Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All
$5.00
 |
 |
 |
Introduction to the Coptic Language and Versions
Coptic is the final stage of the ancient Egyptian language, transitioning from hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic scripts into a form written primarily with Greek letters, supplemented by seven additional signs derived from demotic to accommodate phonemes absent in Greek. This form of the Egyptian language became the vehicle for Egypt’s Christian literature. By the third century C.E., Coptic had emerged not only as a liturgical language but as a translation medium for Scripture, particularly the New Testament.
The Coptic versions are not merely of linguistic or liturgical interest. They are a crucial textual resource for New Testament scholars because they are ancient, independent translations made directly from Greek manuscripts—many of which no longer exist. These versions therefore serve as secondary witnesses to earlier Greek texts and are indispensable for reconstructing the original wording of the New Testament.
 |
 |
 |
The Primary Coptic Dialects and Their Geographic Spread
Because the Coptic-speaking population was spread along the long Nile valley, linguistic divergence naturally occurred. The Coptic versions of the Bible were rendered into several dialects, each with distinct textual characteristics:
Sahidic, the dialect of Upper Egypt (centered in Thebes), is the oldest known Coptic version and remains one of the most important. Most early Sahidic manuscripts date to the fourth and fifth centuries, and some of the earliest complete Coptic biblical manuscripts are in this dialect.
Bohairic, spoken in Lower Egypt including Alexandria, eventually became the ecclesiastical language of the Coptic Church. While it is later than Sahidic, it is the only Coptic version that is completely preserved and supported by a continuous manuscript tradition.
Other dialects of textual value include Achmimic (Upper Egypt around Panopolis), sub-Achmimic, Middle Egyptian (Oxyrhynchite), and Fayyumic. Though fewer manuscripts survive in these dialects, they are important for tracking regional textual variants and confirming early readings.
 |
 |
 |
Importance in Textual Criticism
The Coptic versions of the New Testament are vital for restoring the original Greek text for several reasons:
-
Early Witnesses: The Coptic translations—particularly in the Sahidic dialect—date back to the third and fourth centuries C.E. This places them contemporaneous with important Greek uncials such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, and earlier than the vast majority of Byzantine manuscripts.
-
Independent Translations: The Coptic versions were translated directly from Greek, often from Alexandrian-type texts, especially in the case of the Sahidic and Bohairic dialects. These were not revised according to the Latin Vulgate or other secondary versions, preserving original Greek readings otherwise lost in later Greek copies.
-
Translation Fidelity: Coptic grammar permits a fairly literal rendering of the Greek, allowing scholars to retrovert the text—reconstructing the Greek behind the Coptic. This helps confirm or challenge Greek textual variants when manuscripts disagree.
-
Dialectal Variation as Textual Control: The comparison among dialects (e.g., Sahidic vs. Bohairic) allows scholars to distinguish between translational variants and true textual variants. Where multiple dialects preserve the same reading independently, textual confidence increases.
 |
 |
 |
Specific Examples of Coptic Value: John 1:1 in Sahidic
Perhaps the most discussed verse in Coptic textual studies is John 1:1, especially because the Sahidic dialect includes both definite and indefinite articles, unlike Greek. In Sahidic Coptic, the first clause is rendered:
“ⲛ̅ⲧⲉ ⲡⲓⲗⲟⲅⲟⲥ ⲉⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁⲣⲓⲙ ⲛⲧⲟⲧⲉ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲉⲑⲃⲏⲧ.”
Transliterated, the second clause uses “ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁⲣⲓⲙ ⲛⲧⲟⲧⲉ” for “was with the God” (definite article used with ⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ), and the third clause says “ⲡⲉⲛⲧⲁⲣⲓⲙ ⲛⲧⲟⲧⲉ ⲛⲟⲩⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ”, using the indefinite article with “god.”
Thus, John 1:1 in Sahidic Coptic literally reads:
“And the Word was with the God, and the Word was a god.”
This verse does not deny Christ’s divinity as some modern sectarian groups claim (Jehovah’s Witnesses). Instead, it reflects how the indefinite article in Sahidic was used to mark qualitative nouns—in this case, denoting essence rather than identity. Greek lacks an indefinite article, so “θεός” in the final clause of John 1:1 is anarthrous. Many Greek grammarians—such as Daniel B. Wallace—demonstrate that this construction is qualitative, not indefinite. The Coptic text is not asserting that the Logos is “one god among many,” but affirming the divine nature of the Logos, matching the Greek in substance, though not in form. This demonstrates the value and limitations of translation: the Coptic supports the Greek reading but must be understood within its grammatical framework.
1. “the” (circled in red) God
2. “a” (circled in red) god
Manuscript Discoveries and Their Value
Several significant Coptic New Testament manuscripts have greatly enriched textual criticism:
1. Sahidic Collection at the Pierpont Morgan Library
Discovered in the early 20th century near the Fayyum region, this collection contains 56 manuscripts, most dating from the 9th–10th centuries, but based on earlier translation traditions. Published in 63 fascicle volumes, these include biblical, patristic, and hagiographical works.
2. Chester Beatty and Bodmer Collections
These collections include important Sahidic fragments of the Gospels and Pauline Epistles. Their readings often align with early Alexandrian Greek texts, reinforcing their value in critical apparatuses.
3. Scheide Matthew (Middle Egyptian Dialect)
Dated to the 4th–5th century, the Scheide Codex is one of the four oldest manuscripts of the entire Gospel of Matthew in any language. It joins Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus (א), and Codex Washingtonianus (W) in this elite category. It retains its original wooden binding, further increasing its paleographic value. Its readings help confirm key variants in Matthew, especially where Greek evidence is sparse.
4. Sub-Achmimic John (British and Foreign Bible Society)
Though only 43 leaves survive, this codex includes John 2:2–20:20. The handwriting resembles Codex Vaticanus, suggesting it was copied from a Greek exemplar of the Alexandrian tradition. Where it agrees with Codex Vaticanus or P66, it strengthens support for those readings.
Agreement with Other Versions
The Achmimic version often aligns with the Old Latin, showing that Western Greek textual forms influenced Coptic transmission in certain regions. This suggests that the translators had access to Greek manuscripts that were Western in character, especially in Upper Egypt.
Yet in the Bohairic tradition, we find strong alignment with Alexandrian witnesses. As Bohairic became the liturgical standard of the Coptic Church, its readings reflect a later, more consolidated textual tradition. However, the Bohairic version still preserves many early readings, confirmed by Sahidic and Greek Alexandrian manuscripts.
 |
 |
 |
Contribution to Modern Critical Editions
Modern critical editions, including the Nestle-Aland (NA28) and United Bible Societies (UBS5) Greek New Testaments, regularly cite Coptic versions in the apparatus. While Latin and Syriac are more frequently cited due to their extensive text-critical tradition, Coptic readings are vital where early Greek evidence is limited or ambiguous.
In cases where Greek manuscripts diverge, and Coptic versions—especially Sahidic and Middle Egyptian—support the shorter, more difficult, or Alexandrian reading, textual scholars give serious weight to such versions. Retroversion from Coptic into Greek is a delicate but fruitful task, requiring knowledge of Coptic syntax, article usage, verb tenses, and idiom.
 |
 |
 |
Summary Value of the Coptic Versions
-
Chronological Proximity: Some Coptic versions date back to the third century, placing them among the earliest witnesses of the New Testament text.
-
Textual Independence: They were translated from Greek manuscripts, free of Latin or Byzantine corruption.
-
Geographic Spread: Multiple dialects reflect textual traditions from different regions of Egypt, allowing for cross-checking and textual triangulation.
-
Variant Support: Where Coptic supports early Alexandrian Greek readings, it strengthens their authenticity.
-
Grammatical Insight: Coptic’s explicit article system (definite and indefinite) sometimes helps clarify Greek anarthrous constructions, as in John 1:1.
Conclusion
The Coptic versions, especially Sahidic and Bohairic, are indispensable for textual scholars committed to restoring the original Greek text of the New Testament. Their ancient origin, linguistic clarity, and independence from later ecclesiastical corruption allow them to stand as authoritative secondary witnesses. In key verses like John 1:1, they offer valuable insight—not as theological innovations, but as transparent reflections of how early Christians understood and preserved the inspired Scriptures.
 |
 |
 |
- copfay (Fayyumic) John; 4th–5th c.
- copach (Akhmimic) John; James; 4th c.
- copach2 (Subakhmimic) John; 4th c.
- copG67 (a Middle Egyptian MS) Acts; 5th c.
- copmae (Middle Egyptian) Matthew; 4th–5th c.
The great quality of the Sahidic and Bohairic versions make these very important. Christian was early to Egypt with the good news and we are very fortunate that the Egyptian Christians preserved an early form of the text. The Sahidic and Bohairic versions have the same text type that is found in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which have long been the top trusted manuscripts.
(Wegner 2006, p. 271) Location of the Origins of the Versions
You May Also Enjoy
Does the Abundance of Manuscript Variants Undermine the Reliability of the New Testament Text?
About the Author
CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE
The Jehovah’s Witness article you mentioned does not deny Christ’s divinity. It shows that the Word (Jesus) has a divine nature.
The indefinite article in Sahidic Coptic is just a grammatical necessity, not a theological statement.
The article you referenced is not a Jehovah’s Witness article. Jehovah’s Witnesses are mentioned only because they appeal to the Coptic evidence, and that appeal must be addressed when evaluating how Coptic versions are used in theological argumentation. Mentioning a group because they use a text is not an endorsement of that group, nor does it redefine the nature of the article itself.
Second, the issue is not whether the Word possesses a “divine nature” in some abstract sense. The question is whether the Sahidic Coptic grammar reflects the Greek syntax of John 1:1c accurately and whether it can legitimately be pressed into service to support a subordinationist reading. That is precisely why the Coptic evidence is discussed.
The indefinite article in Sahidic Coptic is indeed grammatically required in many contexts where Greek uses an anarthrous predicate nominative. That point is not disputed. What is disputed—and what the article addresses—is the misuse of that grammatical necessity as if it carried the same semantic force as an English indefinite article or as if it could override the Greek syntax it translates.
In Greek, θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος is qualitative, not indefinite. The absence of the article does not suggest a lesser or secondary deity, and the Sahidic translator was constrained by Coptic grammar to choose an article where Greek had none. That grammatical constraint explains the Coptic form; it does not reinterpret the Greek clause.
So yes, the Sahidic article is grammatical rather than theological—but that is exactly the point. It cannot be legitimately used to argue that John 1:1 teaches anything other than what the Greek text itself teaches. The article does not claim otherwise, nor does it deny the full divinity of the Word.