Demiurge

This article is about philosophical concept of a Universal Fashioner. For other uses, seeDemiurge (disambiguation).

In thePlatonic,Neopythagorean,Middle Platonic,andNeoplatonicschools ofphilosophy,thedemiurge(/ˈdɛmi.ɜːrdʒ/) (sometimes spelled asdemiurg) is anartisan-like figure responsible for fashioning and maintaining the physicaluniverse.TheGnosticsadopted the termdemiurge.Although a fashioner, the demiurge is not necessarily the same as thecreator figurein themonotheisticsense, because the demiurge itself and the material from which the demiurge fashions the universe are both considered consequences of something else. Depending on the system, they may be considered either uncreated and eternal or the product of some other entity.

The worddemiurgeis an English word derived fromdemiurgus,aLatinisedform of theGreekδημιουργόςordēmiurgós.It was originally a common noun meaning "craftsman" or "artisan", but gradually came to mean "producer", and eventually "creator". The philosophical usage and the proper noun derive fromPlato'sTimaeus,writtenc.360 BC, where the demiurge is presented as the creator of the universe. The demiurge is also described as a creator in the Platonic (c.310–90 BC) and Middle Platonic (c.90 BC–AD 300) philosophical traditions. In the various branches of the Neoplatonic school (third century onwards), the demiurge is the fashioner of the real, perceptible world after the model of theIdeas,but (in most Neoplatonic systems) is still not itself "the One".In the arch-dualistideology of the various Gnostic systems, the material universe is evil, while the non-material world is good. According to some strains of Gnosticism, the demiurge ismalevolent,as it is linked to the material world. In others, including the teaching ofValentinus,the demiurge is simply ignorant or misguided.

Platonism and Neoplatonism

Plato and theTimaeus

Plato,as the speaker Timaeus, refers to the Demiurge frequently in theSocratic dialogueTimaeus(28aff.),c.360 BC. The main character refers to the Demiurge as the entity who "fashioned and shaped" the material world. Timaeus describes the Demiurge as unreservedlybenevolent,and so it desires a world as good as possible. The result of his work is a universe as a living god with lesser gods, such as the stars, planets, and gods of traditional religion, inside it.Timaeusis a philosophical reconciliation ofHesiod's cosmology in hisTheogony,syncreticallyreconciling Hesiod toHomer,though other scholars have argued that Plato's theology 'invokes a broad cultural horizon without committing to any specific poetic or religious tradition'.

Middle Platonism

InMiddle PlatonistandNumenius'sNeo-Pythagoreancosmogonies,the Demiurge is second God as thenousor thought of intelligibles and sensibles(Middle PlatonismandNeo-Pythagoreanismoverlapped: both originating in the early 1st century BC and extending through to the end of the 2nd century AD or even into the 3rd century).

Neoplatonism

The work ofPlotinusand other later Platonists in the 3rd century AD to further clarify the Demiurge is known asNeoplatonism.To Plotinus, the secondemanationrepresents an uncreated second cause (seePythagoras'Dyad). Plotinus sought to reconcile Aristotle'senergeiawith Plato's Demiurge,which, as Demiurge and mind (nous), is a critical component in theontologicalconstruct of human consciousness used to explain and clarifysubstance theorywithinPlatonic realism(also calledidealism). In order to reconcile Aristotelian with Platonian philosophy,Plotinus metaphorically identified the demiurge (ornous) within thepantheon of the Greek GodsasZeus.

Henology

The first and highest aspect of God is described by Plato as the One (Τὸ Ἕν, 'To Hen'), the source, or theMonad.This is the God above the Demiurge, and manifests through the actions of the Demiurge. The Monademanatedthe demiurge orNous(consciousness) from its "indeterminate" vitality due to the monad being so abundant that it overflowed back onto itself, causing self-reflection.This self-reflection of the indeterminate vitality was referred to by Plotinus as the "Demiurge" or creator. The second principle is organization in its reflection of thenonsentientforce ordynamis,also called the one or the Monad. The dyad isenergeiaemanated by the one that is then the work, process or activity callednous,Demiurge, mind, consciousness that organizes the indeterminate vitality into the experience called the material world, universe, cosmos.Plotinusalso elucidates the equation of matter with nothing or non-being inThe Enneadswhich more correctly is to express the concept ofidealismor that there is not anything or anywhere outside of the "mind" ornous(c.f.pantheism).

Plotinus' form ofPlatonic idealismis to treat the Demiurge,nous,as the contemplative faculty (ergon) within man which orders the force (dynamis) into conscious reality.In this, he claimed to reveal Plato's true meaning: a doctrine he learned from Platonic tradition that did not appear outside the academy or in Plato's text. This tradition of creator God asnous(the manifestation of consciousness), can be validated in the works of pre-Plotinus philosophers such asNumenius,as well as a connection between Hebrew and Platonic cosmology (see alsoPhilo).

The Demiurge of Neoplatonism is theNous(mind of God), and is one of the three ordering principles:

• Arche(Gr. 'beginning') – the source of all things,
• Logos(Gr. 'reason/cause') – the underlying order that is hidden beneath appearances,
• Harmonia(Gr. 'harmony') – numericalratiosinmathematics.

Before Numenius of Apamea and Plotinus'Enneads,no Platonic works ontologically clarified the Demiurge from theallegoryin Plato'sTimaeus.The idea of Demiurge was, however, addressed before Plotinus in the works of Christian writerJustin Martyrwho built his understanding of the Demiurge on the works of Numenius.

Iamblichus

See also:Panentheism

Later, the NeoplatonistIamblichuschanged the role of the "One", effectively altering the role of the Demiurge as second cause or dyad, which was one of the reasons that Iamblichus and his teacherPorphyrycame into conflict.

The figure of the Demiurge emerges in the theoretic of Iamblichus, which conjoins the transcendent, incommunicable “One,” or Source. Here, at the summit of this system, the Source and Demiurge (material realm) coexist via the process ofhenosis. Iamblichus describes the One as a monad whose first principle or emanation is intellect (nous), while among "the many" that follow it there is a second, super-existent "One" that is the producer of intellect or soul (psyche).

The "One" is further separated into spheres of intelligence; the first and superior sphere is objects of thought, while the latter sphere is the domain of thought. Thus, atriadis formed of theintelligiblenous,theintellectivenous,and thepsychein order to reconcile further the various Hellenistic philosophical schools ofAristotle'sactusandpotentia(actuality and potentiality) of theunmoved moverand Plato's Demiurge.

Then within this intellectual triad Iamblichus assigns the third rank to the Demiurge, identifying it with the perfect or Divinenouswith the intellectual triad being promoted to ahebdomad(pure intellect).

In the theoretic of Plotinus,nousproduces nature through intellectual mediation, thus the intellectualizing gods are followed by a triad of psychic gods.

Gnosticism

Gnosticismpresents a distinction between the highest, unknowable God orSupreme Beingand the demiurgic "creator" of the material, identified in some traditions withYahweh,the God of theHebrew Bible.Several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the will of theSupreme Being,with his creation initially having the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divineinmateriality. In other systems, the Demiurge is instead portrayed as "merely" incompetent or foolish: his creation is an unconscious attempt to replicate the divine world (thepleroma) based on faint recollections, and thus ends up fundamentally flawed. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurge is a proposed solution to theproblem of evil:while the divine beings are omniscient and omnibenevolent, the Demiurge who rules over our own physical world is not.

Angels

Psalm 82begins, "God stands in the assembly ofEl[LXX:assembly of gods], in the midst of the gods he renders judgment ",indicating a plurality of gods, although it does not indicate that these gods were co-actors in creation.Philohad inferred from the expression "Let us make man" of theBook of Genesisthat God had used other beings as assistants in the creation of man, and he explains in this way why man is capable of vice as well as virtue, ascribing the origin of the latter to God, of the former to his helpers in the work of creation.

The earliest Gnostic sects ascribe the work of creation to angels, some of them using the same passage in Genesis.SoIrenaeustellsof the system ofSimon Magus,of the system ofMenander,of the system ofSaturninus,in which the number of these angels is reckoned as seven, andof the system ofCarpocrates.InBasilides's system, he reports,the world was made by the angels who occupy the lowest heaven; but special mention is made of their chief, who is said to have been theGod of the Jews,to have led that people out of the land ofEgypt,and to have given them their law. The prophecies are ascribed not to the chief but to the other world-making angels.

The Latin translation, confirmed byHippolytus of Rome,makesIrenaeusstate that according toCerinthus(who showsEbioniteinfluence), creation was made by a power quite separate from the Supreme God and ignorant of him.Theodoret,who here copies Irenaeus, turns this into the plural number "powers", and soEpiphanius of Salamisrepresents Cerinthus as agreeing with Carpocrates in the doctrine that the world was made by angels.

Yaldabaoth

Main article:Yaldabaoth

A lion-faced,serpentinedeityfound on a Gnostic gem inBernard de Montfaucon'sL'antiquité expliquée et représentée en figuresmay be a depiction of the Demiurge.

In theArchontic,Sethian,andOphitesystems, which have many affinities with thedoctrine of Valentinus,the making of the world is ascribed to a company of sevenarchons,whose names are given, but still more prominent is their chief, "Yaldabaoth" (also known as "Yaltabaoth" or "Ialdabaoth" ).

In theApocryphon of Johnc.AD 120–180, the demiurge declares that he has made the world by himself:

Now thearchon[ "ruler" ] who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the second is Saklas [ "fool" ], and the third isSamael[ "blind god" ]. 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.

He is Demiurge and maker of man, but as a ray of light from above enters the body of man and gives him a soul, Yaldabaoth is filled with envy; he tries to limit man's knowledge by forbidding him the fruit of knowledge in paradise. At the consummation of all things, all light will return to thePleroma.But Yaldabaoth, the Demiurge, with the material world, will be cast into the lower depths.

Yaldabaoth is frequently called "the Lion-faced",leontoeides,and is said to have the body of a serpent. The demiurge is alsodescribed as having a fiery nature, applying the words of Moses to him: "the Lord our God is a burning and consuming fire". Hippolytus claims that Simon used a similar description.

InPistis Sophia,Yaldabaoth has already sunk from his high estate and resides in Chaos, where, with his forty-nine demons, he tortures wicked souls in boiling rivers of pitch, and with other punishments (pp. 257, 382). He is an archon with the face of a lion, half flame, and half darkness.

In theNag Hammadi textOn the Origin of the World,the three sons of Yaldabaoth are listed asYao,Eloai, andAstaphaios.

Under the name ofNebro(rebel), Yaldabaoth is called an angel in theapocryphalGospel 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, and it is said his "face flashed with fire and [his] appearance was defiled with blood". Nebro creates six angels in addition to the angelSaklasto be his assistants. These six, in turn, create another twelve angels "with each one receiving a portion in the heavens".

Names

Main article:Yaldabaoth § Etymology

The etymology of the nameYaldabaothhas been subject to many speculative theories. Until 1974, etymologies deriving from the unattestedAramaic:בהותא,romanized:bāhūthā,supposedly meaning "chaos",represented the majority view. Following an analysis by the Jewish historian of religionGershom Scholempublished in 1974,this etymology no longer enjoyed any notable support. His analysis showed the unattested Aramaic term to have been fabulated and attested only in a single corrupted text from 1859, with its claimed translation having been transposed from the reading of an earlier etymology, whose explanation seemingly equated "darkness"and" chaos "when translating an unattested supposed plural form ofHebrew:בוהו,romanized:bōhu.

"Samael"literally means" Blind God "or" God of the Blind "in Hebrew (סמאל‎). This being is considered not only blind, or ignorant of its own origins, but may, in addition, be evil; its name is also found inJudaismas theAngel of Deathand inChristian demonology.This link to Judeo-Christian tradition leads to a further comparison withSatan.Another alternative title for the demiurge is "Saklas", Aramaic for "fool". In theApocryphon of John,Yaldabaoth is also known as both Sakla and Samael.

The angelic name "Ariel"(Hebrew: 'the lion of God')has also been used to refer to the Demiurge and is called his "perfect" name;in some Gnostic lore, Ariel has been called an ancient or original name for Ialdabaoth.The name has also been inscribed on amulets as "Ariel Ialdabaoth",and the figure of the archon inscribed with "Aariel".

Marcion

According toMarcion,the title God was given to the Demiurge, who was to be sharply distinguished from the higher Good God. The former wasdíkaios,severely just, the latteragathós,or loving-kind; the former was the "god of this world",the God of theOld Testament,the latter the true God of theNew Testament.Christ, in reality, is the Son of the Good God. The true believer in Christ entered into God's kingdom; the unbeliever remained forever the slave of the Demiurge.

Valentinus

It is in thesystem of Valentinusthat the nameDēmiurgosis used, which occurs nowhere in Irenaeus except in connection with the Valentinian system. When it is employed by other Gnostics either it is not used in a technical sense, or its use has been borrowed from Valentinus. But it is only the name that can be said to be specially Valentinian; the personage intended by it corresponds more or less closely with the Yaldabaoth of the Ophites, thegreat Archonof Basilides, the Elohim ofJustinus,etc.

The Valentinian theory elaborates that from Achamoth (he kátō sophíaor lower wisdom) three kinds of substance take their origin, the spiritual (pneumatikoí), the animal (psychikoí) and the material (hylikoí). The Demiurge belongs to the second kind, as he was the offspring of a union of Achamoth with matter.And as Achamoth herself was only the daughter ofSophíathe last of the thirty Aeons, the Demiurge was distant by many emanations from the Propatôr, or Supreme God.

In creating this world out of Chaos the Demiurge was unconsciously influenced for good; and the universe, to the surprise even of its Maker, became almost perfect. The Demiurge regretted even its slight imperfection, and as he thought himself the Supreme God, he attempted to remedy this by sending a Messiah. To this Messiah, however, was actually united with Jesus the Saviour, Who redeemed men. These are eitherhylikoíorpneumatikoí.

The first, or material men, will return to the grossness of matter and finally be consumed by fire; the second, or animal men, together with the Demiurge, will enter a middle state, neither Pleroma norhyle;the purely spiritual men will be completely freed from the influence of the Demiurge and together with the Saviour and Achamoth, his spouse, will enter the Pleroma divested of body (hyle) and soul (psyché).In this most common form of Gnosticism the Demiurge had an inferior though not intrinsically evil function in the universe as the head of the animal, or psychic world.

The devil

Opinions onthe devil,and his relationship to the Demiurge, varied. The Ophites held that he and his demons constantly oppose and thwart the human race, as it was on their account the devil was cast down into this world.According to one variant of the Valentinian system, the Demiurge is also the maker, out of the appropriate substance, of an order ofspiritualbeings, the devil, the prince of this world, and his angels. But the devil, as being aspiritof wickedness, is able to recognise the higher spiritual world, of which his maker the Demiurge, who is only animal, has no real knowledge. The devil resides in this lower world, of which he is the prince, the Demiurge in the heavens; his mother Sophia in the middle region, above the heavens and below the Pleroma.

The ValentinianHeracleoninterpreted the devil as theprincipleof evil, that ofhyle(matter). As he writes in his commentary on John 4:21,

The mountain represents the Devil, or his world, since the Devil was one part of the whole of matter, but the world is the total mountain of evil, a deserted dwelling place of beasts, to which all who lived before the law and all Gentiles render worship. But Jerusalem represents the creation or the Creator whom the Jews worship.... You then who are spiritual should worship neither the creation nor the Craftsman, but the Father of Truth.

This vilification of the creator was held to be inimical to Christianity by the early fathers of the church. In refuting the beliefs of the gnostics,Irenaeusstated that "Plato is proved to be more religious than these men, for he allowed that the same God was both just and good, having power over all things, and himself executing judgment."

Cathars

Catharismapparently inherited their idea of Satan as the creator of the evil world from Gnosticism.Gilles Quispelwrites, "There is a direct link between ancient Gnosticism and Catharism. The Cathars held that the creator of the world, Satanael, had usurped the name of God, but that he had subsequently been unmasked and told that he was not really God."

Neoplatonism and Gnosticism

Main article:Neoplatonism and Gnosticism

Gnosticism attributed falsehood or evil to the concept of the Demiurge or creator, though in some Gnostic traditions the creator is from a fallen, ignorant, or lesser—rather than evil—perspective, such as that ofValentinius.

Plotinus

The Neoplatonic philosopherPlotinusaddressed within his works Gnosticism's conception of the Demiurge, which he saw as un-Hellenicand blasphemous to the Demiurge or creator of Plato. Plotinus, along with his teacherAmmonius Saccas,was the founder ofNeoplatonism.In the ninthtractateof the second of hisEnneads,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 fromA. H. Armstrong's introduction to Ennead 2.9

Of note here is the remark concerning the secondhypostasisor Creator and third hypostasis orWorld 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.

Whereas 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: "Against Those That Affirm the Creator of the Kosmos and the Kosmos Itself to be Evil" (generally quoted as "Against the Gnostics" ). Plotinus argues of the disconnect or great barrier that is created between thenousor mind'snoumenon(seeHeraclitus) and the material world (phenomenon) by believing the material world is evil.

The majority of scholars tendto understand Plotinus' opponents as being a Gnostic sect—certainly (specificallySethian), several such groups were present inAlexandriaand elsewhere about theMediterraneanduring Plotinus' lifetime. Plotinus specifically points to the Gnostic doctrine of Sophia and her emission of the Demiurge.

Though the former understanding certainly enjoys the greatest popularity, the identification of Plotinus' opponents as Gnostic is not without some contention. Christos Evangeliou has contendedthat Plotinus' opponents might be better described as simply "Christian Gnostics", arguing that several of Plotinus' criticisms are as applicable to orthodox Christian doctrine as well. Also, considering the evidence from the time, Evangeliou thought the definition of the term "Gnostics" was unclear. Of note here is that while Plotinus' studentPorphyrynamesChristianityspecifically in Porphyry's own works, and Plotinus is to have been a known associate of the ChristianOrigen,none of Plotinus' works mention Christ or Christianity—whereas Plotinus specifically addresses his target in theEnneadsas the Gnostics.

A. H. Armstrongidentified the so-called "Gnostics" that Plotinus was attacking as Jewish and Pagan, in his introduction to the tract in his translation of theEnneads.Armstrong alluding to Gnosticism being a Hellenic philosophical heresy of sorts, which later engaged Christianity and Neoplatonism.

John D. Turner,professor of religious studies at the University of Nebraska, and famed translator and editor of theNag Hammadi library,statedthat 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 conclusions (such asdystheismormisotheismfor the creator God as an answer to theproblem of evil) as the targets of his criticism.

Emil Cioranalso wrote hisLe mauvais démiurge( "The Evil Demiurge" ), published in 1969, influenced by Gnosticism andSchopenhauerianinterpretation of Platonic ontology, as well as that of Plotinus.

See also

• Albinus (philosopher)
• Azazil
• Devil in Christianity
• Problem of the creator of God
• Tenth intellect (Isma'ilism)
• Urizen

References

Sources

• This article incorporates text from this source, which is in thepublic domain.DemiurgusinA Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and DoctrinesbyWilliam SmithandHenry Wace(1877), a publication now in the public domain.

External links

• Dark Mirrors of Heaven: Gnostic Cosmogony
• Chisholm, Hugh,ed. (1911)."Demiurge".Encyclopædia Britannica(11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
• Reydams-Schils, G. (1999).Demiurge and Providence. Stoic and Platonist Readings of Plato's Timaeus.Monothéismes et Philosophie. Vol. 2.doi:10.1484/M.MON-EB.5.112278.ISBN978-2-503-50656-2.
• Mohr, Richard D. (1985). "Plato's Theology Reconsidered: What the Demiurge Does".History of Philosophy Quarterly.2(2): 131–144.JSTOR27743717.
• Pagels, Elaine H. (October 1976). "'The Demiurge and his Archons'—A Gnostic View of the Bishop and Presbyters? ".Harvard Theological Review.69(3–4): 301–324.doi:10.1017/S0017816000017491.S2CID162393673.