Information AboutDemiurge |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT DEMIURGE | |
| greek loanwords | |
| creator deities | |
| demons in gnosticism | |
| gnostic deities | |
| platonic deities | |
| dualistic gods | |
| conceptions of god | |
| anti-gnosticism | |
| philosophical terminology | |
|
Originally, the demiurge was described as a divine entity in the works of Plato circa 360BC, but later in Gnosticism the term refers to the evil creator god of the material world. The demiurge appears in a number of different religious and philosophical systems, most notably Platonism and later Gnosticism . Plato uses the term to mean the omni-benevolent Creation . For Plato, the demiurge is a creator (of the laws or the heaven) or the creator (of the World) in ''Timaeus'' . The neoplatonist 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 . The word ''demiurge'' is derived from the ancient Greek (''dēmiourgós'', Latinized ''demiurgus''). In Classical Greek, the word means “artisan” or “craftsman” (literally "worker in the service of the people": (''dēmios'') “the people”(deriv. of dêmos the people) + (''ergon'') “ worker”). 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 .Plotinus "Matter is therefore a non-existent" Ennead 2, Tractate 4 Section 16 Some writers have seen this as an alternate expression of Biblical doctrine. Numenius Of Apamea was reported to have asked “What else is Plato than Moses speaking Greek?” Fr. 8 Des Places 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."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 relation to the Gods familiar from mythology the Demiurge is identified as Zeus within Plotinus' works. 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." GNOSTICISM ’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 ) 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 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 Demon ology. 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.''Ben-Yehuda's Pocket Dictionary'', Pocket Books 1961, 1964. This is from Jewish folklore. Yahweh Some Gnostic philosophers (notably ) or New Testament is nature or earth created by the creator referred to as evil. For some Satan is in character being the Father of the original lie, as the creator of the physical world as we know it; having coerced the first sin representing human kind missing of the mark. This distinguishes the God of the Old Testament from the God of the New; the God of the New possessing a single purpose unblemished by the uncertainty that duality implies. 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 "Irenaeus '' Against Heresies '' 3.11.8) 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 Gnosticism's conception of the Demiurge was criticised by the Neoplatonist philosopher . 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, (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.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 The majority view tends to understand Plotinus’ opponents as being a Gnostic sect—certainly, (specifically Sethian ) several such groups were present in Alexandria and elsewhere about the Mediterranean during Plotinus’ lifetime, and several of his criticisms bear specific similarity to Gnostic doctrine (Plotinus pointing to the gnostic doctrine of Sophia and her emission of the Demiurge is most notable amongst these similarities). The Body and the cosmos as a prison or evil. Scholars of note who have held this view include A.H. Armstrong , who published a highly influential translation of the ''Enneads'' in 1966 , through the Harvard University Press. As well as modern scholar John D Turner and scholar John M. Dillon . However, other scholars such as Christos Evangeliou have contended that Plotinus’ opponents might be better described as simply “Christian Gnostics,” for the reason that several of Plotinus’ criticisms are as applicable to orthodox Christian doctrine as they are to Gnosticism. Also, considering the evidence from the time, Evangeliou felt the definition of the term “Gnostics” was unclear. Thus, though the former understanding certainly enjoys the greatest popularity, the identification of Plotinus’ opponents as Gnostic is not without some contention. Currently in the case of Christos Evangeliou it is yet to be seen if he still holds this view. One since Plotinus' teacher and founder of Neoplatonism Ammonius Saccas was a noted Christian and Plotinus never mentions Christianity in any of his works where as Plotinus' pupil Porphyry names Christians by name in Porphyrys' Against the Christians. Also later A. H. Armstrong identified the “Gnostics” that Plotinus was attacking as Jewish and Pagan in his introduction to the tract in his translation of the Enneads . Armstrong eluding to Gnosticism being a sort of Hellenic philosophy heresy of sorts, who later engaged Christianity (see Neoplatonism And Gnosticism ) and Neoplatonism. Armstrong did this by using Michelle Puerch’s study of the Sethian library found at Nag Hammadi as the basis that all Gnostic groups shared a “common” core or library of text from which they drew common or core beliefs. These core beliefs are defined in works like the Apocalypse Of Adam . John D. Turner professor of religious studies at University of Nebraska and famed translator and editor of the Nag Hammadi library stated that the text Plotinus and his students read was Sethian gnosticism which predates Christianity, see Neoplatonism And Gnosticism . It appears that Plotinus attempted to clarify how the philosophers of the academy had not arrived at the same erroneous conclusions (such as Dystheism or Misotheism for the creator God as an answer to the Problem Of Evil ) as the targets of his criticism. COMPARISONS Cerinthus According to the (''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. 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 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. Non-Western traditions Hinduism Vedic Within the vast Hindu Vedic tradition, there are many different stories associated with the creation of the material world. These are traditionally explained away within the cyclic notion of time with the idea that different entities might be responsible for the creations of different iterations of the material universe, and so there is no fundamental inconsistency in having different stories for creation. In relation to Neoplatonism, the figure in which most closely appears to resemble the Demiurge is Isvara inasmuch as the Demiurge is a personal, creator God. In comparison with Brahman which equates with the transcendent and ineffable One. Brahma , a member of the Trimurti , is sometimes considered to be the creator of the universe. In the Matsya Purana, the actual act of creating the current material universe is performed by the human Manu after its last version is destroyed in Pralaya while he is rescued by Vishnu . Manu then sings/chants the universe into existence and creates the various gods along the way. Siberian Shamanism In the Shaman ic religion of the ancient Turks and other Siberia n 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. Pirahã Cosmology The term ''demiurge'' may be applied to a figure that ''re''creates the world after a catastrophe, even if the world existed in a previous form. Among the Pirahã of Amazonas , Brazil , the demiurge Igagai recreated the world after its destruction in a cataclysm that came about when the moon was destroyed. In the cataclysm, all the animals died and all light disappeared from the world, and the higher levels of the cosmos almost fell on top of the earth. Igagai restored the structure of the cosmos, and created the animals that the Pirahã know today.Gonçalves, Marco Antonio. 2001. O mundo inacabado. Ação e criação em uma cosmologia amazônica: Etnografia Pirahã. Rio de Janeiro: Editora da UFRJ. 39-41 REFERENCES IN POPULAR CULTURE
REFERENCES SEE ALSO
EXTERNAL LINKS |
|
|