Non-ankh[edit]

I believe the ring-cross

does not originate from the Ankh, but is instead a stripped version of

which have the symbolism of Jesus ChRist (the Chi Rho) defeating the death (the cross under it), while the wreath of thorns symbolizes the suffering of Jesus Christ.

I believe the source seiyaku.com claiming a possible Ankh connection leaps to conclusions because of lack of information. I think we might consider not relying on seiyaku.com unless we have other supporting sources.

I also think that the cross

is not a real original form, but instead an imaginary version of real forms where the square cross in the circle never touches the circle itself.

Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Coptic cross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gnostic[edit]

Why does Gnostic cross redirect to this article? the word Gnostic doesn't appear anywhere in it. 80.0.4.212 (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Origin of File:CopticCross.jpg[edit]

This design is now used by copticcatholicpatriarchate.net. But this website dates to 2014. The file was uploaded to Wikipedia in 2006 by User:afanous who claimed "I created this graphic myself". I suppose this means either that we have citogenesis, the people in charge of the website of the Coptic Catholic Church taking their logo from Wikipedia, or the uploader was lying and stole the design from some earlier website. Unfortunatly, experience tells me the latter case is more probable. So, this image is either an original design dating to 2006 or it is of unknown origin. --dab (𒁳) 15:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coptic cross. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ankh-like forms, again[edit]

First off: I removed the image to the right from the gallery. It was labeled "A Coptic ankh", but as far as I know Coptic Christians didn't call their cross signs ankhs, however ankh-like they might be. Moreover, Copts did use the ankh-like crux ansata, as described in the ankh article, but this variant with the short projection at the top doesn't seem to be a common form of it. In fact, I've only found one image of an artifact with a cross of this type: [1]. Various low-resolution copies of this image are floating around online; none that I've found are in a context that gives the provenance of the artifact. So putting this image in the gallery, even without the misleading caption, seems rather disproportionate.

Second, both the article and a caption in the gallery said that the Gnostics used the crux ansata form. I've removed the text that made that claim, which does have some scholarly support but on tenuous grounds. An author named Jean de Savignac, in "Les papyrus Bodmer XIV et XV" in Scriptorium 17 (1963), proposed that Valentinians used this sign, because ankhs (or cruces ansata) appear here and there in the manuscripts of the Nag Hammadi library, and one sign that may be an ankh or crux ansata appears on a copy of a Valentinian text. But that doesn't necessarily mean that those signs were originally connected with those texts or the sect that wrote them. In The Earliest Christian Artifacts (2006) by Larry Hurtado, it says (p. 144):

…whatever the valid reading of this particular manuscript, the ankh symbol indisputably appears elsewhere in the Nag Hammadi texts, particularly on the leather cover of Codex 2 and at the end of the text titled "The Prayer of the Apostle Paul". Moreover, other artifacts such as the Armant inscription mentioned above rather clearly indicate Christian appropriation of the ankh by the fourth to sixth century. But this appropriation seems not to have been particularly connected to Valentinian circles. Although some of the Nag Hammadi texts may well have originated in Greek-speaking "gnostic" circles, the fourth-century Coptic manuscripts of the Nag Hammadi collection were likely prepared by monastic scribes who were certainly strongly ascetic, but not particularly 'Valentinians.'

Given that Gnostic cross redirects to this article, this article may have to address this Gnostic question somewhere—either that or Gnostic cross goes to RfD. A. Parrot (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories