Demiurge 1

Demiurge

Part of a series on

GodGeneral conceptions

Agnosticism Apatheism Atheism Deism Henotheism Ignosticism Monotheism Omnism Panentheism Pantheism Polytheism Theism Transtheism

Specific conceptions

Creator Demiurge Devil Deus Father Great Architect Monad Mother Supreme Being Sustainer The All The Lord Trinity Tawhid Ditheism Monism Personal Unitarianism

In particular religions

Abrahamic Bah' Christianity Islam Judaism Mormonism

Buddhism Hinduism Jainism Sikhism

Demiurge 2

ZoroastrianismAttributes

Eternalness Existence Gender Names("God") Omnibenevolence Omnipotence Omnipresence Omniscience

Experiences and practices

Belief Esotericism Faith Fideism Gnosis Hermeticism Metaphysics Mysticism Prayer Revelation Worship

Related topics

Euthyphro dilemma God complex God gene Neurotheology Ontology Philosophy Problem of evil Religion Religious texts Portrayals of God in popular media

v t e [1]

The demiurge is a concept from the Platonic, Neopythagorean, Middle Platonic, and Neoplatonic schools ofphilosophy for an artisan-like figure responsible for the fashioning and maintenance of the physical universe. Theterm was subsequently adopted by the Gnostics. Although a fashioner, the demiurge is not necessarily thought of asbeing the same as the creator figure in the familiar monotheistic sense, because both the demiurge itself plus thematerial from which the demiurge fashions the universe are considered either uncreated and eternal, or the product ofsome other being, depending on the system.The word "demiurge" is an English word from a Latinized form of the Greek , dmiourgos, literally "public worker", and which was originally a common noun meaning "craftsman" or "artisan", but gradually it came to mean "producer" and eventually "creator". The philosophical usage and the proper noun derive from Plato's Timaeus, written c.360 BC, in which the demiurge is presented as the creator of the universe. This is accordingly the definition of the demiurge in the Platonic (c.31090 BC) and Middle Platonic (c.90 BC 300 AD) philosophical traditions. In the various branches of the Neoplatonic school (third century onwards), the demiurge is the fashioner

Demiurge 3

of the real, perceptible world after the model of the Ideas, but (in most Neoplatonic systems) is still not itself "theOne". In the arch-dualist ideology of the various Gnostic systems, the material universe is evil, while thenon-material world is good. Accordingly, the demiurge is malevolent, as linked to the material world.

Platonism and NeoplatonismPlato, as the speaker Timaeus, refers to the Demiurge frequently in the Socratic dialogue Timaeus, c.360 BC. Themain character refers to the Demiurge as the entity who "fashioned and shaped" the material world. Timaeusdescribes the Demiurge as unreservedly benevolent, and hence desirous of a world as good as possible. The worldremains imperfect, however, because the Demiurge created the world out of a chaotic, indeterminate non-being.Plato's work Timaeus is a philosophical reconciliation of Hesiod's cosmology in his Theogony, syncreticallyreconciling Hesiod to Homer.

Middle PlatonismIn Numenius's Neo-Pythagorean and Middle Platonist cosmogony, the Demiurge is second God as the nous orthought of intelligibles and sensibles.[2]

NeoplatonismPlotinus and the later Platonists worked to clarify the Demiurge. To Plotinus, the second emanation represents anuncreated second cause (see Pythagoras' Dyad). Plotinus sought to reconcile Aristotle's energeia with Plato'sDemiurge, which, as Demiurge and mind (nous), is a critical component in the ontological construct of humanconsciousness used to explain and clarify substance theory within Platonic realism (also called idealism). In order toreconcile Aristotelian with Platonian philosophy, Plotinus metaphorically identified the demiurge (or nous) withinthe pantheon of the Greek Gods as Zeus (Dyeus).[3]

Henology

The first and highest aspect of God is described by Plato as the One, the source, or the Monad. This is the Goodabove the Demiurge, and manifests through the work of the Demiurge. The Monad emanated the demiurge or Nous(consciousness) from its "indeterminate" vitality due to the monad being so abundant that it overflowed back ontoitself, 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 the nonsentient force or dynamis, alsocalled the one or the Monad. The dyad is energeia emanated by the one that is then the work, process or activitycalled nous, Demiurge, mind, consciousness that organizes the indeterminate vitality into the experience called thematerial world, universe, cosmos. Plotinus also elucidates the equation of matter with nothing or non-being in hisEnneads[4] which more correctly is to express the concept of idealism or that there is not anything or anywhereoutside of the "mind" or nous (c.f. pantheism).Plotinus' form of Platonic idealism is to treat the Demiurge, nous as the contemplative faculty (ergon) within manwhich orders the force (dynamis) into conscious reality.[5] In this he claimed to reveal Plato's true meaning, adoctrine he learned from Platonic tradition that did not appear outside the academy or in Plato's text. This tradition ofcreator God as nous (the manifestation of consciousness), can be validated in the works of pre-Plotinus philosopherssuch as Numenius, as well as a connection between Hebrew and Platonic cosmology (see also Philo).[6]

The Demiurge of Neoplatonism is the Nous (mind of God), and is one of the three ordering principles: Arche (Gr. "beginning") - the source of all things, Logos (Gr. "word") - the underlying order that is hidden beneath appearances, Harmonia (Gr. "harmony") - numerical ratios in mathematics.

Demiurge 4

Before Numenius of Apamea and Plotinus' Enneads, no Platonic works ontologically clarified the Demiurge fromthe allegory in Plato's Timaeus. The idea of Demiurge was, however, addressed before Plotinus in the works ofChristian writer Justin Martyr who built his understanding of the Demiurge on the works of Numenius.[citation needed]

Iamblichus

Later, the Neoplatonist Iamblichus changed the role of the "One", effectively altering the role of the Demiurge assecond cause or dyad, which was one of the reasons that Iamblichus and his teacher Porphyry came 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 of henosis.[7] Iamblichus describes the One as a monad whose first principle or emanation isintellect (nous), while among "the many" that follow it there's a second, super-existent "One" that is the producer ofintellect or soul (psyche).The "One" is further separated into spheres of intelligence; the first and superior sphere is objects of thought, whilethe latter sphere is the domain of thought. Thus, a triad is formed of the intelligible nous, the intellective nous, andthe psyche in order to reconcile further the various Hellenistic philosophical schools of Aristotle's actus and potentiaof the unmoved mover and Plato's Demiurge.Then within this intellectual triad Iamblichus assigns the third rank to the Demiurge, identifying it with the perfect orDivine nous with the intellectual triad being promoted to a hebdomad (pure intellect).In the theoretic of Plotinus, nous produces nature through intellectual mediation, thus the intellectualizing gods arefollowed with a triad of psychic gods.

GnosticismGnosticism presents a distinction between the highest, unknowable God and the demiurgic creator of the material.Several systems of Gnostic thought present the Demiurge as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme Being: his act ofcreation occurs in unconscious semblance of the divine model, and thus is fundamentally flawed, or else is formedwith the malevolent intention of entrapping aspects of the divine in materiality. Thus, in such systems, the Demiurgeacts as a solution to the problem of evil.In the most radical form of Christian Gnosticism, the Demiurge is the "jealous God" of the Old Testament.[citationneeded]

MythosOne Gnostic mythos describes the declination of aspects of the divine into human form. Sophia (Greek: , lit.wisdom), the Demiurges mother a partial aspect of the divine Pleroma or Fullness, desired to create somethingapart from the divine totality, without the receipt of divine assent. In this act of separate creation, she gave birth tothe monstrous Demiurge and, being ashamed of her deed, wrapped him in a cloud and created a throne for him to bewithin it. The Demiurge, isolated, did not behold his mother, nor anyone else, concluded that only he himselfexisted, being ignorant of the superior levels of reality.The Demiurge, having received a portion of power from his mother, sets about a work of creation in unconsciousimitation of the superior Pleromatic realm: He frames the seven heavens, as well as all material and animal things,according to forms furnished by his mother; working however blindly, and ignorant even of the existence of themother who is the source of all his energy. He is blind to all that is spiritual, but he is king over the other twoprovinces. The word dmiourgos properly describes his relation to the material; he is the father of that which isanimal like himself.[8]

Thus Sophias 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

Demiurge 5

return by the subject to the superior, non-material realities which were its primal source.

AngelsPsalms 82:1 [9] describes a plurality of gods (elhim), which an older version in the Septuagint calls the assemblyof the gods, although it does not indicate that these gods were co-actors in creation. Philo had inferred from theexpression, "Let us make man," of Genesis that God had used other beings as assistants in the creation of man, andhe explains in this way why man is capable of vice as well as virtue, ascribing the origin of the latter to God, of theformer to His helpers in the work of creation.[10]

The earliest Gnostic sects ascribe the work of creation to angels, some of them using the same passage in Genesis.[11]

So Irenaeus tells[12] of the system of Simon Magus,[13] of the system of Menander,[14] of the system of Saturninus, inwhich the number of these angels is reckoned as seven, and[15] of the system of Carpocrates. In the report of thesystem of Basilides,[16] we are told that our world was made by the angels who occupy the lowest heaven; butspecial mention is made of their chief, who is said to have been the God of the Jews, to have led that people out ofthe land of Egypt, and to have given them their law. The prophecies are ascribed not to the chief but to the otherworld-making angels.The Latin translation, confirmed by Hippolytus,[17] makes Irenaeus state that according to Cerinthus (who showsEbionite influence), creation was made by a power quite separate from the Supreme God and ignorant of Him.Theodoret,[18] who here copies Irenaeus, turns this into the plural number powers, and so Epiphanius[19] representsCerinthus as agreeing with Carpocrates in the doctrine that the world was made by angels.

Yaldabaoth

A lion-faced deity found on a Gnosticgem in Bernard de Montfaucons

Lantiquit explique et reprsente enfigures may be a depiction of the

Demiurge.

In the Ophite and Sethian systems, which have many affinities with that lastmentioned, the making of the world is ascribed to a company of sevenarchons, whose names are given, but their chief, Yaldabaoth (also known as"Yaltabaoth" or "Ialdabaoth") comes into still greater prominence.

In the Apocryphon of John c.120-180 AD, the Demiurge arrogantly declaresthat he has made the world by himself:

Now the archon (ruler) who is weak has three names. The firstname is Yaltabaoth, the second is Saklas (fool), and the third isSamael. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. Forhe said, "I am God and there is no other God beside me," for heis ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come.[20]

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

Yaldabaoth is frequently called "the Lion-faced", leontoeides, with the body of a serpent. We are told also[21] that theDemiurge is of a fiery nature, the words of Moses being applied to him, the Lord our God is a burning andconsuming fire, a text which Hippolytus claims was also used by Simon.[22]

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

Demiurge 6

Under the name of Nebro (rebel), Yaldabaoth is called an angel in the apocryphal Gospel of Judas. He is firstmentioned in The Cosmos, Chaos, and the Underworld as one of the twelve angels to come into being [to] ruleover chaos and the [underworld]. He comes from heaven, his face flashed with fire and whose appearance wasdefiled with blood. Nebro creates six angels in addition to the angel Saklas to be his assistants. These six in turncreate another twelve angels with each one receiving a portion in the heavens.

Names

Drawing of the leontocephalinefound at the Mithraeum of C.Valerius Heracles and sons,

dedicated 190 AD at Ostia Antica,Italy (CIMRM 312).

The most probable derivation of the name Yaldabaoth was that given by JohannKarl Ludwig Gieseler, Son of Chaos, from Hebrew yalda bahut, .However, Gilles Quispel notes:

Gershom Scholem, the third genius in this field, more specifically thegenius of precision, has taught us that some of us were wrong whenthey believed that Jaldabaoth means son of chaos, because theAramaic word bahutha in the sense of chaos only existed in theimagination of the author of a well-known dictionary. This is a pitybecause this name would suit the demiurge risen from chaos to anicety. And perhaps the author of the Untitled Document did notknow Aramaic and also supposed as we did once, that baoth hadsomething to do with tohuwabohu, one of the few Hebrew words thateverybody knows. ... It would seem then that the Orphic view of thedemiurge was integrated into Jewish Gnosticism even before theredaction of the myth contained in the original Apocryphon of John.... Phanes is represented with the mask of a lions head on his breast,while from his sides the heads of a ram and a buck are budding forth:his body is encircled by a snake. This type was accepted by theMithras mysteries, to indicate Aion, the new year, and Mithras,whose numerical value is 365. Sometimes he is also identified withJao Adonai, the creator of the Hebrews. His hieratic attitude indicatesEgyptian origin. The same is true of the monstrous figure with thehead of a lion, which symbolises Time, Chronos, in Mithraism;Alexandrian origin of this type is probable.

