Demiurge

Demiurge (from the Greek δημιουργός dēmiourgós, Latinized demiurgus, meaning "artisan" or "craftsman") is a term for a creator deity or divine artisan responsible for the creation of the physical universe.

The word was first introduced in this sense by Plato in his Timaeus, 41a (ca. 360 B.C.E.). It subsequently appears in a number of different religious and philosophical systems of Late Antiquity, most notably in Neoplatonism and Gnosticism. Three separate meanings of the term may be distinguished.

• For Plato, the Demiurge is a benevolent creator of the laws, heaven, or the world.
• 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 often identified the Demiurge with the Hebrew God Yahweh (see the Sethians and Ophites). In Mandaeanism the Demiurge is known as Ptahil

Platonism and Neoplatonism

Part of a series on Platonism

Platonic idealism

Platonic realism

Middle Platonism

Neoplatonism

Articles on Neoplatonism

Platonic epistemology

Socratic method

Socratic dialogue

Theory of forms

Platonic doctrine of recollection

Form of the Good

Individuals

Plato

Socrates

Alcibiades

Protagoras

Parmenides

Discussions of Plato's works

Dialogues of Plato

Metaphor of the sun

Analogy of the divided line

Allegory of the cave

Third Man Argument

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Plato's character Timaeus refers to the Demiurge frequently in the Socratic dialogue which bears his name, written around 360 B.C.E. Timaeus refers to the demiurge as the entity who “fashioned and shaped” the material world. He describes this being 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 with pre-existing chaotic matter.

Plato's Demiurge is seen as a fleshing out of Hesiod's cosmology in the work Theogeny in the context of the dialectical discourse between Timaeus and the other guests at the gathering in Plato's dialog.

Timaeus suggests that since nothing "becomes or changes" without a cause, there must be a cause of the universe itself. Timaeus thus refers to the Demiurge as the father of the universe. Moreover, since the universe is fair, the Demiurge must have used the eternal and perfect world of "forms" or ideals as a template. He then set about creating the world, which formerly only existed in a state of disorder. Timaeus states that it is "blasphemy to state that the universe was not created in the image of perfection or heaven."

For Neoplatonist writers like Plotinus, the Demiurge was not the originator of the universe, but 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, divine mind or reason, which Plotinus referred to figuratively as the Demiurge. In this he claimed to reveal Plato's true meaning, a doctrine he learned from Platonist tradition but did not appear outside the academy or in Plato's texts.

As Nous, the Demiurge is part of the three ordering principles:

1. arche - the source of all things,
2. logos - the underlying order that is hidden beneath appearances
3. harmonia - numerical ratios in mathematics.

In relation to the gods of mythology the Demiurge is identified as Zeus within Plotinus' works.

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 God and the demiurgic “creator” of the material world. 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 either 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. In such systems, the Demiurge acts as a solution to the problem of evil.

In the Apocryphon of John circa 200 C.E., 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.”

Yaldabaoth

“Yaldabaoth” may literally mean “Child, come here." The Hebrew word for “young girl” is yalda, and the word for “come” is bo. Thus, most probably “yaldabaoth” is a declension of “young girl” and “come,” together meaning “young girl, come hither.”

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. However, she did this without 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. Being ignorant of the superior levels of reality that were his birth-place.and thus concluded that only he himself existed.

The Gnostic myths describing these events are full of intricate nuances and variations 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 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 divine spark of wisdom, enabling the enlightened soul to return 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 as one of the 12 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. He creates six angels in addition to the angel Saklas to be his assistants. These six in turn create another 12 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). This being is considered not only blind, or ignorant, of its own origins, but is also apparently intentionally evil. The name Samael is also found in Judaica as the Angel of Death and also in Christian demonology. This leads to a further comparison with Satan.

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). 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.

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 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.

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.

See also

Great Architect of the Universe Archon Brahma Bythos Christ Pantokrator Christian anarchism Conceptions of God dystheism Henosis Gnosticism Johannite Mandaean Melek Taus Neoplatonism

Neoplatonism and Gnosticism Platonism Sethianism Svantovit YHWH Theistic Satanism Urizen Yaw

External links

• Dark Mirrors of Heaven: Gnostic Cosmogony

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Demiurge  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Demiurge"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.