Considering CL 1699 , is there enough evidence to correct the attestation of copt , – ă ( 1887 , DLR ) ?

In 1699, translating from Greek a text by Maxim the Peloponnesian, Antim Ivireanul uses a word that, at first glance, coincides with a neologism attested in Romanian no sooner than the end of the 19th century, as a French loan: copt, –ă, ‘Locuitor [...] al Egiptului, descinzând din vechile secte creștine ale Euticheenilor’ [Inhabitant (...) of Egypt, descending from the ancient Chris- tian sects of the Euticheens]. In order to answer the question in the title, the author had to conduct a semantic analysis of the corresponding word in the Greek source-text, i.e. κoπται (and also its etymology), since, for the period when Maxim the Peloponnesian writes, the Greek lexicography indicates only the existence of the ancient form κoπτης (pl. κoπται), derivative of the verb κoπ(τω) –της ‘to cut, to strike’. The study leads towards an affirmative answer, and might also cast a new light on the language dynamics of the post-byzantine era.

It seems that the author conceives and uses a category with three elements (at least in the Romanian version), all bearing the semantic content [+ heresy]: 1) copte [Copts], 2) ceia ce vor numai o voie și o ființă la dumnezeire [those who believe that there is only one will and one nature in divinity], and 3) ariiani [Arians].The third, as a lexical unit, is attested at Varlaam, 1643, 'Anhänger von Arius.-Daher: Schismatiker.Abtrünniger' (tdrg 2 , s.v.; also, dlr, s.v.), while the first, naming a type of heresy (or anything else!), has not been yet discovered in any other old or pre-modern Romanian text.
Are we to believe that, through the translation of Antim Ivireanul, we witness the first use of the word copt, -ă in Romanian, with a meaning resembling that expressed in dlr, "Locuitor [...] al Egiptului, descinzând din vechile secte creștine ale Euticheenilor" (s.v.) [Inhabitant (...) of Egypt, descending from the ancient Christian sects of the Euticheens]?Does this fact add almost two centuries back to the life of the specified word in the Romanian vocabulary, and correct its etymology (cf.dlr, s.v., "Ion Ghica, Scrisori către Vasile Alecsandri, București, Editura Librăriei Socec & Comp, 1887")?Or is there a different case?

