# Lycopolitan Coptic Source: https://coptic-lore-forge.lovable.app/wiki/lycopolitan-coptic — Coptic Orthodox Wiki (updated 2026-10-02) Lycopolitan Coptic is a group of Upper Egyptian dialects, also called Lyco-Diospolitan or Subakhmimic, whose textual varieties resist classification as a single uniform dialect.[^1] ## Definition and names **Lycopolitan Coptic** designates a group of Upper Egyptian dialects or subdialects conventionally represented by the siglum **L**, formerly also **A2**. Other names include **Lyco-Diospolitan**, **Subakhmimic**, and the older, less common **Asyutic**. Its linguistic characteristics distinguish the group from both Akhmimic and Sahidic, although its internal diversity has led scholars to question whether it constitutes a single distinct dialect.[^1] Beginning in 1972, Rodolphe Kasser proposed replacing “Subakhmimic” with “Lycopolitan,” partly because the older name and the symbol A2 could suggest that it was merely a subdivision of Akhmimic. From 1986, there was agreement on numerical designations for its principal branches: L4, L5, and L6.[^2] The designation adapts a variant of Chaîne’s “Assiutic” and has the advantage of a single-character siglum, corresponding to those of the other main Coptic dialects.[^12] ## Geographical range The Lycopolitan entry identifies a linguistic center extending from Qaw to Asyut, ancient Lycopolis, with possible extensions northward and southward.[^1] The designation “Lyco-Diospolitan” reflects a broader possible homeland encompassing the region between Asyut and Diospolis Magna, or Thebes (Luxor).[^3] Manuscript findspots extend from the Fayyum to the vicinity of Thebes, perhaps as far south as Aswan, but the dialectal geography survey emphasizes the difficulty of locating L precisely.[^4] The entry on Mesokemic (Middle Egyptian) places that dialect between Fayyumic and Lycopolitan, both in its linguistic system and in the probable geography of the dialects.[^13] The sources differ in their characterization of the group: the geographical survey describes L, together with Sahidic, as among the most “neutral” classical Coptic idioms, whereas the dedicated Lycopolitan entry explicitly rejects describing L as “neutral” because of its diversification and subdivision.[^4][^1] ## Principal textual varieties The principal branches are associated with distinct groups of texts:[^2][^5] - **L4:** the Manichaean texts.[^5] - **L5:** the London Gospel of John, a Dublin fragment of John, and a Geneva fragment of the *Acts of Paul*.[^5] - **L6:** Lycopolitan texts from the Nag Hammadi collection and the Heidelberg *Acts of Paul*.[^5][^6] Earlier branch designations were **L-Mani**, **L-JoL**, and **L-NagH**, corresponding respectively to L4, L5, and L6.[^14] Within the Nag Hammadi collection, the relevant texts occur in Codices I and X and the first two works of Codex XI. Most other texts in the collection are Sahidic.[^7] The *Apocryphon of James*, in Codex I, is an especially valuable representative of the L6 variety.[^8] The Nag Hammadi works were originally composed in Greek and presumably translated into Coptic during the fourth century or slightly earlier; the surviving codices contain later copies rather than the first Coptic copies of the texts.[^15] ## Publication history The first Lycopolitan textual witness to become known was the Heidelberg *Acts of Paul*, published by Carl Schmidt in 1904, with a further folio published in 1909.[^16] In 1924, Sir Herbert Thompson published extensive fragments of the Gospel of John in a dialect very close to that of the Heidelberg *Acts of Paul*, but with characteristic peculiarities.[^17] A letter from the Meletian archives, edited by Crum in Bell’s 1924 publication as no. 1921, was the sole nonliterary Lycopolitan text known at the time.[^18] The Dublin fragment of John and the Geneva fragment of the *Acts of Paul* were unpublished at the time.[^19] ## Linguistic characteristics Lycopolitan was not thoroughly standardized in any of its branches, and individual manuscripts display peculiarities and inconsistencies. Its subdivisions are distinguished principally through phonetic features recoverable from spelling and through particular areas of morphology.[^2] The entry reports that differences in vocabulary and syntax had not yet been investigated, apart from some preliminary elements presented by Funk in 1985.[^20] The phonological account identifies seventeen consonantal phonemes represented by sixteen graphemes; the laryngeal stop has no independent sign and can be recognized through a break in the vowels. Vowel spellings are particularly important for distinguishing L4, L5, and L6 and for comparing Lycopolitan with other Coptic dialects.[^6] Differences in the use of consonants, especially the pairs transcribed as b/f and c/s, also distinguish varieties within Lycopolitan.[^21] Like Mesokemic, Fayyumic, and Sahidic, Lycopolitan lacks the consonants /x/ and /ç/ found in certain other Coptic dialects.[^22] ## Biblical and inscriptional evidence No Lycopolitan Old Testament translations had then been identified.[^9] Nevertheless, a Psalms fragment of uncertain dialectal classification may represent a preliminary stage of Lycopolitan.[^10] At the cemetery of al-Bagawat, the account of Coptic graffiti observes traces of affinity between the local speech and Lycopolitan. It places Coptic-speaking visits to the site broadly between the sixth and eleventh centuries, without identifying all the inscriptions as Lycopolitan.[^11] ## Sources [^1]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 332) [^2]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 338) [^3]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 331) [^4]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 297) [^5]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 3) [^6]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 339) [^7]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 173) [^8]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 212) [^9]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 334) [^10]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 335) [^11]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 2, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 20) [^12]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 338) [^13]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 359) [^14]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 338) [^15]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 6, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 173) [^16]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 332) [^17]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 332) [^18]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 332) [^19]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 3) [^20]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 338) [^21]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 339) [^22]: The Coptic Encyclopedia, Volume 8, Aziz S. Atiya (Editor in Chief) (p. 359)