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

INTRODUCTION.

Schwartze of pages 227-239, 242-244, 247-248, 255-259, 261-263, 282-292, 308-308, 341, 342, 358, 375 of the Codex. King, who was more of a numismatologist studier of coins and antiquarian than a critic, does not venture an opinion either on the date or author.

r. 1887. Amélineau (E.). Essay on Egyptian Gnosticism, its Developments and its Egyptian Origin original: "Essai sur le Gnosticisme égyptien...", in the Annals of the Guimet Museum original: "Annals du Musée Guimet" (Paris), vol. xiv. Cf. especially the third part for the system of Valentinus and Pistis Sophia, pp. 166-322.
s. 1889. Amélineau. Article "The Gnostic Treatises of Oxford; A Critical Study" original: "Les Traités gnostiques d’Oxford...", in the Review of the History of Religions original: "Revue de l’Histoire des Religions" (Paris, edited by Réville), an essay of 72 pp., 8vo.
t. 1891. Amélineau. Notice on the Gnostic Bruce Papyrus, Text and Translation original: "Notice sur les Papyrus gnostique Bruce..." (Paris), 305 pp., 4to.
u. 1895. Amélineau. Pistis Sophia, Gnostic Work of Valentinus, translated from Coptic into French, with an Introduction original: "Pistis Sophia, Ouvrage gnostique de Valentinus..." (Paris), pp. xxxii and 204, 8vo.

Amélineau goes thoroughly into the Valentinian origin of the treatise, but leans almost exclusively to an Egyptian origin of the ideas. The manuscript itself, however, he places very late, writing on page xi. of his Introduction as follows:
"After an examination of the enormous faults which the scribe has committed, I cannot attribute to the manuscript which has preserved the Pistis Sophia to us, a date later than the ninth or tenth century, and that too the minimum. For this I have several reasons. Firstly, the manuscript is written on parchment, and parchment was hardly ever commonly used in Egypt before the sixth or seventh century. Secondly, the writing, which is uncial a style of script using large rounded letters, though passable in the first pages of the manuscript, becomes bastard in a large number of leaves, when the scribe’s hand is fatigued; no longer is it the beautiful writing of the Egyptian scribes of the great periods, but slack, inconsistent, almost round and hurried. Thirdly, the faults of orthography in the use of Greek words

INTRODUCTION.

evidently show that the scribe belonged to a period when Greek was almost no longer known."
In a footnote Amélineau says that he is perfectly aware that this opinion of his will "raise a tempest," and begs for a suspension of judgment till he has published his reasons as to the late use of parchment, at greater length. Now it was Ptolemy II (Philadelphus), King of Egypt from 283-247 B.C., who forbade the exportation of papyrus from Egypt, and forced the King of Pergamus to copy their books on parchment. The library of Pergamus was bequeathed to the Senate of Rome, and Antony handed it over to Cleopatra somewhere about 35 B.C.; this library, consisting for the most part of parchment rolls and books, was placed in the new Brucheiôn at Alexandria, to replace the old Library which was totally destroyed by the fire of Cæsar’s fleet in 47. Parchment, then, was common enough as a book-fabric in Alexandria, at least 600 years before Amélineau’s limit.
An examination of the manuscript does not entirely substantiate the strictures of Amélineau on the careless writing of the scribe; the writing though hurried is fairly consistent, while the first dozen pages are most admirably written. The faults of spelling only prove that this particular scribe did not know Greek, a likely enough thing if the copy was made in Upper Egypt and not at Alexandria. I am, therefore, far from convinced by any one of the reasons Amélineau brings forward.

v. 1891. Harnack (A.). On the Gnostic Book Pistis Sophia original: "Über das gnostische Buch Pistis Sophia" (Leipzig).

I have already given Harnack’s views on the date; he attributes the authorship to a modified Ophite origin. He suggests that Book I. only is properly Pistis Sophia; Book II. should be called the Questions of Mary (p. 94).

w. 1892. Schmidt (C.). Gnostic Writings in the Coptic Language from the Codex Brucianus, edited, translated and revised original: "Gnostische Schriften in koptischer Sprache...", pp. 680, 8vo; in von