![]() ![]() They may just as well, he contends, be compilations from th synoptics. In order to do this he thinks it necessary first of all to get out of the way Harnack’s parallels in P.S. 57), who roundly plumps for Valentinus as the author. The only recent attempt to return to the earlier 2nd-century view is that of Legge in 1915 (Bib. Among English scholars may be mentioned chiefly E. In Germany it has been accepted by such well-known specialists as Bousset, Preuschen and Liechtenhan and in France by De Faye. This general view has been widely adopted as the more probable. iv belonged to an older stratum of the literature, and should therefore be plaecd in the 1st half of the century. Schmidt in 1892 accepted this judgment, with the modification, however, that Div. These considerations led him to assign the most probable date of composition to the 2nd half of the 3rd century. He pointed out also one or two other vague indications, such as a reference to persecution, from which he concluded that itw as written at a date when the Christians were ‘lawfully’ persecuted. and N.T., and on the place of the doctrinal ideas and stage of the sacramental practices in the general history of the development of Christian dogma and rites. In 1891 Harnack, accepting Köstlin’s analysis of the system, attacked the problem from another point of view, basing himself chiefly on the use of scripture, as shown in the quotations from the O.T. We may call this alternative general view the 3rd-century theory. in the 1st half of the 3rd century, and Lipsius (Bib. It abandoned the Valentinian origin, and pronounced generally in favour of what may be called an ‘Ophitic’ derivation. ![]() by Köstlin in 1854 gave rise to or confirmed another view. ![]() Meantime in Germany, shortly after the appearance of Schwartze’s Latin version in 1851, the careful analysis of the system of the P.S. 19), in which he sought to prove the Egyptian origins of Gnosticism-a general thesis which can hardly be maintained in the light of more recent research,-to a comparison of the system of Valentinus with that of the P.S. Seven years prior to his translation of P.S. This earlier view can hardly be said to have been supported by any great show of detailed argument, except by the French Egyptologist and Coptic scholar Amélineau, who was its most stalwart supporter. A succession of scholars were of tihs opinion, among whom may be mentioned Woide, Jablonski, La Croze, Dulaurier, Schwartze, Renan, Révillout, Usener and Amélineau. to Valentinus, who died probably about the middle of the 2nd century, or a decade later, or alternatively to an adherent of the Valentinian school. Accordingly only the work contained in the first three books merits the name ‘Pistis Sophia’.” On the other hand the fourth section (232.1-254.8), which has no title, is in reality a distinct work, composed in the first half of the 3rd century and thus older than those which precede it. 164.20-231.9), separated from the second by an independent fragment, the end of a lost book, is likewise entitled in the colophon ‘A part (meros) of the books (or rolls: teuche) of the Saviour (soter)’. 82-162) has at the beginning the title (added later) ‘The second book (tomos) of the Pistis Sophia’, but is designated at the end as ‘A part (meros) of the books (or rolls: teuche) of the Saviour (soter)’ the third (pp. 1-81 of the Schmidt-Till translation) has neither superscription nor colophon the second (pp. The first three sections correspond to the three books of one and the same work, probably composed between 250 and 300: the first book (pp. Schmidt, it is today almost unanimously agreed that the four sections of the manuscript must be divided into two distinct groups. Köstlin, the results of which were adopted and more precisely stated by C. Puech, revised by Beate Blatz, writes (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 298), “The text of Codex Askewianus is divided into four sections.” Jack Finegan writes (Hidden Records of the Life of Jesus, p. The Pistis Sophia is preserved in the Codex Askewianus and has been known to scholars for nearly two centuries. Recommended Books for the Study of Early Christian Writings Hurtak, The Pistis Sophia: Text and Commentary (Academy for Future Science 1999) Violet MacDermot, The Fall of Sophia (Lindisfarne 2002) Mead, Pistis Sophia: A Gnostic Miscellany (Kessinger 1997 reprint) Pistis Sophia (reflections on Hurtak’s commentary) ![]() Violet MacDermott’s Translation (Books 1 and 2) Pistis Sophia: The Books of the Savior (Books 1 and 2) Chronological List of Early Christian Writings ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |