# Coptic Dialects

Source: https://coptic-lore-forge.lovable.app/wiki/coptic-dialects — Coptic Orthodox Wiki (updated 2026-10-02)

Coptic dialects are the regional and literary varieties of the final stage of the Egyptian language. The principal groups are Akhmimic, Lycopolitan, Sahidic, Mesokemic, Fayyumic, and Bohairic. Their differences are reconstructed chiefly from manuscripts, while Sahidic and Bohairic also functioned as wider languages of communication and church use.

## Overview

Coptic dialects represent related varieties of Coptic with differences in pronunciation, spelling, vocabulary, morphology, and syntax.[^1] Their literary forms were not simply transcriptions of local speech: they reflect processes of adjustment and standardization, including those associated with scribal centers.[^1]

Egypt’s geography favored linguistic differentiation between the Nile Delta and the valley upstream, with further subdivisions into regional and local varieties.[^2] Sahidic served as a supralocal language throughout the Nile Valley above the Delta; Bohairic very probably fulfilled a comparable role in the Delta.[^2]

Coptic is the final stage of the Egyptian language, whose development can be studied across more than four thousand years.[^47] The dialects form a linguistic continuum: had only Bohairic and Akhmimic survived as its two extremes, scholars might have classified them as distinct but closely related languages rather than dialects.[^48]

## Classification and Principal Groups

The identification of dialects and subdialects expanded with manuscript discoveries, especially during the latter half of the twentieth century.[^3] Classification rests chiefly on phonology reconstructed from systematic differences in spelling, although some identifications remain disputed.[^3]

One classification recognizes six groups:[^4][^5]

- **Akhmimic (A):** the principal dialect of the Akhmimic group.[^4] It became a written medium by the fourth century, flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries, and began to be displaced by Sahidic in the fifth century, although later nonliterary traces suggest its continued spoken use.[^16]
- **Lycopolitan (L):** also called Lyco-Diospolitan or Subakhmimic; the group includes varieties designated L4, L5, and L6, although its unity as a single dialect has been questioned.[^4][^6] L4 is associated with Manichaean texts, L5 with the London Gospel of John and related fragments, and L6 with texts from Nag Hammadi codices I, X, and XI and the Heidelberg Acts of Paul.[^17] Kasser proposed the name Lycopolitan in publications beginning in 1972 to avoid the implication that Subakhmimic was merely a subdivision of Akhmimic; numerical indices for its varieties gained general agreement among Coptologists in 1986.[^18] No textual witnesses of Lycopolitan after the fifth century are known, suggesting that it had ceased to function as a literary language by then.[^19]
- **Sahidic (S):** the principal language of the Sahidic group, which also includes dialect P, a variety resembling reconstructed proto-Sahidic.[^4] Dialect P is represented by the Proverbs manuscript Papyrus Bodmer VI, published by Rodolphe Kasser in 1960.[^20]
- **Mesokemic (M):** also called Middle Egyptian or Oxyrhynchite; its homeland may have been the region of Oxyrhynchus, and it developed into a highly standardized written dialect, probably flourishing chiefly in the fourth and fifth centuries.[^7]
- **Fayyumic (F):** associated with considerable geographical confidence with the Fayyum oasis and represented by several subdialects.[^8]
- **Bohairic (B):** the principal language of the Bohairic group, whose B5 variety is identified as classical Bohairic.[^5] Earlier scholarship called it Memphitic, the northern dialect, or the dialect of Lower Egypt; Stern first used the designation Bohairic in 1880.[^21]

Not every variety fits neatly into these groups: dialect H is described as difficult to classify, while W combines Fayyumic orthography with Mesokemic morphosyntax.[^9][^5] An alternative arrangement into three major dialect regions also exists, and both systems should be considered.[^10]

In the six-group system, each group has a well-attested representative possessing the largest number of its characteristic phonological and, where possible, morphosyntactical features; membership depends on shared consonantal and vocalic correspondences, allowing some differences attributable to normal phonological evolution.[^22] The alternative three-region scheme pairs Akhmimic with Lycopolitan in the southern region, Mesokemic with Fayyumic in the middle region, and Bohairic with Sahidic in a grouping spanning the Delta and the Nile Valley.[^23]

The three-region approach gives particular weight to stressed vowels rather than to consonantal differences or unstressed endings, which can reflect different degrees of phonological change.[^49] Within this interpretation, Lycopolitan is envisaged as a partly leveled regional medium of communication in the south, while V tends toward a comparable role across the Fayyum and neighboring Middle Egyptian territory.[^50] Sahidic and Bohairic should not be compared directly with local dialects without accounting for the influence and leveling associated with their supralocal functions.[^51]

Dialect H, also called Hermopolitan or Ashmunic, is identified as the only metadialectal Coptic idiom sufficiently known for studying metadialectalism, which is characterized chiefly by reductions in phonological and morphosyntactical distinctions.[^24] In Coptological terminology, an “immigrant dialect” is an idiom spoken outside its region of origin.[^25]

The Fayyumic subdivisions include F4, classical F5, and the more eccentric F7, F8, and F9, all characterized by Fayyumic lambdacism; F7 is also somewhat archaic and is tentatively interpreted as a marginal northern protodialect.[^52] V, also designated South Fayyumic, lacks lambdacism and is classified as a mesodialect between dominant Fayyumic and W or, more distantly, Mesokemic.[^53] W is likewise without lambdacism and is also called crypto-Mesokemic, allowing an alternative placement within the Mesokemic group.[^54]

The proto-Lycopolitan group includes i7, described as a subdialect of i formed through partial neutralization and evolution toward Lycopolitan.[^55] Proposed Mesokemic subdivisions distinguish M4, represented by P. Mil. Copti 1 and a Psalms codex, from M5, represented by Codex Scheide and Codex Glazier.[^56] Within the Bohairic group, B4 is possibly marginal and southern, B7 is eccentric and partly sporadic, and B74 is related to B4 and perhaps located still farther south.[^57] K is classified as a mesodialect combining strongly dominant Bohairic with V or Sahidic, while K7 is an eccentric subdivision still farther removed from V.[^58] G is also interpreted as a mesodialect, with dominant Bohairic, a possible Sahidic component, and a further uncertain component that may be partly Hellenic.[^59] Besides its metadialectal character, H is assigned an intermediate position between Sahidic and Mesokemic, or more particularly between Sahidic and V.[^60]

Idiolectal influence can be indicated by a principal capital siglum and a secondary lowercase superscript: for example, *S* with superscript *a* denotes Sahidic influenced phonetically, and to some extent irregularly phonologically, by Akhmimic.[^61]

## Phonology, Writing, and Grammar

Unlike pharaonic writing, Coptic writing records vowels as well as consonants, making differences in vocalization directly accessible to comparison.[^26] Akhmimic and Bohairic retain a somewhat richer phonemic inventory than several other dialects, including /x/, which classical Sahidic and Lycopolitan lost.[^27] Archaic texts in proto-Lycopolitan, or dialect I, and dialect P preserve both /x/ and /ç/ into the third and fourth centuries, although these phonemes are absent from classical Lycopolitan and Sahidic.[^28] Such varieties are termed “protodialects,” but their logical anteriority does not necessarily mean that they were the direct ancestors of the corresponding classical dialects.[^29]

At least fourteen Coptic alphabets or alphabetic varieties can be distinguished, and their boundaries do not always coincide with phonological dialect boundaries.[^30] In Greek-derived vocabulary, dialect H replaces /g/ with /k/ and /d/ with /t/.[^31] More generally, most later Greek-derived words preserve their Greek spelling exactly or nearly so across the dialects, with H as an exception.[^32]

Comparative morphology distinguishes three kinds of variation: different phonological forms of a shared Coptic morpheme, different treatment of allomorphic rules, and morphosyntactic differences, including distinctive grammatical forms.[^33]

Unstressed final vowels offer a particularly clear comparison: L6 preserves both -e and -i, as do proto-Lycopolitan and the varieties V and F, whereas F7 has -i and -a, P has -e and -a, and Bohairic contrasts -i with the absence of a final vowel.[^62] The open final -a in P and F7 is especially unusual in Coptic and is treated as an archaic feature.[^63]

