Talk:Pistis Sophia

Monism is not Pantheism

No Christian religion is monistic in the Dharmic sense of the word, ie pantheistic. The author/s of the current article appear to have misundertood the term monism in relation to dualism and within a monotheistic framework. In this instance monism referes to a single ultimate principle, which is God. Gnostics have always insisted on the absolute transcendence of God and regarded matter and the material cosmos as evil, a mistake or fallen. In either eventuality the Gnostic God is not identical to the cosmos, which is the actual meaning of pantheism.

Gnostics would be horrified at the suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

[Untitled]

Look, this article thus far is really light on facts and heavy on "supposeds."

The subject material seems didactic, not historic, and suspiciously of the flavor of modern pseudo factual/historic philosophy.

So what are the facts? Is this document actually dated? Was it part of the Nag Hammadi? What is the context of the teaching? Was the concept of an 11 year post decease teaching only "high-concept?"

I might get back to do an edit. The above comment was unsigned.

• According to Gnosticweb,

The Pistis Sophia was purchased by the British Museum in 1795 from a doctor and it wasn't until 1851 that work began on its translation. --Percevalles 01:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's right. The discovery of the Pistis Sophia predates the Nag Hammadi discoveries but the PS remains the longest and most complete Christian Gnostic text we have. Many of the NH texts are fragmentary and/or short. The PS runs to several hundred pages. Its very obscure and will be unrecogniscable to the orthodox Christian used to the vision of Christ in the Bible. Its cosmology is utterly Gnostic and Kabbalistic with Archons, Deccans and Aeons, several heavens etc and the central drama is the Gnostic/Kabbalistic drama of the fallen Sophia seeking to return to God from the dark world of matter. Its a head banger of a read and I take my hat off to anyone who's been able to get through it without his head spinning! But then its authors are thought to have seen it as a secret text for the initiated and not for the general reader or worshipper. It is in print: ISBN 1585092398 ThePeg August 2006 (UTC)

I've now read more of it. If you can get through the first chunk in which Christ talks about the Archons - very hard to understand - things get a bit clearer. Imagery of Light suffuses the book in a way similar to the beginning of John's Gospel. Christ comes from the Light-realms (the heavens) and his mission is to help us return to the Light. In addition, the Pistis Sophia has references to the Odes of Solomon which make up part of the Lost Books of the Bible. There are whole passages where Christ, Mary and the Disciples discuss the Odes and their meaning. This means that the Odes are Gnostic in nature and somehow related in terms of their version of the Christian message to the people who wrote the Pistis Sophia. Interesting. If I have one criticism of this article it would be that there is not enough description of the text. ThePeg 21:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that there's scholarly debate over whether the Odes are Gnostic. Just being quoted in a Gnostic text doesn't mean they're Gnostic, or we'd have to say that the Psalms and Isaiah are Gnostic too. Nyttend 01:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

While that's true not only are they heavily featured in the Pistis Sophia and nowhere else in Christian literature but they contain clearly Gnostic imagery, to whit:

ODE 34

No way is hard where there is a simple heart. Nor is there any wound where the thoughts are upright: Nor is there any storm in the depth of the illuminated thought: Where one is surrounded by beauty There is nothing that is divided. The likeness of that which is below Is that which is above: For everything is above: What is below is nothing But the imagination of those that are without knowledge. Grace has been given for your salvation. Believe and live and be saved. Hallelujah!

Note the use of the word KNOWLEDGE (ie Gnosis - the Odes are originally in Greek) in ten as well as Hermetic/Gnostic/Kabbalistic/Alchemical/Hellenic imagery such as 'The likeness of that which is below/Is that which is above' ThePeg (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, much of this page is more or less copied from the Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines entry from 1887, and is thus well out of date. Significant further analysis has been done in the ensuing century (and then some) since it was written, so I would propose a thorough rewrite, cutting down some of the old theories and speculation a bit in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:8C1F:800:ADC3:76B9:DBFC:3F34 (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"Analysis"

I believe the section Analysis violates WP:NOTESSAY. Wikipedia is not a collection of personal essays, foremost not Primary (original) research. Wikipedia shall not provide analyses to provide any opinion. It is OK and well to review and refer to outside external analyses, but an encyclopedia cannot contain editor analyses. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This section is from: Lipsius, Richard Adelbert (1887), "Pistis Sophia", in Smith, William; Wace, Henry (eds.), A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines, vol. Volume IV, London: John Murray, pp. 405–415 {{citation}}: |volume= has extra text (help). Edit as you wish. Kramden (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Here is a suggested replacement for the first few sentences of the analysis section. It should clarify the origin source of the analysis section text is commentary from 1887 scholars and not a Wikipedia author opinion. Note from the source material the commentary uses "book" while this article uses "section."

If there are no scholarly objections I shall return make the changes and remove the "personal reflection or opinion essay" template:

Editors William Smith and Henry Wace( A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines, Vol 4, 1887; pp.405-415) offered a lengthy summation of the Pistis Sophia manuscripts. They credit another scholar, K. R. Kostlin for the first thorough investigation of the work.

According to their commentary, the four sections (or books) give insight into the changes and reconstructions to which the Gnostic systems were subjected. The fourth section presents a simpler form of Gnostic doctrine, and is variously connected with the older systems, such as Saturninus, the Ophites, Basilides, and some others.

SteamWiki (talk)

Right! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Some confusion, perhaps?

Sections First Book and Pistis Sophia may contain a confusion, section First Book claims:

Unlike other versions of the Gnostic myth, such as the Apocryphon of John, here Pistis Sophia is a being of the lower, material aeons.

I believe there are two separate personae one Mother-of-the-Angels-Wisdom character variously called Pira/Barbelo/Sophia and another Fallen-Redeemed-Strayer variously called Sophia/Sophia Achamoth/Pistis Sophia, the Sophia of the lowest aeon. There is no Pistis Sophia in the Apocryphon of John, only a Sophia who is interacting with the invisible Virgin Spirit in some way. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 09:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)