Note 8 — INTRODUCTION
G. (George) Horner translation
F. Granger, in a review in the Journal of Theological Studies, v. v. (1904), pp. 0400 ff., says he sees no reason why Coptic should not have been its original language. I am inclined to agree with him, particularly with regard to the Fourth and Fifth Documents. But the balance of expert opinion is distinctly against this view.