Part 6
Passing on to the Fourth Document, there is no need to emphasise what has been already said in the preceding chapter of this Introduction as to the ever-increasing use therein of the practices of magic and astrology as shown in the galimatias with which the prayers of Jesus are prefaced and the pre-ponderating part in man’s destiny assigned in it to the stars. Dr. Schmidt and Prof. Harnack follow their predecessor Köstlin in regarding this as evidence of a more primitive form of heresy than that which is taught in the earlier documents; but the argument is really the other way. The same galimatias is found in the Græco-Egyptian Magic Papyri none of which is assigned on palæographic grounds to an earlier date than the third century, and the various “magical prayers” which can be found in the Ethiopic MSS. published by Sir Ernest Wallis Budge reproduce the same feature _ad nauseam_. It is found, too, in the very late so-called “Gnostic” Papyrus of Turin, where the “Eli, Eli lama sabachthani” spoken on the Cross is numbered in entire ignorance of its context among “the glorious names of God”;[111] while we know from other sources that the practice of astrology became so frequent under the Christian Emperors that its use had to be limited by law. The same assumption that words unintelligible to both writers and readers form part of a “Divine language” appears strongly marked in even orthodox Christian literature of the post-Constantinian centuries, as in the series of Coptic Apocrypha lately acquired for the British Museum which in their present form are not put earlier than the tenth century.[112] Another proof of a late date for this Fourth Document can be found in its concluding words about the Great Name which, although the belief can be traced to the ancient Egyptian tale of the Illness of Râ, in the form here given already approaches the stories to the same effect in the Mediæval Cabala.
The Fifth Document need not detain us long, as nearly all that can be said about it has been said above. But the picture of the murderer’s soul tied by the tongue to a great demon in the shape of a horse is found again in the Coptic Life of Bishop Pisentius which mentions the invasion of the Persians in the reign of Heraclius and cannot therefore be earlier than the end of the seventh century.[113] The descriptions of the torments of hell, without being identical, are cast in the same mould as those in the _Apocalypse of Paul_, which is attributed to the year 380 A.D. The doctrine that it is the nature of the sins committed by the soul which determine the bodily infirmities allotted to it in its next incarnation also first appears formally stated, so far as I am aware, in the _Acta Archelai_ written for the refutation of the teaching of Manes, and therefore not earlier than the end of the third century. It was probably this which led Lipsius to think that he could perceive Manichaean features in our text.
* * * * *
To sum up, then, I believe that all the Documents in our text belong to the School of Valentinus. As to date, the First and the greatest part of the Second are probably taken from documents written by Valentinus himself, and therefore before A.D. 160, while the last part of the Second, and the whole of the Third, Fourth, and Fifth, are by the degenerate successors of his school and are arranged in date order. These last may be of any date between A.D. 245 and 388, when we last hear of the Valentinians as an organised sect, and some parts of them may not improbably be later still.
Footnote 2:
_Not_ Greek, as has been sometimes said. The point is of importance for dating.
Footnote 3:
Where not otherwise mentioned, this pagination is used in all references hereafter.
Footnote 4:
Cf. alternative ending of Mark and Apocal. of Paul. Budge, _Misc. Coptic Texts_, p. 1084.
Footnote 5:
See my article “Some Heretic Gospels” in _Scottish Review_ for 1893.
Footnote 6:
_Archæological Report_ of the Egypt Exploration Fund, 1897-1898, p. 62.
Footnote 7:
_Album de Paléographie Copte._
Footnote 8:
F. Granger, in a review in the _Journal of Theological Studies_, v. v. (1904), pp. 0400 ff., says he sees no reason why Coptic should not have been its original language. I am inclined to agree with him, particularly with regard to the Fourth and Fifth Documents. But the balance of expert opinion is distinctly against this view.
Footnote 9:
In the Preface to the Coptic text of 1851, he states his intention of publishing later a “tractate,” showing the Ophite origin of the work; but this promise, like others affecting it, remains unfulfilled.
Footnote 10:
All this is dealt with in the Introduction to my translation of the _Philosophumena_, published by the S.P.C.K. in 1921, pp. 5, 6.
Footnote 11:
_Theologische Jahrbucher_, Bd. XIII., pp. 1-104, 137-196, Edited by Baur and Zeller, Tübingen.
Footnote 12:
Buckle, who was a most omnivorous reader, found Schwartze’s Latin version and summarised it in the Commonplace Book, published after his death.
Footnote 13:
I had the pleasure in 1912 of again uncovering a great part of these tombs under the leadership of my old friend Prof. Edouard Naville. I was astonished both at their extent and the very imperfect account of their first discovery given by M. Amélineau in the volumes published by him long after the excavation, from what were evidently imperfectly taken notes. Lack of funds prevented the Egypt Exploration Fund, for which Prof. Naville and I were working, from continuing our exploration, but I saw enough to convince me that there is still much to be gathered from a fresh exploration of the site.
Footnote 14:
Dr. Preuschen’s criticism was made in the _Theologische Litteratur-Zeitung_ (of Jena) Bd. XIX. (1894), pp. 183-187, and answered by Dr. Schmidt in the _Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Theologie_ of the same year, Bd. XXXVII., pp. 555 ff. Pastor Lichtenhau’s attack was given in the last-named periodical for 1901, Bd. XVIII., pp. 236 ff.
Footnote 15:
Among the earlier writers, I should mention Joh. Nap. Grüber, who, in an inaugural Thesis read before the Faculty of the University of Würzburg in 1864, on the Ophite heresy, dealt at great length with the _Pistis Sophia_. I have worked through this, however, without deriving from it any new ideas which could be substantiated by later information. Among more recent writers, I may also mention the late Mr. P. D. Scott-Moncrieff’s _Paganism and Christianity in Egypt_ (1913), which contains many useful hints and might, but for the writer’s premature death, have been expanded into a useful text-book.
Footnote 16:
_E.g._ M. Maspero’s review in the _Revue Critique_ (n. 3, LXVIII., 2nd plie) for 1909, pp. 192, 193 of Lieblein’s article on the _Pistis Sophia_ in the _Kristiania Videnskobs-Selskabs Forhandlingen_ of the same year.
Footnote 17:
The word _topos_ used here and elsewhere in the text seems to be a Greek translation of the Egyptian _Ker-t_, which as M. Naville, _Litanie du Soleil_, pp. 15, 16, points out, is the place which serves as a residence for a spirit or a body such as the Sun. He thinks with Champollion that it was also what the Alexandrians sometimes described as a zone or sphere.
Footnote 18:
All this appears in the opening pages of our text with the exception of the place of our earth and of Chaos which is nowhere distinctly stated. Chaos is represented in the episode of _Pistis Sophia_ as being below the twelve Æons or Zodiac; but in her hymn of thanksgiving, she describes what has been done there as taking place “in the world of men.” Does this mean that the earth was made out of the “passions” of Sophia, as Irenæus (I. i., 10, pp. 48, 49 Harvey) says Valentinus affirmed? It is probable; but in any case, the Egyptians seem always to have regarded Chaos or the Darkness as outside rather than below the earth.
Footnote 19:
See pp. 16-20 Copt.
Footnote 20:
The word “Æon,” frequently employed in our text, seems to have in it quite a different meaning from that which the Fathers attributed to it. According to them, the Gnostics used it as equivalent to “Spirit” or “Power,” going so far as to describe the Supreme God of their system as “the Perfect Æon.” In our MS., however, it generally signifies the signs of the Zodiac and their curious adjunct the thirteenth Æon, which are all inhabited at some time or other by rebellious powers. In other passages, especially in the later documents, it resumes its proper etymological meaning of “Age” as when “the Consummation of the Æon” is talked of.
Footnote 21:
Mary Magdalene appears as the chief interlocutor in the dialogues with the Saviour, asking, it is said, thirty-nine questions in all out of a total of forty-six. A Gnostic work is mentioned by Epiphanius in his twenty-sixth Heresy, as being used by a sect which he calls “the Gnostics” only, and bearing the title [the great] “Interrogations of Mary.” Hence Harnack (_Über das gnostische Buch Pistis Sophia_, pp. 107 ff.) concludes that this may have been the original title of our text or of some part of it, and Schmidt seems to agree with him. But the practices which Epiphanius attributes to his Gnostics are expressly condemned in one of the later Documents of our text, nor do any of the tenets which he assigns to them agree with those here described.
Footnote 22:
The Father is called “the First Mystery looking inward” on p. 126 (Copt) and Jesus “the First Mystery looking outward” on p. 128, while the Veil of the First Mystery who is the Twin Mystery “looking inwards and outwards” is mentioned on p. 222.
Footnote 23:
See pp. 237-240 (Copt).