Samael literally means Blind God or God of the Blind in Aramaic (Syriacsma-el). 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 ofDeath and in Christian demonology. This leads to a further comparison with Satan. Another alternative title for theDemiurge, Saklas, is Aramaic for fool (Syriac skla the foolish one).

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

Demiurge 7

MarcionAccording to Marcion, the title God was given to the Demiurge, who was to be sharply distinguished from the higherGood God. The former was dkaios, severely just, the latter agaths, or loving-kind; the former was the "god of thisworld" (2Corinthians 4:4 [23]), the God of the Old Testament, the latter the true God of the New Testament. Christ,though in reality the Son of the Good God, pretended to be the Messiah of the Demiurge, the better to spread thetruth concerning His heavenly Father. The true believer in Christ entered into God's kingdom, the unbelieverremained forever the slave of the Demiurge.

ValentinusIt is in the system of Valentinus that the name Dmiourgos is used, which occurs nowhere in Irenaeus except inconnection with the Valentinian system; we may reasonably conclude that it was Valentinus who adopted fromPlatonism the use of this word. When it is employed by other Gnostics either it is not used in a technical sense, or itsuse has been borrowed from Valentinus. But it is only the name that can be said to be specially Valentinian; thepersonage intended by it corresponds more or less closely with the Yaldabaoth of the Ophites, the great Archon ofBasilides, the Elohim of Justinus, etc.The Valentinian theory elaborates that from Achamoth (he kta sopha or lower wisdom) three kinds of substancetake their origin, the spiritual (pneumatiko), the animal (psychiko) and the material (hyliko). The Demiurge belongsto the second kind, as he was the offspring of a union of Achamoth with matter.[24] And as Achamoth herself wasonly the daughter of Sopha the last of the thirty Aeons, the Demiurge was distant by many emanations from thePropatr, or Supreme God.In creating this world out of Chaos the Demiurge was unconsciously influenced for good; and the universe, to thesurprise even of its Maker, became almost perfect. The Demiurge regretted even its slight imperfection, and as hethought himself the Supreme God, he attempted to remedy this by sending a Messiah. To this Messiah, however, wasactually united Jesus the Saviour, Who redeemed men. These are either hyliko, or pneumatiko.The first, or material men, will return to the grossness of matter and finally be consumed by fire; the second, oranimal men, together with the Demiurge, will enter a middle state, neither Pleroma nor hyle; the purely spiritual menwill be completely freed from the influence of the Demiurge and together with the Saviour and Achamoth, hisspouse, will enter the Pleroma divested of body (hyle) and soul (psych).[25] In this most common form ofGnosticism the Demiurge had an inferior though not intrinsically evil function in the universe as the head of theanimal, or psychic world.

The devilOpinions on the devil, and his relationship to the Demiurge, varied. The Ophites held that he and his demonsconstantly oppose and thwart the human race, as it was on their account the devil was cast down into this world.[26]

According to one variant of the Valentinian system, the Demiurge is besides the maker, out of the appropriatesubstance, of an order of spiritual beings, the devil, the prince of this world, and his angels. But the devil, as being aspirit of wickedness, is able to recognise the higher spiritual world, of which his maker the Demiurge, who is onlyanimal, has no knowledge. The devil resides in this lower world, of which he is the prince, the Demiurge in theheavens; his mother Sophia in the middle region, above the heavens and below the Pleroma.[27]

The Valentinian Heracleon[28] interpreted the devil as the principle of evil, that of hyle (matter). As he writes in hiscommentary on John 4:21 [29],

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

Demiurge 8

the Father of Truth.This vilification of the creator was held to be inimical to Christianity by the early fathers of the church. In refutingthe beliefs of the gnostics, Irenaeus stated that "Plato is proved to be more religious than these men, for he allowedthat the same God was both just and good, having power over all things, and himself executing judgment."[30]

CatharsCatharism apparently inherited their idea of Satan as the creator of the evil world from Gnosticism. Quispel writes,

There is a direct link between ancient Gnosticism and Catharism. The Cathars held that the creator ofthe world, Satanael, had usurped the name of God, but that he had subsequently been unmasked and toldthat he was not really God.[31]

Neoplatonism and GnosticismGnosticism attributed falsehood or evil to the concept of Demiurge or creator, though in some Gnostic traditions thecreator is from a fallen, ignorant, or lesserrather than evilperspective, such as that of Valentinius.

PlotinusThe Neoplatonic philosopher Plotinus addressed within his works Gnosticism's conception of the Demiurge, whichhe saw as un-Hellenic and blasphemous to the Demiurge or creator of Plato. Plotinus is noted as the founder ofNeoplatonism (along with his teacher Ammonius Saccas).[32] In the ninth tractate of the second of his Enneads,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 forthe plurality they assert in the Intellectual Realmthe Authentic Existent, the Intellectual-Principle, theSecond Creator and the Soulall 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 hypostasis or Creator and third hypostasis or World Soul. Plotinuscriticizes 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;[33] they attempt to conceal rather than admit theirindebtedness 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 Platos original intentions.Whereas Plato's Demiurge is good wishing good on his creation, Gnosticism contends that the Demiurge is not onlythe originator of evil but is evil as well. Hence the title of Plotinus' refutation: "Against Those That Affirm theCreator of the Kosmos and the Kosmos Itself to be Evil" (generally quoted as "Against the Gnostics"). Plotinusargues of the disconnect or great barrier that is created between the nous or mind's noumenon (see Heraclitus) andthe material world (phenomenon) by believing the material world is evil.The majority of scholars tend to understand Plotinus' opponents as being a Gnostic sectcertainly (specificallySethian), several such groups were present in Alexandria and elsewhere about the Mediterranean during 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 asGnostic is not without some contention. Christos Evangeliou has contended[34] that Plotinus opponents might bebetter described as simply Christian Gnostics, arguing that several of Plotinus criticisms are as applicable toorthodox Christian doctrine as well. Also, considering the evidence from the time, Evangeliou thought the definitionof the term Gnostics was unclear. Of note here is that while Plotinus' student Porphyry names Christianityspecifically in Porphyry's own works, and Plotinus is to have been a known associate of the Christian Origen, noneof Plotinus' works mention Christ or Christianitywhereas Plotinus specifically addresses his target in the Enneadsas the Gnostics.

Demiurge 9

A.H. Armstrong identified the so-called "Gnostics" that Plotinus was attacking as Jewish and Pagan, in hisintroduction to the tract in his translation of the Enneads. Armstrong alluding to Gnosticism being a Hellenicphilosophical heresy of sorts, which later engaged Christianity and Neoplatonism.[35][36]

John D. Turner, professor of religious studies at the University of Nebraska and famed translator and editor of theNag Hammadi library, stated[37] that the text Plotinus and his students read was Sethian Gnosticism, which predatesChristianity. It appears that Plotinus attempted to clarify how the philosophers of the academy had not arrived at thesame conclusions (such as dystheism or misotheism for the creator God as an answer to the problem of evil) as thetargets of his criticism.Emil Cioran also wrote his "Le mauvais dmiurge (The Evil Demiurge)", published in 1969, influenced byGnosticism and Schopenhauerian interpretation of Platonic ontology, as well as that of Plotinus.

ReferencesNotes

[1] http:/ / en. wikipedia. org/ w/ index. php?title=Template:God& action=edit[2] Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans: a brief history By Charles H. Kahn ISBN 0-87220-575-4 ISBN 978-0872205758 (http:/ / books. google.

com/ books?id=5vi10r5k5eEC& pg=PA124& lpg=PA124& dq=pythagoras+ demiurge& source=bl& ots=0Jl2ac33A9&sig=zsgGE2Gz560K6dqAEuUO5geZL_Q& hl=en& ei=PRwSTcwdwYGUB_GCpKoM& sa=X& oi=book_result& ct=result& resnum=4&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage& q=pythagoras demiurge& f=false)

[3] 10. The ordering principle is twofold; there is a principle known as the Demiurge, and there is the Soul of the All; the appellation "Zeus" issometimes applied to the Demiurge and sometimes to the principle conducting the universe. (http:/ / books. google. com/books?id=A7JIrgjkW6IC& pg=PA223& lpg=PA223& dq=plotinus+ demiurge+ is+ Zeus& source=bl& ots=t7S_6PiDjS&sig=zR659DPwtciETa4N5bvwm-gJk0I& hl=en& ei=K47RTOnkM4XGlQe6xo2qDA& sa=X& oi=book_result& ct=result& resnum=5&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage& q& f=false)

[4] "Matter is therefore a non-existent"; Plotinus, Ennead 2, Tractate 4 Section 16.[5] 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 bystepping from eternity into time, with the explanation: "For there is for this universe no other place than the soul or mind" (neque est alterhujus 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 ofPhilosophy", 7) Similarly, professor Ludwig Noir 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 thesoul". [5] It is worth noting, however, that like Plato but unlike Schopenhauer and other modern philosophers, Plotinus does not worry aboutwhether or how we can get beyond our ideas in order to know external objects.

[6] Numenius of Apamea was reported to have asked, What else is Plato than Moses speaking Greek? Fr. 8 Des Places.[7] See Theurgy, Iamblichus and henosis (http:/ / www. theandros. com/ iamblichus. html).[8] Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 5, 1. (http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ fathers/ 0103105. htm)[9] http:/ / tools. wmflabs. org/ bibleversefinder/ ?book=Psalms& verse=82:1& src=![10] "It is on this account that Moses says, at the creation of man alone that God said, 'Let us make man,' which expression shows an assumption

of other beings to himself as assistants, in order that God, the governor of all things, might have all the blameless intentions and actions ofman, when he does right attributed to him; and that his other assistants might bear the imputation of his contrary actions." Philo, On theCreation, XXIV. (http:/ / www. earlyjewishwritings. com/ text/ philo/ book1. html)

[11] Justin, Dial. cum Tryph. c. 67.[12] Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 23, 1.[13] Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 23, 5.[14][14] Irenaeus, i. 24, 1.[15] Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 25.[16] Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 24, 4.[17] Hippolytus, Ref. vii. 33.[18] Theodoret, Haer. Fab. ii. 3.[19] Epiphanius, Panarion, 28.[20] Apocryphon of John, translation by Frederik Wisse in The Nag Hammadi Library. Accessed online at gnosis.org (http:/ / www. gnosis.

org/ naghamm/ apocjn. html)[21] Hipp. Ref. vi. 32, p.191.[22] Hipp. Ref. vi. 9.[23] http:/ / tools. wmflabs. org/ bibleversefinder/ ?book=2%20Corinthians& verse=4:4& src=!

Demiurge 10

[24] Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 5. (http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ fathers/ 0103105. htm)[25] Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 6. (http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ fathers/ 0103106. htm)[26] Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 30, 8. (http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ fathers/ 0103130. htm)[27] Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, i. 5, 4. (http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ fathers/ 0103105. htm)[28] Heracleon, Frag. 20. (http:/ / www. gnosis. org/ library/ fragh. htm)[29] http:/ / tools. wmflabs. org/ bibleversefinder/ ?book=John& verse=4:21& src=![30] Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, iii. 25. (http:/ / www. newadvent. org/ fathers/ 0103325. htm)[31] Quispel, op. cit., p. 143.[32] Neoplatonism (http:/ / www. unl. edu/ classics/ faculty/ turner/ triadaft. htm).[33] "For, in sum, a part of their doctrine comes from Plato; all the novelties through which they seek to establish a philosophy of their own have

been picked up outside of the truth." Plotinus "Against the Gnostics", Ennead II, 9, 6. (http:/ / www. sacred-texts. com/ cla/ plotenn/ enn161.htm)

[34] Evangeliou, "Plotinus's Anti-Gnostic Polemic and Porphyry's Against the Christians", in Wallis & Bregman, op. cit., p. 111. (http:/ / books.google. com/ books?id=WSbrLPup7wYC& pg=PA111& lpg=PA111& dq=Plotinus's+ Anti-Gnostic+ Polemic+ and+ Porphyry's+ Against+the+ Christians"+ Christos+ Evangeliou& source=bl& ots=rSBVKFe8VD& sig=3MNVVSq8bDZs4koa-yMP6PaNT-Q& hl=en&ei=jR4hTIK_AsP48AbV_shl& sa=X& oi=book_result& ct=result& resnum=1& ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage& q=Plotinus'sAnti-Gnostic Polemic and Porphyry's Against the Christians" Christos Evangeliou& f=false)

[35] From "Introduction to Against the Gnostics", Plotinus' Enneads as translated by A.H. Armstrong, pp. 220-2: "The treatise as it stands in theEnneads is a most powerful protest on behalf of Hellenic philosophy against the un-Hellenic heresy (as it was from the Platonist as well as theorthodox Christian point of view) of Gnosticism. There were Gnostics among Plotinus's own friends, whom he had not succeeded inconverting (Enneads ch. 10 of this treatise) and he and his pupils devoted considerable time and energy to anti-Gnostic controversy (Life ofPlotinus ch. 16). He obviously considered Gnosticism an extremely dangerous influence, likely to pervert the minds even of members of hisown circle. It is impossible to attempt to give an account of Gnosticism here. By far the best discussion of what the particular group ofGnostics Plotinus knew believed is M. Puech's admirable contribution to Entretiens Hardt V (Les Sources de Plotin). But it is important for theunderstanding of this treatise to be clear about the reasons why Plotinus disliked them so intensely and thought their influence so harmful."

[36][36] Armstrong, pp. 220-2: "Short statement of the doctrine of the three hypostasis, the One, Intellect and Soul; there cannot be more or fewerthan these three. Criticism of the attempts to multiply the hypostasis, and especially of the idea of two intellects, one which thinks and thatother which thinks that it thinks. (ch. 1). The true doctrine of Soul (ch. 2). The law of necessary procession and the eternity of the universe(ch.3). Attack on the Gnostic doctrine of the making of the universe by a fallen soul, and on their despising of the universe and the heavenlybodies (chs. 4-5). The senseless jargon of the Gnostics, their plagiarism from and perversion of Plato, and their insolent arrogance (ch. 6). Thetrue doctrine about Universal Soul and the goodness of the universe which it forms and rules (chs. 7-8). Refutation of objections from theinequalities and injustices of human life (ch. 9). Ridiculous arrogance of the Gnostics who refuse to acknowledge the hierarchy of createdgods and spirits and say that they alone are sons of God and superior to the heavens (ch. 9). The absurdities of the Gnostic doctrine of the fallof "Wisdom" (Sophia) and of the generation and activities of the Demiurge, maker of the visible universe (chs. 10-12). False andmelodramatic Gnostic teaching about the cosmic spheres and their influence (ch. 13). The blasphemous falsity of the Gnostic claim to controlthe higher powers by magic and the absurdity of their claim to cure diseases by casting out demons (ch. 14). The false other-worldliness of theGnostics leads to immorality (ch. 15). The true Platonic other-worldliness, which love and venerates the material universe in all its goodnessand beauty as the most perfect possible image of the intelligible, contracted at length with the false, Gnostic, other-worldliness which hatesand despises the material universe and its beauties (chs. 16-18)."

[37] Turner, "Gnosticism and Platonism", in Wallis & Bregman, op. cit.

Sources

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain:Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913)."Demiurge". Catholic Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Company.

This article incorporates text from the entry Demiurgus (http:/ / books. google. com/books?id=Lf8ZAAAAYAAJ& pg=PA804) in A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects andDoctrines by William Smith and Henry Wace (1877), a publication now in the public domain.

External links Dark Mirrors of Heaven: Gnostic Cosmogony (http:/ / www. timelessmyths. com/ mirrors/ gnostic. php) Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Demiurge". Encyclopdia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press

