slimboyfat....This is a very interesting development. Do you have a scan of the article or would be willing to quote the interesting parts? I am curious of the specific claims that are made. I think you highlighted the most important aspect of the story -- the fact that attention to the (Sahidic) Coptic rendering of John 1:1 was drawn first (and recently) by JW apologists on the internet. I see no previous mention of this subject in the WT CD-ROM, and the Society went to some great lengths to find support for their translation (e.g, Johannas Greber and Belsham's unitarian revision of Archbishop Newcome's translation), and yet never once presented what may be construed as support from an ancient version (and Franz was familiar with the critical apparatus of the NT, at least insofar as the footnotes of the NWT in its 1950, 1971, and 1984 editions show).
I am curious to see if the Society acknowledges that the Coptic rendering is ambiguous (i.e. it allows both qualitative and indefinite readings, not indefinite alone) and that Coptic usage of the indefinite article differs from English, or whether they take a simplistic view that interprets the Coptic rendering as exclusively supporting an indefinite "a god" interpretation of John 1:1. Do they also mention that the same version refers to the Word as "God" (p-noute, with the definite article) in John 1:18, or that v. 16 uses the indefinite article with "life" and "grace" (i.e. "[a] life and [a] grace" if the usage of the indefinite article is indicated, but "life and grace" in usual English)?