Footnote 24:
See p. 246 (Copt).
Footnote 25:
See pp. 248-252. The Treasurehouse is therefore part of the Kerasmos.
Footnote 26:
The Ophites actually had such a diagram, and this with their “defences” or “passwords” is described by Origen. Cf. _Forerunner_, II., pp. 66-74.
Footnote 27:
These three “rhapsodies” are to be found on pp. 206-216, 219-224, and 229-231. Scott-Moncrieff in his _Paganism and Christianity in Egypt_, pp. 77-80, points out that the early organisation of the Church in Egypt included “prophets” who were accustomed to utter things in ecstasy; and it is quite possible that these rhapsodies may be a specimen of their utterances. Besides being familiar with the _Book of the Dead_, they may have had an hereditary connection with the prophets of Amen.
Footnote 28:
That He was supposed to have visited the highest realms is shown by the fact that He wore all three robes on his return.
Footnote 29:
To correspond doubtless to the one “Space” of the Ineffable and the three Spaces of the First Mystery; making four in all.
Footnote 30:
See pp. 279-281, Copt.
Footnote 31:
See pp. 281-285; 336-341, Copt.
Footnote 32:
These transmigrations are limited in number (see p. 327, Copt); but the number is not stated. It would be interesting to know if they were five, like those of the Manichæans.
Footnote 33:
See p. 355, Copt.
Footnote 34:
Thus Irenæus (II., 33, 3, p. 331 H.) says He suffered on completing His thirtieth year; yet that He taught until He was forty or fifty years old.
Footnote 35:
This is repeated in the _Bruce Papyrus_ in the same connection.
Footnote 36:
See p. 361, Copt.
Footnote 37:
See pp. 364-371, Copt.
Footnote 38:
See pp. 372-376, Copt.
Footnote 39:
See pp. 379-387, Copt.
Footnote 40:
See pp. 387-389, Copt.
Footnote 41:
See pp. 389-390, Copt.
Footnote 42:
That Valentinus, unlike Marcian, only wished to found a school within the Church and not to set up a rival one in opposition to it, is shown in _Forerunners_, p. 125.
Footnote 43:
Our MS. is not only without any heading of the kind, but lacks any of the coloured or illuminated initial letters used in the religious texts of its period. A good specimen of their practices is seen in Budge’s _Coptic Apocrypha_, _passim_. In the _Pistis Sophia_ all this is absent, the paragraphs being marked with a single sign, while the gaps are filled by the simplest possible ornament corresponding to our dots.
Footnote 44:
The belief that knowledge of the name of a person or thing gave its possessor power over it appears in nearly every chapter of the _Book of the Dead_ as well as in the story of the Places of Râ. Hence it is probable that many of the names given in our text are only pseudonyms borrowed, perhaps, from other sects. Thus the names of Iao and Maskelli are expressly said to be those by which they are called by “the demons” and to correspond to those of certain wicked “Rulers.”
Footnote 45:
Cf. P. S. B. A., 1903, p. 304.
Footnote 46:
Pierrot, _Livre des Morts_, 1882, p. 555.
Footnote 47:
F. C. Burkitt in P. S. B. A., 1901, p. 78. Prof. Burkitt thinks the Homily was probably written by Isaac of Antioch. Cf. the thirty-sixth Canon of the Council of Laodicea quoted by Lightfoot. _Colossians_, p. 69.
Footnote 48:
Cf. the elaborate colophon to the _Apocalypse of Paul_ in Budge’s _Miscellaneous Coptic Texts_, p. 1084 and Pl. XL.
Footnote 49:
P. 8, Copt.
Footnote 50:
See last note.
Footnote 51:
P. 127, Copt.
Footnote 52:
Pp. 120 f., Copt.
Footnote 53:
P. 128, Copt.
Footnote 54:
Pp. 11 f., Copt.
Footnote 55:
Pp. 248, 249, 251, Copt.
Footnote 56:
P. 22, Copt.
Footnote 57:
P. 336, Copt.
Footnote 58:
P. 360, Copt.
Footnote 59:
Pp. 336 f., Copt.
Footnote 60:
Pp. 336 ff., Copt.
Footnote 61:
There are many other discrepancies which I have found myself obliged to omit here, lest this Introduction should unduly delay the reader on his way to the text. I believe nearly all of them are to be found referred to in the Notes.
Footnote 62:
In the five Words or Addresses in the Vesture of Light.
Footnote 63:
For the _Excerpta_, see Clem. Alex. III., pp. 107 ff. of Stählin’s text or c. VI. of Migne’s. For the _Bruce Papyrus_, see Amélineau, _Notices et Extraits_ XXIX., 2nd Ptie., p. 106; or Schmidt, _Koptisch Gnostische Schriften_, p. 343.
Footnote 64:
Ptolemy and Heracleon were contemporary and flourished about 170-200 A.D.
Footnote 65:
Prof. Harnack (_op. cit._ pp. 26, 27) gives a long table of supposed quotations from the Fourth Gospel which he thinks are to be found in our text. There is not one of these which might not equally well be taken from the Synoptics until we come to our Fourth Document with two exceptions. One of these is given above; the other is on p. 11 (First Document) where Jesus says to His disciples: “Wherefore I said to you in the Beginning that you are not of the Cosmos. I also am not of it.” This Harnack wishes to identify with the words of John xvii. 16: “They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.” The words “in the Beginning” frequently used by our author seem to us to show that the quotation must be referred to an entirely different time and place from those of the Gospel verse.
Footnote 66:
P. 321, Copt.
Footnote 67:
P. 373, Copt.
Footnote 68:
P. 374, Copt.
Footnote 69:
P. 177, Copt.
Footnote 70:
As I have shown in _Forerunners_ (II. 45 n. 1; 104 n. 4, etc.) _all_ the Sophias, pre-Christian as well as Gnostic, in some way or other typify the Earth.
Footnote 71:
According to M. Cumont (_Astrology and Religion_, American edition, p. 96), Astral religion reached its zenith under the Severi, or from A.D. 193 to 235.
Footnote 72:
P. 199, Copt.
Footnote 73:
P. 252, Copt. He here refers also to the promised revelation on the “Distribution of the Universe.”
Footnote 74:
Maspero, _Hyp. Poy._, pp. 178 ff.
Footnote 75:
1 Cor. xii, 12.
Footnote 76:
P. 280, Copt.
Footnote 77:
_de Mysteriis_, Bk. I. c. 1.
Footnote 78:
Amélineau, _Gnosticisme Egyptien_ (quoting Pierret), p. 152 and note.
Footnote 79:
P. 332. Copt.
Footnote 80:
P. 357, Copt. The same plea is made in the opening of the _Bruce Papyrus_.
Footnote 81:
P. 377, Copt.
Footnote 82:
P. 184, Amélineau; 369, Schmidt, K. G. S.
Footnote 83:
P. 376, Copt.
Footnote 84:
P. 377, Copt.
Footnote 85:
Pp. 378, 379, Copt.
Footnote 86:
Maspero, _Hyp. Poy._ p. 179.
Footnote 87:
P. 361, Copt.
Footnote 88:
_Forerunners_, II., pp. 178-180.
Footnote 89:
Axionicus was living at Antioch when Tertullian wrote, and is said by him to have preserved Valentinus’ doctrine unaltered. Cf. _adv. Valentin._ c. IV. (II. p. 386, Ochl.).
Footnote 90:
See especially Clement’s quotation from Valentinus given in full in _Forerunners_, II. p. 125.
Footnote 91:
See last note.
Footnote 92:
Hipp., _Philosophum._ VI. c. 29, pp. 280, 281, Cf. _Forerunners_, II. p. 123, for the passage in full.
Footnote 93:
Mallet, _Culte de Neol. à Saix_, confuses the relations of these two to those of Nu and Ptah in the older faith.
Footnote 94:
See _Forerunners_, II. pp. 104-106, for authorities.
Footnote 95:
_Ibid._, pp. 106-109.
Footnote 96:
Budge, _Coptic Apocrypha_, pp. 185, 186.
Footnote 97:
Irenæus I. vi. 2, p. 112 H.; Tertull. _adv. Valentinia._ c. 36, II. p. 419 Oehl.
Footnote 98:
_Forerunners_, II. p. 103.
Footnote 99:
W. R. Newbold. A Syriac Valentinian Hymn in _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, Vol. 38, pt. I. (1918), pp. 1 ff.
Footnote 100:
_Philosophumena_, VI. 2, 37, pp. 299 Cr.
Footnote 101:
_Ibid._, p. 301 Cr.
Footnote 102:
_Forerunners_, II. pp. 159-163; pp. 178-180.
Footnote 103:
See last note.
Footnote 104:
Schmidt and Lichtenhaus in the articles above quoted attribute many of the discrepancies in the story of Pistis Sophia to the supposed fact that the translator or the scribe was working on several different documents or on different recensions of one document. This is likely enough; but as its details savour of the textual criticisms or, as it seems to me, the guess work which has given us the “polychrome” Bible, I have thought it best not to dwell further upon it.
Footnote 105:
Irenæus, I. 7, 8, II. pp. 114-156 H.
Footnote 106:
Cf. _Epistle of Barnabas_, c. 10, pp. 23, 24, Hilgenfeld; quoted in _Forerunners_, II. p. 1566, n. 2.
Footnote 107:
In _Forerunners_ I have given my reasons for adhering to M. Foucart’s opinion that the Eleusinian Mysteries originally came from Egypt.
Footnote 108:
P. 294, Copt.
Footnote 109:
Ptolemy in his letter to his “dear sister Flora,” given in full in Epiphanius, does not even hint at anything of the kind, nor does Heracleon in his commentaries on St. John quoted by Origen.
Footnote 110:
Harnack, _op. cit._ p. 100.
Footnote 111:
Cf. Amélineau, _Le Nouveau Traité Gnostique de Turin_, 1895, p. 18.
Footnote 112:
Budge, _Miscellaneous Coptic Texts_, _passim_.
Footnote 113:
Budge, _Coptic Apocrypha_, p. 329.
LITERAL TRANSLATION OF PISTIS SOPHIA THE FIRST DOCUMENT
But it happened after that Jesus rose out of those who (are) dead, and he spent eleven years speaking with his disciples, and teaching them only as far as the Places of the First precept (Law?), and as far as the Places of the First Mystery, this which (is) the inward of the veil which (is) within the First precept, namely the twenty-fourth mystery out(side) and below; these (Places) which become in the second Space of the First Mystery which (is) before every mystery, the Father in the form of dove. Jesus is saying to his disciples, I came out of that First Mystery, namely [1^b] the Last mystery which is the twenty-fourth, and which the disciples knew not and understood not that there is anything within that mystery; but they were thinking of that mystery that it is the head of the Universe, and the head of all those which become.
And they were thinking that it is the completion of all the completions because that Jesus was saying to them concerning that mystery that it (is) that which surroundeth the first precept with the five Marks and with the great Light and with the five Helpers and with all the Treasury of the Light. And also Jesus had not said unto his disciples all the distribution [2^a] of all the Places of the great Invisible with the three Triple Powers with the twenty-four Invisibles with all their Places with their Aeons with all their arrays as they are distributed, these namely the emanations of the great Invisible and with their Unbegotten (ones) and with their Self begotten (ones) and with their Begotten (ones) and with their luminaries and with their Unpaired (ones) and with their Rulers with their Authorities with their Lords with their Archangels with their Angels with their Dekans with their Ministers with all the houses of their Spheres, and [2^b] with all the arrays each one of them. And Jesus had not said unto his disciples all the distribution of the emanations of the Treasury nor their arrays as they are distributed: nor had he said unto them their Saviours according to the array of each one as they are. Nor had he said unto them what Guardian is at each (door) of the Treasury of the Light. Nor had he said unto them the Place of the Twin Saviour, namely the child of the child. And he had not said unto them the Place of the three Amens in what Place they are distributed [3^a]. And he had not said unto them in what Place the five Trees are distributed, nor the other seven Amens, namely, the seven Voices, what is their Place according as they are distributed. And Jesus had not said unto his disciples of what type are the five Helpers, or in what Place they were brought. Nor had he said unto them in what manner the great Light was distributed, or in what Place it was brought.
Nor had he said unto them the five Marks, nor concerning the First precept in what Place it was brought.
But he was only speaking [3^b] with them simply, teaching them that they exist (become). But their distribution with the array of their Places he had not said unto them according as they exist.
Because of this indeed they knew not that there are other Places becoming the inward of that Mystery. And he had not said unto his disciples out of what Place I came until I came into that Mystery, until I came forth out of it. But he was wont to say to them, teaching them that I came out of that Mystery. Because of this therefore they were thinking of that Mystery that it is the completion of all completions; and that it is the head of the Universe; and that [4^a] it is the whole Pleroma: since Jesus is wont to say unto his disciples that that Mystery (is) that which surroundeth the Universe of all which I said unto you from the day when I met you even unto to-day. Because of this therefore the disciples were thinking that there is not anything becoming within that mystery.