so entirely unknown to the Fathers as has been generally assumed. We
know from Eusebius that it was the policy of the triumphant Church after
the pact with Constantine to destroy all the writings of the heretics,
and that this policy was continuous is shown by the advice given by St.
Augustine to burn, without regard for their volume or beauty, all the
manuscripts of the Manichæans. Hence we can hardly expect quotations to
be as direct and as accurate as those which the Fathers made, as I have
said elsewhere, from the different summaries of heathen philosophers
then current, and could not have been suppressed by them had they tried
to do so. But there are many allusions to phrases and words peculiar to
our MS. which seem to support the view that it was used in some form or
other by the early heresiologists and especially by Tertullian, who both
as a lawyer striving to prove his case at all hazards and as a rebel (as
he finally proved to be) against ecclesiastical discipline, would be
less likely to be cautious in such matters than high officers of the
Church like Irenæus and Hippolytus. We find Tertullian in his attack on
the Valentinians quoting a remark about those who seek God in simplicity
of heart from “the Sophia not of Valentinus, but of Solomon.” The
quotation is of course from the extra-Canonical _Book of Wisdom_ to be
found in the Apocrypha of the Thirty-nine Articles; and it is, as
Amélineau has well said, most natural that a book should be compared to
a book. But it would be contrary to the whole tenour of Valentinian
ideas as they have come down to us, that the “æon” or emanation or
goddess Sophia should be supposed to write books, and it results that
Tertullian must have been referring to a book by Valentinus bearing the
title of _Sophia_.[102] We may fairly look, then, on the hypothesis just
stated, in our MS. for expressions attributed by Tertullian to
Valentinus, and of these we find a fair number. Thus in the same book
_Adversus Valentinianos_ (c. 27), Tertullian says that the Valentinians
spoke of Christ coming upon Jesus “in the form of a dove,” which are the
very words which the opening of our Second Document puts into the mouth
of St. John. Later, he speaks of the Pneumatici or Spiritual Ones
“despoiling” themselves by putting off their earthly souls, which is the
expression used _ad nauseam_ in the same Second Document for the process
used by the higher Powers and by Jesus Himself with regard to these
heavenly natures. So, again, in the treatise _de Resurrectione Carnis_
(c. 32), Tertullian speaks of the flesh of man being created _ex
faecibus terrae_ “from the dregs of the earth,” which is the explanation
made by Jesus to St. Andrew in the last words of the same Document; and
the parallel is more close because one or other of the many Sophias in
the Valentinian system was always identified with the earth. Again, in
the treatise _de Scorpiace_ (c. 4), he speaks of the hidden sacraments
of the heretics—by which phrase the ante-Nicene Fathers nearly always
mean the Valentinians—and the answers which the soul must make when
arraigned before the _veras potestates et veros homines_, “powers and
men of Truth,” the “Teleti and Abascanti and Akineti of Valentinus,” of
which names some are to be found in the long catalogue of transcendental
Powers inhabiting the heaven of Truth in the Second Document. So, too,
in the _Adversus Valentinianos_ (c. 35), he speaks of many Powers
distinguished by prefixes like _Prae_ and _An_ which according to him
occupied a very high place in the Valentinian Pantheon, and which
correspond fairly to the Proachoreti, the Protripneumata, and the
Hypertripneumata in the last-mentioned catalogue. Nor is Tertullian here
entirely alone among the Fathers of the period. Irenæus, cautious as he
is not to quote the name of powers reverenced by the heretics, says (II.
xlvii. p. 368 H.) that there is no Pleroma of thirty Æons ... _nec lumen
virginale, nec Æon innominabilis_, under cover of which general
expressions it is plain that he is referring to the Virgin of Light and
the “Great Unseen Forefather” of our First Document. So, too, Hippolytus
(_Philosophumena_, VI. 30, p. 283, Cr.), by a sort of slip of the pen,
calls Sophia “the youngest of all the twenty-four” (not thirty or
twenty-eight or thirty-three) Æons which she is indeed said to be in our
First Document. Finally, Origen writing long after Valentinus and his
immediate successors had passed away, speaks of the heretical stories of
“doors opening of their own accord,” an episode which occurs nowhere
else, so far as I know, than in Jesus’ account of His upward journey in
the same Document.[103]
We see, then, that there are adequate grounds for supposing that the
main documents of our MS. or perhaps those upon which, according to the
German commentators,[104] they are themselves based, are by Valentinus,
and that in any case the Greek original from which the Coptic
translation was made, must be earlier than A.D. 170. This, however, does
not apply to the Interpolated Fragment, which in its present form it is
impossible to date, although, as I have before said, I should myself be
inclined to guess that it once formed part of the story of Jesus’ upward
flight. To continue this until it described the Saviour’s entry into the
realms of the Ineffable One would hardly have seemed too daring to a
writer acquainted, as ours evidently was, with the literature that
passes under the name of Enoch, and the author of the part of the _Bruce
Papyrus_ which Dr. Schmidt calls “_Unbekanntes altgnostiche Werk_,”
plunges into a description of the Source of All Being which leaves
nothing to be desired on the ground of temerity. But this last is, on
the face of it, a much later document than the history of Pistis Sophia,
and on the whole it is better to say nothing further as to the
authorship or date of the Fragment.
The case is different when we come to our Third Document to which the
Fragment has somehow been prefixed. While the first two Documents are,
as has been said, probably by Valentinus, it is perfectly certain that
this cannot be the case with the Third. Valentinus was, as his opponents
admitted, a man of genius who for a time must have held a leading
position in the Christian world, and had he been made Pope, might
possibly have introduced a syncretistic religion like that of Manes two
centuries later, and have attempted to fit into the Gospel narrative
elements borrowed from the Egyptian, the Persian, and the Buddhist
religions. But of these, the Egyptian, which Valentinus was naturally
most anxious to amalgamate with Christianity, had long since sunk into
what has been called “a systematised sorcery,” and the result of his
attempt to pour new wine into old bottles was not long in showing
itself. Between the times of Valentinus and of Irenæus a Jewish magician
named Marcus produced a system which anticipates many of the childish
processes of the Mediæval Cabala, and attempted to turn Valentinus’
account of the Pleroma into a senseless juggling with the numerical
value of the Greek letters.[105] Such foolishness seems to have been
popular in Egypt, Catholic writers themselves not being entirely free
from it,[106] and to this Marcus added according to Irenæus, sacraments
with invocations in some Hebrew jargon assisted by tricks which caused
the consecrated wine to change colour and to overflow the cup. Our Third
Document, though not going so far in this respect as the Fourth, tends
manifestly in this direction, and although it resembles the story of
Pistis Sophia in being in the form of a dialogue between Jesus and His
disciples, it has very little in common with it. The constitution of the
Universe, which it rather assumes than describes, is indeed the same,
and the First Mystery and the Ineffable One are still mentioned with
reverence as being “merciful and compassionate and forgiving sins
alway.” Save for this, however, there is nothing to connect it with
Valentinus’ more sublime ideas, and the whole purport of the questions
asked by the disciples and the answers of the Saviour is how the
“mysteries” which Jesus has brought with Him are to be used to enable
their recipients to avoid the consequences of their sins and thus to go
after death to “inherit the Kingdom of Light.” All this is reminiscent
throughout of the _Book of the Dead_ and the other Egyptian funerary
texts, and the likeness is increased when, as before said, we read in it
of “mysteries” which, when spoken into the ears of the dying or repeated
over the dead, or even the knowledge gained during life of the names of
certain Powers set over punishments, will afford the dwellers in Amente
and the other hells deliverance from their tortures and will finally
admit them into the Kingdom. These have already been sufficiently dealt
with in the last part of the Introduction to make further reference to
them unnecessary, and the conclusion there come to, that the whole of
this Document is magical rather than religious must only be repeated.
That the four-fold division of man’s incorporeal part comes from the
belief of Pagan Egypt hardly needs demonstration when we see how closely
the Spirit Counterfeit of our text corresponds to the _Ka_ or double,
while the Fate which leads every man to his appointed death is a
familiar personage in Egyptian folk-lore. If in the description of the
cup of oblivion, the author for once seems to borrow from Plato, it is
by no means certain whence Plato drew his fable, if not from Egypt
itself.[107]
One must see, then, I think, in the Third Document the work of a
Valentinian, but of one of late date, who had slipped back, as the whole
sect probably did, into the systematised sorcery of his ancestor’s
faith, and whose Christianity mainly consisted in putting the account of
the semi-magical “mysteries” or secrets by which he hoped to escape the
horrors of hell, into the mouth of its Founder. But there are also many
other signs that this must have been later in date than the two first
Documents. The author shows a much greater acquaintance with the letter
of the New Testament than his predecessors, and while those quote almost
entirely from Matthew, the quotations in the Third Document are taken
largely from Luke. The author goes so far in one place as to quote from
the Epistle to the Romans as having been written by “our brother
Paul,”[108] which some writers think did not appear until well on in the
second century. The author, too, frequently refers to the persecutions
and the “torments which are in the law” as something imminent and
pressing on all Christians alike, and this can hardly be said of any
measures taken before the reign of Septimius Severus (A.D. 193-211),
when Valentinus had long been dead. The story of the woman who “came to
repent” and the subsequent command to St. Peter to “perform the mystery
which will cut off this soul from the Kingdom of Light,” together with
the many mysteries enumerated as exercising a magical effect on the
living and the dead, argue an established and regulated ritual which can
hardly have been organised in the lifetime of Valentinus or of his
immediate successors, Ptolemy and Heracleon.[109]
Lastly, Dr. Schmidt, following therein Prof. Harnack, attributes the
curious argument in this Third Document as to “a King of to-day” who
gives gifts to a man equal to himself, clothes him with “the vestures of
a King,” and pardons him for the most heinous crimes, to an episode in
the reign of Philip the Arabian recounted in the Augustan History.[110]
There seems the more reason in this contention that the argument—bad
though it may be ethically—comparing the Emperor’s proceeding to the
pardon extended by the Highest Powers to the worst of sinners, is
dragged in, as it were, by the neck and heels. But if it be this episode
which is really hinted at in our Third Document, this last cannot be put
earlier than A.D. 244 or 250, the dates of Philip’s accession—and death.
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: