The Coptic version is not a "much newer" version, as the relationship between the two is complicated enough as to preclude being able to say that one is definitively
much older than the other, as in truth they developed in tandem. The oldest Egyptian anaphora (without respect to later divisions between Christians in Egypt, which would not have happened yet at the time when this anaphora was still in use) is in Greek, but just to illustrate the sort of thing I'm talking about,
the relevant article in the Coptic Encyclopedia (written by priest, Biblical scholar, and Benedictine monk Aelred Cody) contains the following insights:
Although both the Coptic Saint Cyril and the Greek Saint Mark contain textual variants peculiar to the one or to the other, both seem to be derived from the same recension of the old Egyptian anaphora, whose earliest textual witnesses are fragments in Greek. A few Coptic fragments in the Sahidic dialect have also been found. The extant witnesses to the text of the present Coptic Saint Cyril, none of them earlier than the twelfth century, are in the Bohairic dialect, but a Greek text apparently meant for occasional use in the Coptic church survives in a few manuscripts, one of which has been published. It is still impossible to say whether the Bohairic version was made from a Greek text or from a Sahidic intermediary. In general, the readings of the early fragments, both Greek and Sahidic, are closer to those of Coptic Saint Cyril than to surviving manuscripts of the Melchite Saint Mark.
Superficial influence of the Syrian Liturgy of Saint James is less evident in Saint Cyril than in Saint Mark, and the Byzantinizing tendencies that appear in extant manuscripts of the Liturgy of Saint Mark are absent from the Anaphora of Saint Cyril. On the other hand, Coptic Saint Cyril has textual additions of its own that are not found in the anaphoric part of Melchite Saint Mark.
+++
In other words, they're both derived from what is assumed to be the same original Greek source, but it's not like Greek Mark as served by the Byzantines in Egypt is "the original", whereas Coptic Mark/Cyril is a much later copy of that. So I'm afraid that New Advent containing a digital version of the Greek liturgy as served in Egypt does not explain nor validate your still very wrong assumptions about my Church's liturgy and what it teaches or contains. So again: Yes, the liturgy of St. Mark
does very explicitly inculcate and require a physical/non-memorialist understanding of the Eucharist (as the Greeks themselves also have in Egypt, as everywhere, so even if your assumptions were fact, I don't know why you would think that Coptic Mark/Cyril being "much newer" is somehow proof of anything).
www.newadvent.org
