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

INTRODUCTION.

on the Coptic-Theban Manuscript titled The Faithful Wisdom; and on the Projected Publication of the Text and French Translation of this Manuscript" original: "Notice sur le Manuscript copte-thébain, intitulé La Fidèle Sagesse...".

On page 542 Dulaurier tells us that he had made a French translation from the Coptic in the following words: "The translation of the Pistis Sophia and the glossary which forms a complement to it are finished, and will be sent to the printers, when I have convinced myself that I have fulfilled the requirements that this task imposes, taking into consideration the present state of science and my own capabilities. The manuscript from which I have made my translation is a copy which I have taken from the original, during my stay in England in 1838-1840, when I was charged by Messrs. de Salvandy and Villemain, successive ministers of public instruction, with the commission of proceeding to London to study this curious monument." Dulaurier, however, did not publish his labours, nor have I as yet come across any record of the fate of his manuscripts. He ascribes the treatise to Valentinus.

i. 1851. Schwartze (M. G.). Pistis Sophia, a Gnostic Work Attributed to Valentinus, Described from a Coptic Manuscript Codex in London, translated into Latin by M. G. Schwartze, edited by J. H. Petermann original: "Pistis Sophia, Opus Gnosticum Valentino adjudicatum..." (Berlin).

Schwartze died at an early age before the completion of his labours on the Pistis Sophia, and the manuscript translation he left behind contained a number of blanks and passages which he intended to fill up and correct. Petermann has confined himself in his notes strictly to verbal corrections and suggestions as to various readings original: "variæ lectiones". The consequence is that we have a translation without the notes of the translator, and without a word of introduction. Petermann says the task of editing was so severe that he frequently suffered from fits of giddiness. Schwartze copied out the whole of the Coptic manuscript of Pistis Sophia and also the Oxford Codex Brucianus. He considers the original treatise,

INTRODUCTION.

as we see from the title of his work, to be written by the hand of Valentinus; but Petermann is of the opinion that it is the work of an Ophite a member of a Gnostic sect that revered the serpent as a symbol of wisdom, and promises to set forth his reasons at length in a treatise, which has unfortunately never seen the light. Köstlin and Schmidt also hold this view, and as far as the Extracts from the Books of the Saviour are concerned, I see no reason why there should not be some truth in the idea. For we may connect these Books closely with the Books of Ieou, and the latter connect us at once with the Enochian literature. The Ophites were pre-Valentinian and mostly Syrian. They were the first to take the distinct name of Gnostics. Some of their books were translated into Greek. This fits in with the hypothesis put forth above that Valentinus compiled the Books of the Saviour from a prior set of Gnostic writings. The Melchisedecian pertaining to Melchizedek, the biblical priest-king ideas would also come through the Syrian Gnosis, and be cognate to the Enochian tradition. A review of Schwartze’s work appeared in the Journal of Scholars original: "Journal des Savants" of 1852 (p. 333).

j. 1852. Bunsen (C. C. J.). Hippolytus and his Time, Beginnings and Prospects of Christianity and Humanity original: "Hippolytus und seine Zeit..." (Leipzig), i. 47, 48. Hippolytus and his Age (London, 1852), i. 61, 62.

"Great, therefore, were my hopes in 1842, that the ancient Coptic manuscript of the British Museum, inscribed Sophia, might be a translation, or at least an extract, from that lost text-book of Gnosticism [the work quoted by Hippolytus under the section on Valentinus]: but unfortunately the accurate and trustworthy labours of that patient and conscientious Coptic scholar, Dr. Schwartze, so early taken away from us, have proved to me (for I have seen and perused his manuscript, which I hope will soon appear), that this Coptic treatise is a most worthless (I trust, purely Coptic) offshoot of the Marcosian heresy a Gnostic sect founded by Marcus, of the latest and stupidest mysticism about letters, sounds, and words."

Bunsen stands absolutely alone in this opinion, and we doubt whether he could have read Schwartze’s manuscript with any care.