The notes may have been translated into Coptic in my opinion, a form of scribal shorthand or stenography, rather than a genuine language as a writing exercise for the scribes, rather than to faithfully preserve the materials.
Even assuming that the Egyptian codices are translations of original writings by Gnostics who belonged to cults scattered around Egypt and the Near East, we are left in bafflement as to where the Gnostic movement originated in the first place.
are late scribal handiwork, poorly and erratically executed.
If so, a date of composition in the middle of the second century (between 140 and 180 C. On the basis of literary and conceptual affinities between this text and the exiguous fragments of Valentinus, some scholars have suggested that the Gnostic teacher himself was the author.
That remains a distinct possibility, although it cannot be definitively established.
They were copied down and translated not written by Coptic scribes using an improvised language.
The desert monks who may have understood precious little of what they were translating.
The richly subtle and sophisticated style and organization of the text, designed to invite readers in an inoffensive way to a certain view of Jesus' salvific role (Attridge 1988), may argue for a later date.
We do not know anything about the condition of the Greek texts they used, or why they were charged to make these translations.
This being so, my educated guess is probably as good as anyones: Id say the originals were rough notes taken by students in the Mystery Schools, or what remained of them.