Coptic alphabets conventionally place letters of Greek origin first and graphemes of demotic origin afterward.[^64] The supplementary graphemes added to the Greek alphabet number between six and ten, depending on the dialect.[^65] The Sahidic-type alphabet is estimated to account for almost 92 percent of the textual total considered, the Bohairic-type alphabet for almost 7 percent, and the other twelve varieties together for approximately 1 percent.[^66] Nevertheless, a grapheme need not have the same phonological value in every alphabet, nor must a phoneme always be represented by the same grapheme, so alphabetic distinctions require interpretation rather than automatic identification with dialect boundaries.[^67] For example, the grapheme k represents /c/ in P, whereas it represents /k/ in the other dialects included in the comparison.[^68]

Graphic doubling of vowels occurs in Akhmimic, proto-Lycopolitan, L4, L5, L6, V5, F5, and Sahidic, but not in Mesokemic, W, V4, F4, F7, Bohairic and its subdialects, or G.[^69] The second member of such a doubled vowel can represent a consonantal element, the cryptophoneme /’/, rather than an additional vowel.[^70] Ancient Egyptian ‘ayin probably no longer belonged to the Coptic phonemic inventory, but it left effects on dialectal vocalization and in numerous cases developed into /’/.[^71]

H strongly favors /a/, whose reported frequency of 35 percent is the highest among the dialects and subdialects compared, and its b has the value /v/, also systematically replacing /f/ in corresponding forms.[^72] Other H reductions include /z/ to /s/, while its final unstressed vowel disappears after /w/.[^73]

A small, early layer of Greek-derived vocabulary is recognizable by spellings substantially altered from Greek, with examples including words for anchor, skin garment, ax, dish, linen cloth, and stater.[^74] Greek also transmitted words of other origins into Coptic, including Latin *census*, Semitic incense terminology, and Persian nard terminology.[^75]

Many grammatical forms are either invariant across Coptic or differ according to general phonological rules rather than specifically morphological rules; for example, the contrast between forms such as *eraf* and *erof* follows the wider dialectal contrast in short stressed vowels.[^76] On the morphological and morphosyntactic levels, there is greater resemblance between dialects but less consistency within individual dialects than on the phonological level, since forms characteristic of one variety can appear in texts otherwise belonging to another.[^77]

## Reading Signs and Scribal Practice

The **djinkim** is a reader’s sign placed above a grapheme, normally a point and, in Bohairic alone, also a grave accent; it is common in Bohairic and Mesokemic, with only a few traces reported in V and none in Fayyumic or the other dialects discussed.[^78] Its application varies both between dialects and within their histories, with distinct systems identified for classical Bohairic, late Bohairic, pre-classical Mesokemic, and classical Mesokemic.[^79] In classical Bohairic it marks a vowel forming a syllable by itself or syllabic m and n in specified grammatical or consonantal environments, so that each marked letter has a vocalic function.[^80] Late Bohairic extends its use, including to the first of two consecutive consonants at the beginning of a word and in certain Greek compounds.[^81]

## Historical Development and Language Contact

Direct descent from a particular pharaonic dialect cannot simply be assumed for each Coptic dialect: repeated linguistic leveling, interference, and the emergence of common languages were likely during earlier Egyptian history.[^82] The resulting loss or alteration of local distinctions makes a linear genealogy between ancient regional idioms and the surviving Coptic literary varieties difficult to establish.[^83]

Akhmimic’s attested distribution extends from Aswan to Akhmim, and Akhmimic and Sahidic were used concurrently in the Upper Thebaid during the fourth century.[^84] Akhmimic influenced Sahidic in the fourth and fifth centuries, as reflected in Nag Hammadi texts and Shenute’s language, while its later nonliterary traces at Thebes date specifically to the seventh and eighth centuries.[^85] Lycopolitan, by contrast with highly standardized Mesokemic, was not thoroughly standardized in any of its branches, and individual manuscripts display peculiarities and inconsistencies.[^86]

Sahidic has exceptionally few exclusive dialectal traits and shares many features with other varieties; its standard literary form was substantially shaped by biblical translation, while its expansion is associated with the progressive suppression of distinctive local phenomena.[^87] Sahidic progressively displaced Lycopolitan, Mesokemic, W, V, and finally Fayyumic, as well as Akhmimic.[^88]

Bohairic originally belonged to the western Delta and Wadi al-Natrun, then expanded eastward and southward after the Arab conquest, challenging Sahidic’s position as a general Coptic medium in the eighth and ninth centuries.[^89] Although often characterized as innovative, Bohairic is substantially conservative, sharing isoglosses with Fayyumic, Mesokemic, Sahidic, some Nag Hammadi varieties, G, and P.[^90] Bohairic was the first dialect encountered by Western scholarship and was consequently called simply Coptic in many eighteenth- and nineteenth-century treatises.[^91]

## Geographical and Historical Uncertainties

The original homeland of Sahidic remains disputed: proposed origins include the lower Nile Valley, the Saqqara–Memphis area, Thebes, and Alexandria; another interpretation regards it as a common language formed through interaction and leveling among local dialects.[^11]

Graffiti found in situ suggest that Akhmimic was spoken at Akhmim very early, perhaps from its beginnings, while the argument that it originated at Thebes is questioned on grounds of dialectal geography.[^34] A manuscript’s discovery site need not be its place of origin: the Lycopolitan Manichaean texts were found at Madinat Madi, outside the dialect’s spoken territory, whereas their origin is tentatively placed at Lycopolis, or Asyut.[^35]

The designation **Bashmuric** has an especially complicated history.[^12][^13] The fourteenth-century grammarian Athanasius of Qus named Sahidic, Bohairic, and Bashmuric, but early modern scholars working with limited documentation subsequently identified Fayyumic texts with his Bashmuric.[^12] That identification was later rejected.[^13] Separately, dialect G—attested in small eighth-century nonliterary texts and assigned to the Bohairic group—has occasionally been called Bashmuric or Mansuric; its precise location remains uncertain, although features suggest the eastern Delta.[^14]

Athanasius reported that Sahidic remained spoken from Aswan to the area of modern Minya and Bohairic in the Buhairah and Old and New Cairo, while Bashmuric was already extinct.[^36] The documents associated with dialect G published by Crum in 1939 use a cursive hand composed exclusively of Greek letters.[^37]

Sahidic funerary inscriptions are particularly difficult to localize because Sahidic is attested throughout Egypt and Nubia, and their formulas alone are unreliable guides because several formulas could occur at the same site.[^38]

The physical contrast is between an open, often marshy Delta approximately 200 km on each side and a narrow valley extending approximately 900 km to the First Cataract, with the Fayyum forming an associated oasis region.[^92] The Delta’s damp soil has limited manuscript discoveries and therefore the evidence for its probable local dialects.[^93] A more differentiated geographical framework proposed by Kasser separates the Upper Valley, Middle Valley, a central crossroads region around the Fayyum–Delta approaches, the Fayyum itself, and the Delta.[^94]

Historical maps remain provisional: Worrell’s 1934 arrangement predated recognition of Mesokemic, while Kahle’s 1954 reconstruction assigned the region between Cairo and Heracleopolis to a semi-Bohairic variety, where Vergote’s 1973 arrangement instead placed Sahidic.[^95] Large numbers of nonliterary Fayyumic texts support localization in the oasis, but the precise identification of Mesokemic with Oxyrhynchus has been challenged, with an origin somewhat north or south of the city also considered.[^96] The designation Lyco-Diospolitan deliberately accommodates possible homelands throughout the territory between Asyut and Thebes rather than restricting the group to Lycopolis.[^97] For the London Gospel of John, Qaw or Antaiopolis may be both discovery site and place of origin, whereas the deliberate assembly of the Nag Hammadi collection prevents its findspot from securely locating the origin of its Lycopolitan texts.[^98]

Reported manuscript findspots require checking against archaeological evidence and the manuscripts themselves, including dialect, reused documents in bindings, and colophons naming scribes or places of copying.[^99] Such checks are especially necessary because finders and dealers may have reasons to conceal precise locations, while manuscripts could have been moved for safekeeping.[^100]