Article Sources and Contributors 11

Article Sources and ContributorsDemiurge Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=593223079 Contributors: 24.148.68.xxx, Administer, Advent child, Aestheteka, Agreer76, Alai, Albmont, Angel ivanov angelov,Angusmclellan, Arb, Are you ready for IPv6?, Argotechnica, Ariel, Ashmoo, Astroalcher, AugPi, B9 hummingbird hovering, BD2412, Babbage, Badagnani, Banno, Barticus88, Bcorr, Bejnar,Belovedfreak, Benjamin ben-ari, Beyond My Ken, Bob Burkhardt, Briangotts, Bwithh, CALR, Calibanu, CamLewis, Carl.bunderson, Cassowary, Castanea dentata, Catalographer, Cema, CharlesMatthews, Cheesedreams, Chris the speller, Chris55, Continuing source of inspiration, Conversion script, Cuchullain, DNewhall, DaGizza, Daemonic Kangaroo, Dan, DanielCD, Danwaggoner,Davidiad, Dbachmann, Deadly Dozen, Demiurg, Diego Moya, DocWatson42, Dougweller, Dycedarg, ECHTucson, Ebyabe, Editor2020, Eequor, Engelous, Enkyklios, Enzomich, Eponymous13,Ewa5050, Fabrigo, Feeeshboy, Felicity4711, ForestAngel, Foscolo, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Gaius Cornelius, Garzo, Geneisner, Gilliam, Girolamo Savonarola, GoodDamon, Grayfell,Gregbard, Gregory Benoit, Ground Zero, Grshiplett, Guest aaron1, Haeinous, Hapsiainen, Harvester, HenryHRich, Huon, I m princess leia2, IPSOS, IanOsgood, IgnorantArmies, IgorSF, Ijostl,Imnotminkus, Inbar Arie, Iridescent, JSilvanus, JaGa, Jacquerie27, Jaspergregory, Jauhienij, Java7837, Jeff3000, Jmrowland, Jonathan Headland, Jonathan Tweet, KAMiKAZOW, KSchutte,KatiaRoma, Keegan, Kendrick7, Kewp, Kirachinmoku, Koavf, Kramden, Kurykh, Kwamikagami, LeCire, LilHelpa, LilyKitty, Loupiotte, LoveMonkey, Luna Santin, Mac Davis, Mark Foskey,Matthew Proctor, Mboverload, Mediadimension, MiNombreDeGuerra, Michael Hardy, Mild Bill Hiccup, MisterSquirrel, Monkeycheetah, Music Sorter, Naddy, Nathanielfirst, Ndaco,Neoyamaneko, Niceguyedc, Ninel, Nirvana2013, Nixdorf, No Account, Octopod, Odysses, Ogress, Ojigiri, Omegatron, Opiaterein, OrangeDog, PBS-AWB, PaperTruths, Pedant17, Phasma Felis,Phoenix-forgotten, Pollinosisss, Porlob, PsyckoSama, Putrescent stench, Quadell, Qwertyus, RadioFan, Radioactive afikomen, Ramng, Rich Farmbrough, Richardson mcphillips, Risacher,Rjwilmsi, Robofish, Rosaecruz, Rursus, S2pindia, SS, Sam Hocevar, Sam Spade, Samuel Blanning, Saposcat, SchuminWeb, Scott MacLean, Seedsaver, Sfdan, SkerHawx, Sleigh, Sockpuppet,Somnum, SpectrumDT, Stone, Stonejag, Str1977, T-borg, TShilo12, Tech77, The Anome, The Gnome, The Storm Surfer, The enemies of god, Thu, Tijuana Brass, TimBentley, Tomisti, Totila,Trafford09, Trujaman, Tydaj, Ugha, Uncle G, VedicScience, Victoriaearle, VinceBrewster, Viriditas, Visualerror, VolatileChemical, Welsh, Wereon, Wesley, Wetman, Wighson, Wiki-uk,Wikid77, Wintermutee, Woohookitty, Yahnatan, Yingdan, Yworo, Zeusnoos, Zylox, 277 anonymous edits

Image Sources, Licenses and ContributorsImage:Lion-faced deity.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Lion-faced_deity.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: AnonMoos, Bukk, FSII, LTB, Mattes, Mu,Shakko, Tomisti, Tonyjeff, 2 anonymous editsFile:Leontocephaline-Ostia.jpg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Leontocephaline-Ostia.jpg License: Public Domain Contributors: Foroa, Laslovarga, MGA73, Shakko,6 anonymous editsFile:Wikisource-logo.svg Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikisource-logo.svg License: logo Contributors: Guillom, INeverCry, Jarekt, Leyo, MichaelMaggs, NielsF,Rei-artur, Rocket000

LicenseCreative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0//creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

DemiurgePlatonism and NeoplatonismMiddle PlatonismNeoplatonism Henology Iamblichus

GnosticismMythosAngelsYaldabaothNames

MarcionValentinusThe devilCathars

Neoplatonism and GnosticismPlotinus

ReferencesExternal links

License