An homonymy registered rather late
To consider mp 1620/1690 the actual Greek source for the Romanian cl 1699 form copte is a possibility that faces some difficulties from the Greek language, concerning the actual existence at the beginning of the 17 th century (1620, when Maxim the Peloponnesian wrote the manuscript of Ἐγχειρίδιον κατὰ τοῦ σχίσματος…) of a Greek noun referring to a certain population (i.e. the Copts) with a certain Christian tradition.
The form κóπται (n., pl., N; sg.: κóπτης) is registered in Greek dictionaries as a derivative of the verb κóπτω ('to cut, strike ' , Lat. caedo, liddell-scott, s.v.; bailly, s.v.), either as an element belonging to κóπτω's entry (agent name, see chantraine, s.v., see C.1), 2) and D), or as a lemma, when it has a distinct religious meaning, based on its use in the patristic texts: κóπται, οἱ "'those who sunder or divide' , name given to Mahomedans as dividers of Trin[ity]" (lampe, s.v.; 'cutter, one that cuts or divides ' sophocles,s.v.;'Teiler (der Trinität)' ,lbg 1,s.v. κóητης,ου,ὁ), often being cited John of Damascus with his Liber de haeresibus: [engl.: "Moreover, they [the Ishmaelites, Ἰσμαηλϊται, n.n., A.C.] call us Hetaeriasts, or Associators, because, they say, we introduce an associate with God by declaring Christ to [be] the Son of God and God.We say to them in rejoinder: 'The Prophets and the Scriptures have delivered this to us, and you, as you persistently maintain, accept the Prophets.So, if we wrongly declare Christ to be the Son of God, it is they who taught this and handed it on to us.' [...] And again we say to them: 'As long as you say that Christ is the Word of God and Spirit, why do you accuse us of being Hetaeriasts?For the word, and the spirit, is inseparable from that in which it naturally has existance.Therefore, if the Word of God is in God, then it is obvious that He is God.If, however, He is outside of God, then, according to you, God is without word and without spirit.Consequently, by avoiding the introduction of an associate with God you have mutilated Him [τὸν Θεὸν ἐκόψατε αὐτόν, n.n., A.C.].It would be far better for you to say that He has an associate than to mutilate [κόπτειν, n.n., A.C.] Him, as if you were dealing with a stone or a piece of wood or some other inanimate object.Thus, you speak untruly when you call us Hetaeriasts; we retort by calling you Mutilators [Κόπτας, n.n., A.C.] of God' ."](lh, 101, p. 155-156; cf. pg 94. 768, in kotter, p. 63-64).
It is unlikely that Maxim the Peloponnesian refers to Muslims when talks about κóπται, although, on one hand, John of Damascus (whom, nevertheless, Maxim cites on the issue of the Holly Spirit's source, cl 1699, 75 r ; see also 101 r ) sees them as heretics (next to other one hundred heresies), and, on the other hand, Maxim also has a certain kind of heresy in mind.The heretics that preoccupy the 17 th century polemist are of Christian nature, since they are of those towards whom the Roman Church has harboured / was harbouring unionistic plans.It is less important for the present study, and perhaps impossible to identify the genus κóπται in the taxonomy of heresies as they appear at Maxim the Peloponnesian, "κóπται, μονοθελῖται, και μονοφυσῖται, αῤειανὸι" (mp 1620/1690, 124): taking into account the knowledge that Maxim might have had about the doctrine and the religious practices of the Monothelites2 , Monophysites3 and Arians4 , either from a treatise like that of John of Damascus, or from the confused general knowledge of the Middle Ages about the Oriental religions (Hamilton, 2006, p. 150f ), the reader may interpret κóπται as category, with μονοθελῖται, μονοφυσῖται and αῤειανὸι as components, or as a type of Christianism opposing the others, or, finally, a type of doctrine opposing only αῤειανὸι, and manifesting itself in two sub-types.
In any case, the denotative meaning of the term κóπται (sg.κóπτης) is equivocal in itself.One might be suggested by the previous uses of the word, by, e.g., John of Damascus (see also Nicetas Choniates, apud lbg 1, s.v.κóπται), as a derivative noun of the verb κóπτω: cutters or mutilators (indeed, the "heresies" which Maxim writes about are among those accused of negating the duality of Jesus' nature), the case against it being held by the context of the chapter, and by the absence of a determinative for κóπται (cf.κóπτας τοῦ Θεοῦ, lh, 101, p. 155)... Nevertheless, such a reading would have led, in the Romanian translation, to a linguistic choice similar with those that cover the next two elements: * ceia ce taie / strică / mutilează ([those who cut / brake / mutilate], cf.ceia ce vor numai o voie și o ființă la dumnezeire [those who believe that there is only one will and one nature in divinity] -μονοθελῖται, και μονοφυσῖται)-which doesn't happen.
The second possibility of interpretation is the one actually present in the translator's choice, entailing the use of a neologism not quite perfectly adapted to the Romanian morphology: copte < N-Gr.Κóπται 'Copts' .The problem with this theory is that the Greek dictionaries themselves do not register the exist-ence of a word Kόπτης ο 'Copt' in the Greek language prior to the work of Maxim the Peloponnesian (see kriara, where the investigated corpus, from 1100 to 1669, doesn't produce the word with the here requested meaning).However, the use of the Romanian copte ought not to be ignored, since it might cast a new light over the language dynamics of the post-byzantine era.
› Through years, several hypothesis concerning the etymology of the Copts' name have emerged, but the hypotheses that seems to have gained the value of truth is the one involving the reduction and transformation of the Greek word Αἰγύπτιος to the Arabic [qib .tīyīn], or to the consonantal root [kpt], present in the administrative documents after the conquest of Egypt in 641 5 .The term functioned as an ethnonym with the same meaning as its Greek etymon and no consideration for the "pagan" or Christian status of its bearers.
Still, the use of a word to continue the Arabic [quibt] or perhaps another eastern linguistic form with a meaning as discussed here did not let many traces in the medieval literature, be it in Greek, Latin, or vernaculars (Hamilton, 2006, p. 110; see, as argumentum ad silentio, kriara s.v., gaffiot s.v., old s.v., etc.) 7 . 5For detailed presentations and analyses of the problem, see Aufrère & Bosson (2001, p. 1-15), Hamilton (2006, p. 24-25), atiya, p. 599.  On this matter, atiya, p. 599-600, writes: "the frequent extension in the religious sense of the word 'Copt' to Christian Ethiopians, Syro-Jacobites, and Armenians, makes it radically and arbitrarily empty of its essential ethnic base.Its application in these communities to the period that precedes the formation and use of the word by the Arab conquerors of Egypt makes this usage as anachronistic and unjustifiable as when used in referring to this same period in Egypt.[...] The word 'Copt' is to be discarded when discussing the Syro-Jacobites and the Armenians and whatever may concern them.Nor can it designate the Ethiopians, who are of a different race and language.But it may be used to describe ecclesiastical and administrative affairs such as their dogma and liturgy.Concerning Ethiopians, it is normal to speak of the Coptic hierarchy, Coptic Christians, and Coptic liturgy." 7The texts that speak about the relations between the oriental Christians and the rest of the Christianity (after the Council The opinion is that Kόπτης represents a French loan into modern Greek, as in the case of the Rom.copt, -ă (dlr, s.v.), the French word being itself attested in the 17 th century as a borrowed word from Arabic: «copte 1664, Thévenot 10 (cofte); désigna d'abord les chrétiens d'Égypte, puis l'anc.langue démotique ; ar.kupt, du gr.aiguptios, égyptien» (larousse, s.v.; see also quillet, s.v.;cf. Engl. Copt, 1615 [ad. Arab. quft, qift 'the Copts' ...].A native Egyptian Christian, belonging to the Jacobite sect of Monophysites..., soed, s.v.).

Conclusions
If we accept as facts the things mentioned so far, it follows that Kόπτης 'Copt' is a word whose apparition in Greek can be traced to the 17 th century, in 1664-1665.Till then, upon certain proof, we are to take into consideration for κόπτης only the derivative meaning from the verb κóπτω.However, paying attention to the 1620 (published in 1690) text of Maxim the Peloponnesian and also its 1699 Romanian translation by Antim Ivireanul, two hypotheses emerge: a) the form Kόπτης 'Copt' , irrespective of κόπτης 'cutter' , has to be in use before the attestation of its alleged French etymon (a fact that is plausible, since, in general, the presence of a word in a given language is an act that precedes its use in writing); Maxim uses it, Antim recognizes it, on the basis of his knowledge of Greek acquired while living in Constantinople, and uses it for the first time in a Romanian text, in an adapted form, in 1699; b) Kόπτης 'Copt' is a post-1669 (also, post-1664) form, as inferred by kriara, but appears in language prior to Antim Ivireanul's translating activity; Antim, on the basis of the contemporary Greek language, only believes to recognize the word in Maxim's text, although the Greek writer from the beginning of the century had a different meaning in mind when he used the noun.