Manuscript Evidence
Weighing Gnostic Chronology
Weighing the material evidence underpinning the mainstream chronology of Ante-Nicene Gnostics
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia

INTRODUCTION

If the [physical] primary evidence of Christian non canonical manuscripts in antiquity is summarised and analysed according to its chronology, a post Nicene provenance is strongly suggested. It should be mentioned that although the earliest primary material is known to have been authored in Greek, the bulk of the discovered manuscript evidence represent Coptic translations of this Greek. The Coptic material may not be the original primary evidence, however it seems to be the closest (one step removed) to the primary evidence that is available at the present moment.

The secondary evidence furnished by the church in antiquity, that such manuscripts were known to the church prior to 325 CE, is in the following analysis, being tested.

THE CHI-SQUARED TEST

Pearson's chi-squared test (χ2) is a statistical test applied to sets of categorical data to evaluate how likely it is that any observed difference between the sets arose by chance. It is suitable for unpaired data from large samples. It tests a null hypothesis. It states that the frequency distribution of certain events observed in a sample is consistent with a particular theoretical distribution.

The null hypothesis being tested here is the mainstream theory for the authorship of the non canonical (largely Gnostic) literature. This theory (hypothesis) predicts a theoretical distribution (of the physical evidence of non canonical literature) which spans the three century epoch between 125-425 CE. This is consistent with a theory of continuous authorship throughout this span. Biblical scholars confidently conjecture/hypothesise/theorise that the authorship of many of the texts in NHL (and many other non canoncial texts) span a period from the 2nd century to the 4th century. Any standard list of non canonical texts sorted by date of proposed authorship will reveal texts being authored throughout these three centuries.

It is therefore reasonable - as a first approximation - to divide the epoch into equal segments, and to expect a physical distribution of the evidence to be more of less divided equally between the segments.

DEFINING THE CHRONOLOGY SEGMENTS

It would appear to be resonable to divide the epoch 125-425 CE is into three intervals each of one century. Namely the centuries 125-225 CE, 225-325 CE and 325-425 CE. However it is also reasonable to argue that manuscripts from the 1st century should be less likely than manuscripts from the 2nd century (and so forth for the 3rd century) due to natural deterioration. For this reason the epoch will be divided into two unequal segments as follows. Pre 325 CE (covering the two centuries between 125-325 CE) and post 325 CE (covering the one century between 325-425 CE).

This may appear over generous to the above argument, to allow 200 years of data to be compared to 100 years of data. As a result of this an assumption is being made that manuscript discoveries for this class of literature in the 200 years 125-325 CE just as likely as manuscript discoveries in the later 100 years 325-425 CE. This arrangement as devised is therefore similar to flipping a coin. Instead of the results being either a head or a tail, the results will be either earlier or later than 325 CE as defined above. Obviously this arrangement greatly favours the null hypothesis, which proposes that it is likely to discover manuscripts both before and after 325 CE.

DATA: PRIMARY EVIDENCE DISCOVERED

The primary evidence collated here consists mainly of manuscripts. Firstly the discoveries have included entire codices - handwritten books. Secondly the discoveries have included single papyri leaves or, far more commnly, fragments of leaves. These leaves may often contain writing on both sides, yielding two pages of text. Thirdly the academic analysis of these discoveries have yielded the indentification of specific texts (e.g. "The Gospel of Judas"). Finally one discovery includes artistic motifs found carved into the reliefs adorning a sarcophagus.

HOW TO COUNT & TOTAL THE DATA?

Having defined above the data and the degrees of freedom for the data, the next step is to device a method to count instances of the primary evidence to be placed into these two "buckets" or historical intervals: Before 325 CE or after 325 CE. The options considered here are:
1) Counting the total number of pages (leaves X 2), or indeed fragments of leaves, discovered.

2) Counting the total number of codices (books) discovered.

3) Counting the distinct number of texts (stories) discovered.

4) Counting the distinct number of separate manuscript "hauls" or discoveries.

Opinion has been received that, of all the above, option 4 may be the most independent. In any event, the object will be to develop a system that has the ability to use each of the above counting methods concurrently, and to develop tallies and thus chi squared analyses for each of these categories. Here are these four different ways of measuring or quantifying the evidence, providing a little more information.
1) "PAGES" LEVEL: This is a count of the number of actual surviving physical pages (often twice the number of leaves). A fragment of a leaf (whether codex or roll) will count as a full page. A five page manuscript will count as five pages, and a 100 page codex will count as 100 pages.

2) "CODEX" LEVEL: This is a count of the number of complete or almost complete physical codices that have been discovered. This register on its own is itself a rough gauge. Here the (7 or so) papyri fragments are momentarily set aside. This is a count only of physical books discovered. The counting of papyri fragments occurs at the following two levels.

3) DISTINCT "TEXTS" LEVEL: This is a count of the number of identifiable (non canonical) texts (stories, e.g gThomas) which have been discovered. At this register, a small papyri fragment of an identifiable non canonical text will count as a discovered text. Also at this register, if a codex contains five separate non canonical texts, then this will contribute a count of 5 towards the discovered texts.

4) DISTINCT "DISCOVERIES" LEVEL: This is a count of the number of separate and distinct discoveries of manuscript hauls. For example, although there are 12 books in the Nag Hammadi codices, this would be counted as a single.

There may be other valid ideas and methods about how to actually measure and tally the evidence that has been discovered. But in the meantime the following will work with the assumption that how proposal to tally the evidence - under the above four - levels is fair and objective.

DATING METHODOLOGIES

A variety of dating methodologies have produced ranges of possible dates each of the elements of the data outlined below. For example the dating of the Nag Hammadi codices to the mid 4th century is often based on an analysis of the cartonage of these codices. The cartonage is basically the extra bits of paper that are glued over the covers of the books to make them stronger. Some of these have been identified as receipts and other correspondence that contain explicit dates, the latest of which is c.348 CE. It is inferred that the books must have been manufactured after this date. None of these manuscripts (as far as I am aware) contain an explicit date.

Another dating methodology used to date some of this primary evidence is known as palaeography. This method examines the handwriting scripts that are found used on the manuscripts, and attempts to estimate the date of the manuscript by means of its handwriting script. The single loose papyri fragments are generally dated by this method in isolation.

Radiocarbon dating is another methodology that has contributed to the dating of the primary evidence here being considered. The most recent manuscript discovery, the Tchacos codex, has been subjected to C14 dating as part of National Geographics's 2006 publications on "The Gospel of Judas".

EVIDENCE

The data has been tabulated as follows:

Primary Evidence dated earlier than 325 CE
#	Category	Title of Evidence	DATE	Dating Methodology	Comments
1	PAGES	p.oxy.654	3rd century	Palaeography	gThomas Prologue and logoi 1-7
2	PAGES	p.oxy.655	3rd century	Palaeography	gThomas logoi 24, 36-39
3	PAGES	p.oxy.1	3rd century	Palaeography	gThomas logoi 26-33, 77a
4	PAGES	p.Rylands.463	3rd century	Palaeography	Gospel of Mary
5	PAGES	p.oxy.3525	3rd century	Palaeography	Gospel of Mary
6	PAGES	P.Oxy. 405	3rd century	Palaeography	Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.9, 2-3 (Matt 3)
7	PAGES	Schoyen MS 2634/1	3rd century	Palaeography	Acts of Paul and Thecla
#	Palaeography Estimates: It may be argued, on a number of counts, that these 3rd century estimates are lower bounds, and that their respective upper bounds would include dates in the 4th century. These arguments are summarised in a separate article - Are the "Early Dated" Christian Codex Papryi Fragments "Early"?. If these arguments do have validity, then the only available evidence is the following #8 Gospel of Judas which has been C14 dated 220-340 CE. (See below)
8	CODEX	Codex Tchacos	220-340 CE	C14 Dating, UA 2005	Gospel of Judas (% Allocation)
#	C14 Estimates: If this statistical C14 date range (220-340 CE) is accepted, then it follows that a larger percentage count would be allocated to < 325 CE and the corresponding smaller percentage allocated to > 325 CE. However, again, arguments can be raised against this date range on the basis of certain specific problems in the final C14 dating report issued from the Radiocarbon Laboratory associated with the University of Arizona. One fundamental problem is that this final report (C14 testing conducted in 2005) has not yet been published after almost 12 years. Academic assessment of the resolution of these problems indicate a C14 date range extending over the entire 4th century. The details of these claims are set out in another separate article - Gnostic C14: Radiocarbon Dating the Gnostics after Nicaea.




Summary of Data < 325 CE

1) "PAGES" LEVEL: 7 papyri fragments listed above; [+ some percentage (via C14) of the 66 pages in Codex Tchacos?]

2) "CODEX" LEVEL: 0 codices; [+ some percentage (via C14) of Codex Tchacos?]

3) DISTINCT "TEXTS" LEVEL: 4 distinct texts (Gospel Thomas, Gospel Mary, Irenaeus, Acts Paul and Thecla); [+ some percentage (via C14) of the 4 texts (including the Gospel of Judas) in Codex Tchacos?]

4) DISTINCT "DISCOVERIES" LEVEL: 1 [Oxyrhnchus]; [+ some percentage (via C14) of Codex Tchacos?]




