Fr. 8 Des Places
- ^ Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus) Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 2) The
heretics follow neither Scripture nor tradition. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103302.htm
- ^ Irenaeus Against Heresies 3.11.8)
- ^ Voegelin used Nous or Demiurge to mean intellect that is a divinely
creative substance. It is a point of contact between the human and the divine. Eric Voegelin The Restoration of Order by Micheal
P. Federici pg 227
- ^ 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]
See also
External links
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