## Scripture and Church Use

The exact date of the first scriptural translations into Coptic dialects is unknown; the earliest surviving biblical manuscripts date from the end of the third or beginning of the fourth century.[^15] Among surviving Coptic documents dated to the fifth century or earlier, Sahidic texts are more than twice as numerous as those in all other dialects combined.[^15] About the eleventh century, Bohairic replaced Sahidic as the church’s liturgical language.[^15]

Before written translations, New Testament readings in public worship were translated orally from Greek into Coptic for Christians who did not understand Greek.[^39] The reading of Matthew 19 heard by Antony of Kome in his home church around 272 was presumably in Coptic, since he did not know Greek.[^40]

Among the six principal literary dialects, Lycopolitan alone had yielded no Old Testament translations at the time of the assessment.[^41] In the regional and local dialects, only individual biblical books are attested, often fragmentarily, and the extent of the lost material remains unknown.[^42] Papyrus Bodmer III, published by Kasser in 1971, is an early Bohairic manuscript.[^43]

In Egyptian martyr literature, translation generally proceeded from Greek through the Coptic dialects into Arabic, with Sahidic initially predominating and Bohairic later taking its place.[^44]

New Testament translations were fixed in writing no later than the period after the middle of the third century, while Greek biblical manuscripts continued to be copied after Coptic versions became available.[^101] More than one Sahidic translation of certain biblical books is attested, and subsequent transmission involved both conflation of versions and revision against Greek.[^102] George W. Horner’s seven-volume Sahidic New Testament edition, published in 1911–1924 and reprinted in 1969, necessarily combines texts of disparate dates and provenance; the version’s textual affiliations are predominantly Alexandrian but include a strong Western element.[^103]

Monastic development encouraged translation and preservation: Pachomian rules required candidates, novices, and monks to learn to read and memorize scriptural passages, while surviving library remains connect biblical literature with the White Monastery at Suhaj, Hamuli in the Fayyum, the monastery of Jeremias at Saqqara, and the monastery of Macarius in the Nitrian Desert.[^104] Whole Old Testament books, especially the Psalter, were frequently memorized, and allegorical interpretation gave the Old Testament an important place in early Egyptian Christianity.[^105]

The classical Bohairic scriptural version became the official ecclesiastical text, and Bohairic survives as a liturgical language.[^106] Its surviving manuscript record is uneven: a small collection of fourth- and fifth-century biblical fragments contrasts with the much larger body of post-ninth-century scriptural, homiletic, interpretative, hagiographical, and liturgical manuscripts.[^107]

Coptic martyr texts must also be studied alongside versions in other languages: a Sahidic and a Latin witness may preserve evidence for the same Greek original, and some Egyptian texts were translated into Ethiopic.[^108]

## Principal Manuscripts and Textual Witnesses

Mesokemic was first recognized as an independent dialect by Kahle in 1954 on the basis of a few small fragments, before larger witnesses became available.[^109] Its principal witnesses include the fragmentary Pauline codex P. Mil. Copti 1, Codex Scheide containing Matthew and the Great Doxology, Codex Glazier containing Acts 1:1–15:3, and a parchment Psalms codex excavated in Egypt.[^110]

The University of Michigan Gospel of John, P. Mich. 3521, published by Elinor M. Husselman in 1962, is an important witness to W and to the difficulty of assigning intermediate varieties to a single major group.[^111] Kahle interpreted its language as Middle Egyptian with Fayyumic influence, whereas Husselman and, broadly, Polotsky favored a Fayyumic basis with Middle Egyptian influence, making the manuscript an illustrative case of a mesodialect.[^112]

The Hamburg bilingual papyrus, Pap. bil. 1, preserves Coptic versions of Song of Songs, Lamentations, and Ecclesiastes that are important for early dialect research and for understanding third- and fourth-century biblical interpretation.[^113] Its Greek Ecclesiastes is not the source text of the Coptic Ecclesiastes copied in the same codex, whose Greek Vorlage instead shows a closer affinity to Codex Vaticanus.[^114]