Primary Evidence dated later than 325 CE
#	Category	Title of Evidence	DATE	Dating Methodology	Comments
1	PAGES	papyri fragments	4th century	Palaeography	Various papyri fragments from Oxyrhynchus and elsewhere
2	CODEX	Bruce Codex	4th century	Palaeography	2 texts; 76 leaves (150 pages?); Discovered 1769
3	CODEX	Askew Codex	4th century	Palaeography	2 texts; 178 leaves (356 pages); Discovered 1795
4	CODEX	Akhmin (Berlin) Codex	4th century	Palaeography	4 texts; 141 pages; Discovered 1896
5	CODEX	Nag Hammadi Codices	mid 4th century	Cartonage and Palaeography	Total of 12 codices; 50 texts; 1242 pages; Discovered 1945
6	CODEX	Tchacos Codex	mid 4th century	C14 dating and Palaeography	4 texts; 66 pages; One of the 4 Qarara codices, discovered 1970
7	RELIEF	SARCOPHAGUS	3rd/4th century	not known	Peter striking the Tapeion Rock and Peter's arrest; from the 4th century text "Acts of Processus and Martinianus"
#	Sarcopagus Relief: Listed in the study of A.Caillaud as item 34. Sarcophage de Jonas. One part of a panel is generally interperetted as the "Peter Striking the Rock" immediately followed by "the arrest of Peter" (this is highlighted in the image below). These two scenes are recognised as being those described in the Apocryphal Acts of Processus and Martinianus, generally allocated to the (mid?) 4th century (or later in some cases). Also see p.42 in The Acts of Peter, Gospel Literature, and the Ancient Novel: Rewriting the Past, By Christine M. Thomas. High resolution (left): http://www.livius.org/a/1/judaea/mainz_jona_1_rgzm.JPG ... High resolution (right): http://www.livius.org/a/1/judaea/mainz_jona_2_rgzm.JPG




Summary of Data > 325 CE

1) "PAGES" LEVEL: 1,889 (from codices) + 100+ (???) late papyri fragments

2) "CODEX" LEVEL: 15 codices;

3) DISTINCT "TEXTS" LEVEL: 58 texts (from codices) + ?? texts from late papyri fragments)

4) DISTINCT "DISCOVERIES" LEVEL: 6 [These consist of the Bruce Codex (1769), Askew Codex (1795), Akhmin (or Berlin) Codex (1896), Nag Hammadi Codices (1945)and the Qarara Codices (1970) which includes the Tchacos Codex. To these 5 "finds" may be added the various locations at which the papyri fragments were discovered, such as Oxyrhnchus.]

In addition to the above, and dependent upon the dating of Codex Tchacos, some percentage allocation of the data may have to be applied to both the <325 CE epoch and the >325 CE epoch. For the reasons provided in the article Gnostic C14: Radiocarbon Dating the Gnostics after Nicaea, for the moment the data related to the Gospel of Judas must be provisional. Although all indications point to a final report C14 date range weighted after 325 CE, the following data summaries will allocate 50% of the data to both epochs equally, but only with respect to the Codex tallies. The texts, pages and discovery tallies will not include data related to the Gospel of Judas.

DATA SUMMARY and ANALYSES

Data discovered	Ante-Nicene 200 years: 125-324 CE	Post-Nicene 100 years: 325-424 CE	Null Hypothesis 50% Expectation	Chi squared Statistic	P Value	Comments
1) "PAGES"	7	2001	50% (2008) = 1004	1977	<< 0.001	Null hypothesis is rejected
2) "CODICES"	0.5	15.5	50% (16) = 8	14.06	<< 0.001	Null hypothesis is rejected
3) Distinct "TEXTS"	4	58	50% (62) = 31	47.03	<< 0.001	Null hypothesis is rejected
4) Distinct "DISCOVERIES"	1	6	50% (7) = 3.5	3.57	0.06	Null hypothesis is not quite rejected (however further data is to be researched/incorporated soon)

CONCLUSION

The Chi Squared statistical test here returns a significant result < 0.05 for all but the last categorisations of the evidence. The question then is whether or not this is a valid statistical test on the null (mainstream) hypothesis.

There may be a number of good and valid reasons why only the Coptic language (used from the mid 3rd century onwards) transations survived in any bulk, and that all of the Greek originals (fragments excepted) were destroyed. Not left to perish, but purposefully destroyed. If the Greek was left to perish, or buried as "Burial Goods" like many of the Coptic codices, then more of it should have been discovered. Orthodox Christians were unlikely to have destroyed too many, certainly not all, of the Greek non canonical codices prior to Nicaea. OTOH immediately after Nicaea there is literary evidence to suggest (officially) prohibited [Greek] books were to be destroyed.

In the absence of any good and valid reasons for the failure of the null hypothesis in this Chi Squared hypothesis test, the results strongly support an alternative hypothesis in which all these manuscripts were actually authored after 325 CE, as a literary reaction to the appearance of the Greek NT Bible which was widely published by Constantine c.325 CE when he became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire.

SEE: An alternative chronology for the lost authorship of the Gnostic Gospels

The author may be contacted by email as "arius" @ the domain name of this website.

INDEX | Palaeography & Oxyrhynchus | Arnaldo Momigliano | Mountain Man Graphics