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

INTRODUCTION.

At least twenty leaves are missing. Even when Bruce found it, it was in a very dilapidated condition. It was further damaged by neglect and dampness in the Bodleian, where Woide found it and carefully copied it. Woide believed it was the Egyptian version of the Pistis Sophia written by Valentinus in Coptic. However, it is clearly a translation from the Greek, much like the Pistis Sophia. Like that work, it is filled with original Greek technical terms. Schwartze also copied it. In 1891, Amélineau published a text and a French translation in Paris. In 1892, Schmidt published a text and a German translation in Leipzig.

Schmidt sorted out this confusing mess of leaves with the following results:

The Codex consists of two treatises that are quite distinct in subject and character. The first is divided into two parts, the two Books of Ieou, under the general title, The Book of the Great Logos according to the Mystery possibly the Mystery of Ieou. The second treatise has no title and is followed by a long Hymn to the Gnosis, also without a title. The First Book of Ieou opens with the title, “This is the Book of the Knowledge of the Invisible God.”

One thing is very clear on every page. We are dealing with a manuscript that contains the ideas of the same school as the Pistis Sophia and the Books of the Saviour. In fact, the longer extract from the Books of the Saviour gives practically the same account of the three baptisms as the one found in much greater detail in the Codex Brucianus Bruce Manuscript.

It is impossible to say whether the extracts from the Books of the Saviour attached to the Pistis Sophia manuscript belong to the missing parts of the Codex Brucianus, or whether the translator abridged portions of the Books of Ieou to give readers an idea of the books mentioned in the main text. However, it is certain that the Books of the Saviour and the treatises of

INTRODUCTION.

the Codex Brucianus are joined by the closest ties of relationship. A commentator on one must be intimately familiar with the contents of the other.

The frequent mention of the name Melchisedec throughout the text of the Pistis Sophia reminds us of the fragment of Melchisedecian literature translated by Charles see above. Its close connection with the Enochian literature points perhaps to one of the sources for the Greek original of the Books of the Saviour and the Pistis Sophia.

The disconnected column at the end of Book I undoubtedly belongs to the same collection of writings as the Books of the Saviour. This is also true of the two pages (253, 254) inserted in the middle of Book II. Finally, the odd column at the end of the manuscript may come from the same source or be an independent effort by the translator or scribe.

The probable history of the treatise.

Let us now review the probable history of our treatise and suggest what may have happened to it before it reached Antony Askew.

The original Greek treatise of the Pistis Sophia was compiled by Valentinus in the second half of the second century, perhaps in Alexandria. By “compiled,” I mean that the Apocalypse of Sophia, or whatever its title was, was not invented entirely by Valentinus. The traditional framework, the selection of texts from other scriptures—Hebrew, Christian, Egyptian, Chaldean, Ethiopic, and others—and the adaptation of names were his part of the task. It is evident that in many places he was translating or paraphrasing older material. He had great difficulty turning some of the Oriental terms into Greek. The original name for Pistis Sophia was 11.5 / 7 / 12.15? These numbers in the source text likely refer to a specific non-Greek or symbolic nomenclature that was difficult to render, which was left in its present barbaric and non-Greek form.

Several copies of this original by Valentinus were undoubtedly made.