Talk:Sophia (Gnosticism)

It's an odd omission. An explanation of the difference would be apt.77.250.197.189 (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

no mention of lilith no mention of lucifer or krishna or elohim or allah or isis ~2026-35653-08 (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The sources for this article/essay suggest that they were culled from some c1890s text. The whole thing may be cut-and-paste. Anyway, here it is. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I added a {{Copied}} template above. Melchoir (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There was an attribution at the bottom of the Sophia (wisdom) page that indicated the source. If you're going to change all of the references (and many of these are helpful), be sure to check for style issues like missing periods and capitalization that wreak havoc with the text. I'm not sure that the article should be called "Wisdom," as "Sophia" is used as a proper name in distinction from (and far more frequently than) "wisdom" in a general sense. See usage:

• Sophia: One Two Three
• Wisdom: One Two Three

You're right, the introductory paragraphs under "Gnostic tradition" need some work. Kramden (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yep I'm assuming it's mainly copied from Schaff, except the 1st few paras which are just blogging/OR. There's always an issue of what to do with what are in effect Primary Sources when cut pasted from old encyclopedias. As far as I know they'd be in the text bracketed not footnoted in Schaff too. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is from Lipsius, and, at the very least, provides a wealth of primary sources that are dead easy to verify (if you have some perverse desire to do so) via Wikisource or your preferred copy of ANF. All of these Gnosticism articles have been rather neglected since I added the material years ago. Recommend moving this to "Sophia (Gnosticism)". Have fun changing every link on every Gnosticism page. Kramden (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Sophia" is predominantly used as the name of an Aeon in Gnostic texts and scholarship (see above). Kramden (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you want to rename with the Greek word for Wisdom? Wisdom is only a "name" if it is personified, but even if it is personified it doesn't have to be Greek - it isn't in Hebrew Bible or rabbinical lit. Is the Aeon a being? The Nag Hammadi texts in Coptic will use the Coptic word for wisdom (like they use soun instead of gnosis. Under these circumstances WP:English applies. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

But the Coptic texts do use the Greek word. For instance, it appears as as ΤCOΦΙΑ here (line 31) in the Gospel of Philip, and here (line 6) in (Hypostasis of the Archons). As to personified--yes, yes it is. Shrug. Kramden (talk) 07:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kramden, I didn't know that - I mean I knew that Coptic has a large vocabulary of Greek loan-words, drawn from the Sahidic and Boharic Septuagint/New Testament, but I didn't know that whatever the original Afro-Asiatic Coptic word for wisdom was (tmntsabe?) had been replaced in some texts. Not enormously surprising I guess. Still not seeing immediately a justification for departing from WP:naming conventions (use English), not yet anyway. I suppose Google Scholar might change that. But finding the correct naming convention (Greek or English) is a minor issue on the road to hopefully getting some more solid WP:RS to say what really these 3rd century Christian texts (or third hand reports in the case of Iraenaeus) really tell us about the churches/sects that wrote them? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that Gnostic texts and scholarship in every language a) overwhelmingly use Sophia and b) do not treat "her" as an abstract concept, it still feels better to try to move this (seeing as no-one else has any input on the subject). Kramden (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)