Important Sahidic witnesses include fourth-century Bodmer manuscripts of Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Jeremiah with Baruch, and Isaiah, while Genesis fragments survive in the binding boards of Nag Hammadi Codex VII.[^115] The Berlin Psalter, dated around 400, is the oldest surviving codex of that much-used biblical book, and Old Testament quotations in Pachomius and his disciples supplement the manuscript tradition.[^116] Other early witnesses include the fourth-century Joshua manuscript divided between the Chester Beatty and Bodmer collections, the first-half-fifth-century parchment Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John in P. Palau Rib. 181–83, and the Berlin Acts.[^117]

The history of Lycopolitan documentation began with Carl Schmidt’s publication of the Heidelberg Acts of Paul in 1904, supplemented in 1909, followed by Herbert Thompson’s Gospel of John fragments in 1924.[^118] A Meletian archive letter published in 1924 was the only nonliterary Lycopolitan text known at the time of the assessment, while the Manichaean Homilies and the Apocryphon of James in Nag Hammadi Codex I provide particularly useful literary representatives of L4 and L6 respectively.[^119]

## Comparative Scholarship

Marius Chaîne’s *Eléments de grammaire dialectale copte* (1933) presented a simultaneous grammatical account of Bohairic, Sahidic, Akhmimic, and Fayyumic.[^45] Paul Eric Kahle’s two-volume *Bala’izah: Coptic Texts from Bala’izah in Upper Egypt* (1954), based on literary and documentary material from Dayr al-Balayzah near Asyut, contributed important conclusions about the distribution of Coptic dialects.[^46]

The expansion of classification can be followed through Stern’s three dialects in 1880, Crum’s five in 1939, Kahle’s six in 1954, and Kasser’s fifteen proposed idioms in 1973, five of which were practically abandoned in his 1981 treatment.[^120] Earlier large-scale groupings also differed: Steindorff in 1951 placed Sahidic, Akhmimic, Lycopolitan, and Fayyumic together as Upper Egyptian, opposing them to Bohairic and the poorly known Bashmuric in Lower Egypt.[^121]

Comparative morphology requires attention to the smallest textual units that maintain a distinct linguistic norm before combining them into larger dialect groups, rather than assuming that every text assigned the same dialect label is uniform.[^122] Controlled representatives selected for morphological comparison therefore include the Akhmimic Exodus, Epistula Apostolorum, and Strasbourg Codex, biblical Sahidic, and Bohairic features consistent with the older manuscripts.[^123] Sahidic is frequently used as a comparative norm, but a perfectly pure standard Sahidic is an idealized research construct rather than the full reality of its manuscript varieties.[^124]

Kahle’s 1954 inventory of early literary manuscripts arranged third- to fifth-century witnesses by dialect and recorded writing material and column format, although subsequent discoveries, particularly Bodmer codices, required additions.[^125] Greek transcriptions of Egyptian names supply complementary evidence for vocalization, accent, word formation, and the earlier distribution of spoken varieties, extending dialect research beyond Coptic manuscripts alone.[^126]

Other scholars contributed through teaching and documentation: Stephen Gaselee lectured on Coptic dialects and cataloged Cambridge University Library’s Coptic manuscripts, while Jean Simon addressed the continuance of the dialects for a linguistic congress in 1936 and produced an annual Coptic bibliography in *Orientalia* from 1948 to 1965.[^127] Chaîne’s further linguistic studies included his 1934 work on the Asyutic dialects, a 1945 study of the Coptic verb, and volumes published in 1938–1942 relating earlier Egyptian to the Coptic dialects.[^128] Kasser’s systematic classification studies of 1980–1981 separately addressed principles and terminology, alphabets and phonetic systems, and orthographic systems and dialectal categories; his standard system of dialect sigla appeared in 1990.[^129]

## Frequently asked questions

**What are the principal Coptic dialects?**
The six principal groups are Akhmimic, Lycopolitan, Sahidic, Mesokemic or Middle Egyptian, Fayyumic, and Bohairic, alongside numerous subdialects and intermediate varieties.

