The way was therefore still left open for a translation of the _Pistis Sophia_ by competent hands, and the appearance of Dr. Schmidt’s work in 1905 at first sight gave hopes that this was at last accomplished. The book, which bears the somewhat clumsy title of _Koptisch-Gnostischen Schriften, Ersten Buch_ only, is one of the excellent series of translations of Christian writers of the first three centuries published by the Church Fathers Committee of the Royal Prussian Academy of Science, and contains a full German translation of both the _Pistis Sophia_ and the _Bruce Papyrus_. Dr. Schmidt is a scholar whose competence in the Coptic language is probably only surpassed by that of Mr. Crum, he has all his’ countrymen’s taste for philology and grammar, and his acquaintance with the Christian literature of the early centuries of our Era is profound. It is not therefore to be wondered at that his translation of our text is from the etymological point of view as nearly perfect as our present knowledge of Coptic—still limited by the paucity of MSS. other than Biblical—allows it to be, and that very little complaint can be made against it on the score of verbal accuracy. The addition to it of a translation of the _Bruce Papyrus_ is also most convenient for purposes of reference; but perhaps by reason of this, Dr. Schmidt’s notes on his translation of the British Museum MS. are confined to Scripture references and verbal matters only, while in his Introduction he only gives seventeen pages to consideration of its history, writing, language, composition, source, and date. This cursory treatment is doubtless in part due to his having in the text and translation of the _Bruce Papyrus_, published by him in 1892 in Harnack and Gebhardt’s well-known series of “_Texte und Untersuchungen_,” already given his views on these matters, most of which he reiterates in the Introduction last mentioned. These views may be briefly stated as follows: 1. The _Pistis Sophia_ is not Valentinian, but comes from an obscure sect of what he calls Barbelo-Gnostics, known as Severiani. 2. Its title should not be _Pistis Sophia_ but Τεύχη τοῦ Σωτῆρος. 3. While admitting that the whole work is a “_Miszellenhandschrift_,” he thinks that the Fourth Document is the oldest in the collection and, as it were, the root of the other three, which in their turn form a connected whole.