Talk:Testimony of Truth

A suggestion
TriplePowered: You've clearly put a decent amount of work into the article, and I wish you good luck in expanding coverage of Gnosticism. So, as an optional suggestion (feel free to ignore this, this isn't a mandate or anything, please keep expanding Wikipedia in whatever style fits you the best)... but...

...I will say that *ideally*, summaries of the message of such works try not to rely on primary sources too heavily - especially FRAGMENTARY primary sources that involve scholarly reconstructions of guessed words that were themselves translations of a lost original. I understand that very little has been written on the Testimony of Truth (although https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/collection/cce/id/1820 makes it sound like there might be some foreign language articles out there?), so it's a lot more understandable then usual, but it's still a little dicey. I wrote on a similarly extremely obscure topic in Arabic Apocalypse of Peter, and only cited the narrative from scholarly views rather than attempting to cite it directly. Now, given the obscurity, I'm not saying that citing primary sources is bad or anything, just... a little dangerous.

Anyway, WP:CITEVAR suggests that the main author's citation preference should be respected. So it's up to you. But as a half-measure, I'd suggest separating the primary sources from the secondary ones, so at least it's very clear what's primary sourced. Basically it would look something like this: The opening addresses those who have searched for truth but have been influenced by the old ways of the Pharisees and the scribes,