A recent article by Brent Nongbri reinforces the notion that Christian related papyri of Egyptian provenance should include a 4th century date. This will have an impact upon the very small number of "EARLY" fragments of the Gnostic literature, which have been listed in the OP. (i.e. held to be evidence of a pre-4th century non canonical text). As a consequence of this relaxation in the date ranges of palaeographical dating, the hypothesis that the Gnostics authored their [non canonical] Acts and Gospels prior to Nicaea is only supported by "literary attestations" in the writings of the "Church Fathers" (eg: via Eusebius)
This thread argues that these sources are corrupt, and were interpolated or fabricated in the 4th and subsequent centuries in order to support the pseudo-history of the conflict between the orthodoxy and the Gnostic heretics prior to Nicaea. They were trying to completely downplay the political controversies which ensued with the Bible becoming the holy writ of the Roman [PAGAN] Empire.
This thread argues that it is more reasonable that the Gnostics wrote their stuff as a political reaction to the appearance of the Bible.
This following article also discusses the theory that the Bodmer Papyri were, like the Nag Hammadi codices, a product of a Pachomian monastery.
https://www.academia.edu/6755662/The_Li ... mer_II_P66_
The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P.Bodmer II (P66)
By Brent Nongbri, Macquarie University [2014]
Abstract
- Palaeographic estimates of the date of P.Bodmer II, the well-preserved Greek papyrus codex of the Gospel of John, have ranged from the early second century to the first half of the third century. There are, however, equally con- vincing palaeographic parallels among papyri securely dated to as late as the fourth century. This article surveys the palaeographic evidence and argues that the range of possible dates assigned to P.Bodmer II on the basis of palaeography needs to be broadened to include the fourth century. Furthermore, a serious con- sideration of a date at the later end of that broadened spectrum of palaeographic possibilities helps to explain both the place of P.Bodmer lI in relation to other Bodmer papyri and several aspects of the codicology of P.Bodmer II.
NOTES:
p.19/20
.... Such a wide span is perfectly reasonable, and this point needs to be emphasized.
We should not be assigning narrow dates to literary papyri strictly on the basis of
palaeography. Four kinds of evidence support this contention -
1. The first type of evidence comes in the form of papyri that demonstrate at least
some scribes were capable of writing in multiple different styles generally assigned
to different time periods. P.Oxy. 31.2604 provides an example, in which a scribe puts
on a show of skills by copying the same poetic line in different styles, twice in a
narrowly spaced hand at home in the third century and once in a spacious uncial typical
of the first century.
2 The second type of evidence is the phenomenon sometimes called "archaism". [36]
The classic case is P.Oxy. 50.3529, a papyrus scrap written in a textbook example of a
first century Roman hand. The editor of P.Oxy. 50.3529 noted its palaeographic affinities
with the hand of P.Oxy. 2.246, a registration of livestock dated to the year 66 CE.
P.Oxy. 50.3529 is, however, a copy of the Martyrdom of Dioscorus, so this writing can be
no earlier than the year 307 CE. The span for this hand is therefore at least two and a
half centuries
3. Third, the active working life of a scribe could be remarkably long. Revel Coles has
suggested that the same scribe could be responsible for copying parts of P.Oxy. 64.4441
(315 CE) and P.Oxy. 67.4611 (363 CE), which "would result in a working life not less than
49 years". [37]
4. Finally, similarities in hands were passed from teachers to students, so that a given hand
could last through multiple generations. [38]
All of these factors suggest that we should be very wary of assigning palaeographic dates
within narrow margins (and we should certainly end the highly dubious practice of palaeographically
dating pieces "circa" a particular year). [39] A reasonable palaeographic date range for P.Bodmer lI
would be mid-second to mid-fourth century. [40].