Pistis sophia. A gnostic gospel (with extracts from the books of the saviour appended)

INTRODUCTION.

mystery. It was likely copied in by mistake, or the Coptic translator added a note from another book, most probably one of the Books of the Saviour.

At the end of the manuscript, after the conclusion of the narrative, there is an extra leaf with only the left-hand column partially filled with writing. The subject here changes completely again, leading us to suppose that some leaves are missing before it.

Finally, at page 379, eight pages or four leaves of the manuscript have disappeared.

A general view of the subjects treated can be seen from the table of contents, which consists of the indented summaries I have added to the text.

The date and authorship of the Greek original.

The next question is: what was the original Greek work from which the Coptic translation of the Pistis Sophia was made? I am convinced the original was the famous Apocalypse of Sophia Revelation of Wisdom, composed by Valentinus. He was the most learned doctor of the Gnosis spiritual knowledge and lived for thirty years in Egypt during the latter half of the second century. He was a master of the Greek language, in which he wrote his treatises. The further consideration of this point must be postponed for the commentary I intend to write. In that work, I will attempt a comparison between the Pistis Sophia and the remaining fragments of Valentinus's writings. It is sufficient to state here that this view is supported by Woide, Jablonski, La Croze, Scholtz, Dulaurier, Schwartze, Renan, Revaillant, Usener, and Amélineau. Amélineau dealt with this at length in his Essay on Egyptian Gnosticism and in his introduction to the Pistis Sophia. The cautious opinion of Harnack also allows for the date of Valentinus. In his 1891 essay on the subject, the famous Biblical critic gives the terminus a quo earliest possible date as 140 and the terminus ad quem latest possible date as 302. He bases the earliest limit on the fact

INTRODUCTION.

that the Gospels and Pauline Epistles are regarded in the text as Holy Scripture. Even a passage from the Epistle to the Romans is quoted by the author as a saying of Jesus from the mouth of Paul. The Pauline writings were never called Holy Scripture before the time of Antoninus Pius (138). The latest limit is determined by a passage about persecution on page 277. This leads Harnack to guess that the author wrote when Christians were still lawfully persecuted. On the other hand, the author does not seem to have experienced a persecution personally. Thus, Harnack excludes the persecution of Maximin and arrives at the 302 limit. However, this is quite unsatisfactory. Deductions made from internal evidence are an essential part of higher criticism, but in this case, they are based on very thin evidence. The method used by Amélineau, who compares the known fragments of Valentinus with the text of Pistis Sophia, is the only truly satisfactory test.

The Books of the Saviour.

But what about the fragments from the Books of the Saviour inserted in and added to the text of the Pistis Sophia proper? On pages 246 and 354, mention is made of certain Books of Ieou. Jesus promises to give these to his disciples when he has finished his current teaching. In the first instance, a few pages later (253), the first short extract is inserted. In the second instance, almost immediately after the Pistis Sophia treatise ends (page 357), the rest of the manuscript is devoted to a much longer extract from the Books of the Saviour. These extracts are remarkably similar to the contents of the Coptic Papyrus brought to England from Upper Egypt by the famous Scottish traveler Bruce in 1769. He left it to the care of the Bodleian Library. This papyrus consists of 78 leaves, each containing 27 to 34 lines. It is 29 centimeters high and 17 wide. It is in book form rather than a roll. It is written in Greek characters in the Thebaic-Coptic dialect, just like the Pistis Sophia.