**How do scholars distinguish Coptic dialects?**
They chiefly compare systematic manuscript spellings to reconstruct pronunciation, supplemented by differences in morphology, syntax, and vocabulary; alphabetic differences do not always indicate separate dialects.

**How do Sahidic and Bohairic differ in their historical roles?**
Sahidic served as a common language across the Nile Valley above the Delta, while Bohairic probably fulfilled a similar role in the Delta and replaced Sahidic in church liturgy around the eleventh century.

**Can a manuscript’s discovery site identify its dialect’s homeland?**
Not necessarily: manuscripts could travel or enter collections far from their place of origin, so findspots must be assessed alongside linguistic evidence, bindings, colophons, and archaeology.

**Was Bashmuric another name for Fayyumic?**
Early modern scholars identified Fayyumic texts with the Bashmuric mentioned by Athanasius of Qus, but that identification was later rejected; the historical Bashmuric dialect remains poorly understood.

## Sources
[^1]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 210)
[^2]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 178)
[^3]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 200)
[^4]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 203)
[^5]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 204)
[^6]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 332)
[^7]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 359)
[^8]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 269)
[^9]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 205)
[^10]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 207)
[^11]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 428)
[^12]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 71)
[^13]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 72)
[^14]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 140)
[^15]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 212)
[^16]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 3)
[^17]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 3)
[^18]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 338)
[^19]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 336)
[^20]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 458)
[^21]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 88)
[^22]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 201)
[^23]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 206)
[^24]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 368)
[^25]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 131)
[^26]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 421)
[^27]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 421)
[^28]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 422)
[^29]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 423)
[^30]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 43)
[^31]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 148)
[^32]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 486)
[^33]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 213)
[^34]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 297)
[^34]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 297)
[^35]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 336)
[^36]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 375)
[^37]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 308)
[^38]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 737)
[^39]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 166)
[^40]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 166)
[^41]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 334)
[^42]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 334)
[^43]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 458)
[^44]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 495)
[^45]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 474)
[^46]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 94)
[^47]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 316)
[^48]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 210)
[^49]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 205)
[^50]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 206)
[^50]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 207)
[^51]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 201)
[^52]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 204)
[^53]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 421)
[^53]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 204)
[^54]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 204)
[^55]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 203)
[^56]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 204)
[^57]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 205)
[^57]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 204)
[^58]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 205)
[^59]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 205)
[^60]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 205)
[^61]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 315)
[^62]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 422)
[^63]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 422)
[^64]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 148)
[^65]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 327)
[^66]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 37)
[^67]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 38)
[^68]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 47)
[^69]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 24)
[^70]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 24)
[^70]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 49)
[^71]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 67)
[^72]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 148)
[^73]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 151)
[^73]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 49)
[^74]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 486)
[^75]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 486)
[^76]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 213)
[^77]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 210)
[^78]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 235)
[^79]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 235)
[^80]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 235)
[^81]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 235)
[^82]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 324)
[^83]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 324)
[^84]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 3)
[^85]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 3)
[^86]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 338)
[^87]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 428)
[^88]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 207)
[^89]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 88)
[^90]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 88)
[^91]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 88)
[^92]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 293)
[^93]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 178)
[^94]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 293)
[^94]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 294)
[^95]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 295)
[^96]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 297)
[^97]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 331)
[^98]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 336)
[^99]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 493)
[^100]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 493)
[^101]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 166)
[^102]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 212)
[^103]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 212)
[^104]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 334)
[^105]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 166)
[^106]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 88)
[^107]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 88)
[^108]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 5, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 495)
[^109]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 359)
[^110]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 359)
[^111]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 458)
[^111]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 213)
[^112]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 357)
[^113]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 500)
[^114]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 500)
[^115]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 334)
[^116]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 334)
[^117]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 458)
[^118]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 332)
[^119]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 213)
[^119]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 332)
[^119]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 212)
[^120]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 200)
[^121]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 201)
[^122]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 212)
[^123]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 212)
[^124]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 428)
[^124]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 49)
[^125]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 458)
[^126]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 308)
[^127]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 4, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 332)
[^127]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 7, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 277)
[^128]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 474)
[^129]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 426)