Demiurge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Demiurge, in some belief systems, is a deity responsible for the creation of the physical universe and the physical aspect of humanity.

The word derives from the ancient Greek δημιουργός (dēmiourgós, Latinized demiurgus). In Classical Greek, the word means “artisan” or “craftsman” (literally "worker in the service of the people": δήμιος (dēmios) “the people”(deriv. of dêmos the people) + ἔργον (ergon) “ worker”). It is used metaphorically of a creator (of the laws or the heaven) or even the Creator (of the World) in Plato.

The demiurge occurs in a number of different religious and philosophical systems, most notably Platonism and Gnosticism. The precise nature and character of the Demiurge however varies considerably from system to system, being the benign Great Architect of matter in some, to the personification of evil in others. Frequently, alternative titles are used for the Demiurge in these systems, including Yaldabaoth, Yao or Iao, Ialdabaoth and several other variants, such as Ptahil, used in Mandaeanism.

1 Platonism
2 Gnosticism
3 Comparisons
4 References in Popular Culture
5 References
6 See also

[edit] Platonism

Plato refers to the Demiurge frequently in the Socratic dialogue Timaeus circa 360 B.C 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. Timaeus states that it is blasphemy to state that the universe was not created in the image of perfection or heaven. Timaeus gives man "form" in three specific types: likeness, uniqueness and consciousness or being. Man is given these forms by the creation process or ontologically. To attack the form of man in being is to attack a form of not only existence but also one of the components of mankind.

In Plato's Timaeus dialogue, the World Soul or creator spirit exists with the Demiurge:

"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." Plato, Timaeus, 34

The concept of a Demiurgic intervention between God and his creation is completely at odds with orthodox Christian theology as well as Plato himself since the Demiurge was but a being in time of the source or incomprehensible monad or one. The Demiurge, in this context, is the manifestation of the infinite monad into the finite. According to classical Christian theology, the creation is originally all-good and the work of a single benevolent creator. The Platonic concept of the Demiurge also states that creation and the demiurge are all good but is different from Christian cosmogony because it presupposes the pre-existence of passive, constituent matter (in a chaotic form), conflicting with the concept of an all-powerful creator who fashioned the universe out of nothingness, that is, “ex nihilo.”

This is why the orthodox fathers are specific that what comes ex nihilo, comes from God as the nothingness or void is also contained within God. Since God created nothingness or nihil that our consciousness springs from. As much as the Apeiron and even chaos which in Pythagoras, Plato and later Plotinus came “ex nihilo” or “nothingness” or the void, since ex nihilo could also be interpreted to mean “beyond understanding.” Though most of the above is a matter of rhetoric since the fundamental difference between Plato's demiurge and the Judaic Christian creation would be ontological. Plato's demiurge is but an extension and manifestation of the infinite one, by the urge to create, being forced into the finite therefore becoming limiting and limited. This culminates in the Platoic nous or rational mind being able to reconcile the natural and supernatural. Where as the Judaic Christian creation leaving much detail open to mystery or beyond rational explanation, yet, radically affirms the distinctive character of both Creator and creation (see Irenaeus, "Against Heresies IV. 11.2).

[edit] Gnosticism

Image:Lion-faced deity.jpg

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 Creator: 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.”

[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 “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 “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.”

[edit] Samael

“Samael” literally means “Blind God” or “God of the Blind” in Aramaic (Syriac sæmʕa-ʔel). But the being is considered not only blind, or ignorant of its own origins, but may in addition be evil; its name is also found in Judaicas 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”).

[edit] Yahweh

Some Gnostic philosophers (notably Marcion of Sinope) 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 or New Testament is nature or earth created by the creator referred to as evil, unlike the so-called Gnostic “sectarians.” (Unless 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 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 Ephesian 6:12, as a further indication of the creatorship of Satan and his identity with the Demiurge).

This, however, would be incorrect, since “Kosmokrator”—with cosmos (Greek κόσμο) and κράτορας ("kratia"), as in dēmokratikós, or "democratic"—incorrectly uses the koine component for "cratic" as "krator". Koine Greek κοσμοκράτορας, which literally means "world-ruler" and is applied to Satan in Ephesian 6:12, ("against the world-rulers (κοσμοκράτορας/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."

[edit] Criticism

The Gnostic 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 Platonism. His criticism is contained in the ninth tractate of the second of the Enneads. Therein, Plotinus criticises 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 criticises 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"]

The majority view tends to understand Plotinus’ opponents as being a Gnostic sect—certainly, several such groups were present in Alexandria and elsewhere about the Mediterranean during Plotinus’ lifetime, and several of his criticisms bear distinct similarity to Gnostic doctrine (the doctrine of Sophia and her emission of the Demiurge is most notable amongst these similarities). 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.

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. Though none of the orthodox christian criticisms involve the vilification of the demiurge or nature (the material world), both are cornerstones to gnosticism. Plotinus himself never applied them to or acknowledged Christianity. 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, since 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 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 defined in 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 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.

[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.

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.

[edit] Non-Western traditions

[edit] 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.

Brahma, a member of the Trimurti, is sometimes considered a secondary creator of the universe. According to some Puranas he is “self-born” (without mother) in the lotus which grows from the navel of Vishnu at the beginning of the universe. He is surrounded by darkness and tries unsuccessfully to find out about the origin of the lotus. Then he hears the syllables ta-pa and starts to perform asceticism and becomes empowered by Vishnu for creation.

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] References in Popular Culture

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.

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 and killed by Lucifer, releasing his demiurgic power and creating a second universe. Later, Michael's daughter Elaine Belloc became the demiurge.

In an episode of the 1990s animated television series, Æon Flux a god-like being known as the demi-urge is fought over. With one side wishing to destroy it and one side wanting to preserve it.

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 portry Archons, mortals with special powers whose actions as a group represent the will of the Demiurge.

[edit] References

The Nag Hammadi Library (see Nag Hammadi)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikivisual.com/index.php/Demiurge"

Demiurge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents