Why Chaldean Church
Refuses to Acknowledge its Assyrian Heritage?
When Religion Becomes Divisive
According to Zinda Magazine
on 24 February 2005 Bishop Sarhad Jammo delivered a speech to
his followers in San Diego perhaps a typical lecture by him and
others intended to further alienate members of the Chaldean Church
from their Assyrian heritage. Judging by the content of this
speech it is no wonder that there is so much hostility by the
member of the Chaldean Church toward their Assyrian ancestry
and Assyrians in general. Christianity claims to be about building
bridges, promoting peace, cooperation and brotherly love, but
bishop Sarhad Jammo seems not to have much interest in such noble
In an interview a year earlier
bishop Sarhad admitted that for the last 30 years he has been
thinking "of the necessity to fix political borders between
Assyrians and Chaldeans.." Which means he wished to further
alienate members of the Chaldean Church from their Assyrian heritage.
He admits that he was prevented
from doing so by the late patriarch of the Chaldean church; Sarhad
contends that Mar 'Raphael Bedaweed I', "in the year 2000,
declared his being an Assyrian from an ethnic point of view and
a Chaldean from the religious one." But obviously Mar Bedaweed
was in no position to stop him from indoctrinating members of
the Chaldean church against their Assyrian identity.
Sarhad Jammo wants to pretend
that Mar Raphael Bedaweed was speaking only about his own Assyrian
heritage and not the Chaldean Church which is not the case. In
a 1974 interview with the Assyrian Star he said : ". Personally,
my family became Chaldean only some 100 years ago, my grandfather
Daweed was a Nestorian priest, and the same is true with all
the rest of us ...we need to differentiate between nationality
and Church, between church and politics ... the Chaldean title
for us does not mean ethnicity or nationality,... True Assyrianism
is an ethnicity and we all are Assyrian. We could be Assyrian
ethnically, but we are Chaldeans religiously. We can not have
our Church associated with ethnicity or nationality".
Bishop Sarhad himself is an obvious example of how the Chaldean
church hides its Assyrian heritage. His proud Assyrian parents
named him after the Assyrian king A-Sarhadon but he is not willing
to honor their heritage. I was told that even his two sisters
have patriotic Assyrian names.
After the death of Mar Raphael,
Sarhad Jammo began to put his divisive plans into action. According
to AINA, "In a memorandum dated May 10, 2003 from San Diego,
"Bishop Sarhad along with Bishop Ibrahim Ibrahim, of Michigan,
formally asserted a separate Chaldean ethnicity, rejecting a
common political or nationalist purpose with Assyrians."
In september of the same year 19 Chaldean bishops including Sarhad
Jammo, in Baghdad, in a letter to Mr. Paul Bremer, Iraq's Civil
Administrator, demanded separate rights for the Chaldeans whom
they claimed to be a distinct ethnicity other than Assyrian and
constitute 80% of the Iraqi Christian population.
In his San Diego speech bishop
Sarhad presented several opinions based on false premises intended
to prove that members of his Church are not ethnically related
to other Christians of Iraq. Following are some of his assertions
and false assumptions which have been refuted by this writer.
He said: "Assyrians,
and Suryaye are all Suraye, meaning Christians. Suraya is not
the name of people (nation); it is a religious term, he stressed.
Let us not mix up between Suraya and Suryaya. We say "lishana
d' Sureth" (Syriac language), which means the language of
the Christian people."
The names Suraya, and Suryaya,
Suryoyo, have been used by the Assyrians of the Church of the
East, The Syrian Orthodox Church and the Chaldean Church in reference
to their people and contrary to bishop Sarhad they do not mean
Christian. He seems to be unaware that suraya and Suryaya are
equivalent to the English Syrian and the Greek 'Surios' which
according to the Greek and Roman historians it meant Assyrian
and was in use five to six centuries before Christianity and
'Syrian' when applied to the christians of Mesopotamia does not
mean citizen of Syria.
Herodotus in mid fifth century
writing about the Assyrian troops in the Persian empire army
stated: "While the Greeks call these people Syrians they
are called Assyrians by the Barbarians." meaning the Armenians,
the Persians and even the inhabitants of the land west of Euphrates.
Since before christianity
and during all the christian centuries while we have called ourselves
Suraya, Suryaya and Athuraya Armenian have called us Asori meaning
'Assyrian". A chart by the Assyrialogist Parpola indicates
that various Greek and Roman historians used 'Syrian' as an equivalent
to Assyrian for the people of Mesopotamia before and after the
According to the Nagshe Rostam
inscription by the Persian king Darius listing the national types
of the Persian Empire Assyrian is pronounced as follows: "Iyam
Asuryah" i.e. "this is an Assyrian". Very similar
to the term "Surya " a name Christian Assyrians have
identified themselves by. Parpola indicates that from (930 to
600 B.C.) the term Asuraya was used by the ancient Assyrians
themselves to identify their nation which Suraya seems to have
derived from and is similar to in meaning. 
The Syriac name for Christian
is Mshikhaya or christyana. The second century Syriac writer
Bardaisan informs us that Christians are called "(kristyônê)
after the Messiah". Persian documents of the fourth century
AD refer to christians as 'Kristiyan'. The 11th
century Syriac writer Abdisho Bar Brikha in the introduction
to his "Paradise of Eden" refers to himself as "Allila
Suryaya" i.e. obscure As(syrian) and "Mkhila 'd Mshikhaye",
feeble of the Christians. He clearly shows that Suryaya and
Mshikaya have two different meaning and since the first existed
before Christianity it could not have meant Christian. We never
call the Armenians who are Christians, 'Suryaye', even though
we have lived side by side with them since before christianity.
The terms Surit and Syriac and Suryani as we shall see have also
derived from Syrian short for Assyrian.
Sarhad Jammo continues to
dismiss 'Suryaya', 'Suryan' and Suryani as ethnic terms.
He claims: "Suryan or
Suryaya comes from Syria, period. Therefore, Suryaya cannot be
a name of our nation..... I cannot say Suryaya or Suryani to
reflect an ethnic group in Iraq.We say we are one people; however,
we must be careful of what we are saying. The Suryani people
in Iraq are the people of Iraq; however, this name does not reflect
any ethnic Iraqi group. The language does not prove anything."
Bishop Sarhad again fails
to see that 'Suraya' or 'Suryaya' do not mean citizen of Syria
when applied to the christians of Mesopotamia. At no time Syria
governed the region east of Euphrates but it was ruled by the
Assyrians, Babylonians and Persians annexed to Mesopotamia until
mid second century AD. Consequently the terms 'Suraya' or 'Suryaya'
have derived from 'Asuraya' which according to Parpola ancient
Assyrians identified themselves by and the Greek's Syrian when
used as substitute for Assyrian. We need to distinguish between
cause and effect to realize the true meaning of these names.
The Armenians and Persians have interpreted them as Asuri or
Bishop Sarhad Jammo continues:
"The name Chaldean cannot be treated on equal footing with
the name Suryaya or Suryani." He claims, "The center
of the Suryani people is Syria; therefore, there is a conflict
when we try to equate Suryaya or Suryani with Chaldean."
Chaldeans as applied to the
members of the Chaldean church is nothing more than a religious
identify which began in 1553. Before then and even now members
of the Chaldean Church have used the name Suryaya to identify
themselves with which historically has meant Assyrian. In mid
19th century Badger wrote: Even the most important [the oldest]
"Chaldean community at Diarbekir could only boast of the
name 'Sooraya' and 'Nestoraya'."  This means
that 300 years after the establishment of the Chaldean church
a majority of its members were not calling themselves Chaldeans.
As for 'Suryani' it is an
abbreviation of 'Asuriyan' a plural Persian term for 'Assyrian'
with a possessive 'I' suffix. Because of its Persian origin this
name must have been in use before the Arab conquest. We need
to note that Syria from the 7th century until world war one was
known to the Arabs and other Moslems as "belad, al-Shum".
Only Europeans called it Syria because of Biblical influences.
In a C.961-976 AD translation of "Latin History of Paulus
Orosius" to Arabic the translator equates the Latin word
"Assyri" [Assyrian] with the Arabic word "al-Suryaniyyun"
and the word Assyria with "Suria".
Bishop Sarhad also claims
that our common language does not prove that we are one people.
"The language does not
prove anything. The Americans speak English language; however,
they kicked the British out. Language alone does not make a nation.
His Grace continued to state: "Suryaya does not express
Iraqi identity." We cannot create a block of people and
say that Suryan and Chaldean are one nation No we cannot do that."
We have already seen that
Suryaya and Suryan have derived from Assyrian and members of
his church have used those terms to identify themselves with.
His analogy of Americans and the English relations can not apply
to the Syriac speaking people. The United States was a country
ruled as a colony from 3,600 miles away with the intention of
exploiting its resources. There is no such relationship between
members of the Chaldean Church and other Christians of Iraq.
They are one people with the same history, geography, language,
culture, heritage, and the indigenous inhabitants of northern
Mesopotamia divided only by religious affiliation and not ethnicity.
In the following statement
Mar Sarhad contradicts his often repeated opinion that members
of his church are not Assyrians
He says: "Now, let us
come to the name Athuraya (Assyrian), the bishop continued. Athur
is Iraq Athur is our ancestors our heritage our pride. That is
Athur Ashur yes.... However, an Iranian is not an Iraqi and an
Iraqi is not an Iranian."
One has to wonder if bishop
Sarhad believes that; "Athur is our ancestors our heritage
our pride. That is Athur Ashur yes.." then why he denies
the Assyrian ancestry of the Chaldean Church? He should teach
his people about their Assyrian heritage instead of alienating
them from it.
While Sarhad Jammo previously
contended that speaking a common Syriac language does not prove
that Christians of Iraq are ethnically related he agrees that
they have a common language but it is not the same language spoken
by the Assyrians of Urmia.
He says: " ...If we examine
the Suraye in Iraq, whether the mountaineers or plain people,
we see that they understand each other's dialect. The grammar
is the same. Meanwhile, in Urmia they have different grammar.
When a Suraya speaks the Urmia dialect, the Suraya of Nineveh
plain does not understand anything, and the opposite is true
as well, meaning, when a Suraya of Nineveh plain speaks his dialect,
the Suraya of Urmia does not understand. Therefore, we cannot
say that we are all one umtha (nation)." By his logic Australians
do not speak english because some times they use words that are
not understood by the Americans
His intentions are to divide
Assyrians between those who live in Iraq and those outside the
country and to alienate them from each other based on his flowed
reasoning. I am an Assyrian from Iran and have never lived in
Iraq but in several occasions I have heard Sarhad Jammo speaking
to the members of the Chaldean Church on video and a radio program
but had no problem understanding him. In San diego several years
ago during a convention of the 'Assyrian American Federation',
I had a chance to apeak with several members of his church from
Iraq. We had no problem communicating with each other. I have
also a copy of a book published in Mosul in 1896 by the Dominicains
Press titled: "Ktava d'Mattli Ta Eskulayee b'Leishana Swadaya"
or 'the book of tales for the students in the Vernacular Syriac
Language'. I have no problem reading any part of this book which
shows that the language spoken in Urmia is not much different
from the one spoken by the members of the Chaldean Church, perhaps
with slight dialect variation. It was this common language which
allowed tens of thousands of Assyrians in Urmia to convert to
Catholicism during the 19th and the 20th century and join the
Chaldean Church which they considered as an Assyrian denomination.
In all countries people of
different regions isolated from each other speak different dialects
of the same language. Only in recent years because of Radio and
T.V. influences such variations have become less noticeable.
Anyone who has seen the "My Fair Lady" Movie made in
1960's knows that it was about picking up a woman who spoke with
an almost uncomprehensible dialect from a marketplace in London
and refining her accent to the point that every one believed
that she was a high class Londoner. Her practice line was: "The
rain in spain falls mainly in the plain".
John Maclean a prominent Syriac
linguist who studied the various dialects spoken in the Plain
of Nineveh, the mountains of Kurdistan and the plain Urmia at
the end of the 19th century wrote: "The variations of the
dialects is geographic; there are no differences of class among
people, and all in the same place have more or less the same
tongue. The examination of the peculiarities of speech in different
districts would lead us to divide the language into four main
divisions.." From Urmia to Algosh he lists: I- The Urmia
Group - II. The Salamas Group - III, the Ashiret group; including
Tiari, Tkhuma - Ashita and Mar Bishu. and IV, The Algosh dialect
which also included Tilkief , Teleskof and other towns.
He writes: "It is possible
that these classes represent separate migrations from the plains
of Mesopotamia and Assyria." He was able to establish a
pattern of migration from the mountains of Kurdistan to the plain
of Urmia. For example Assyrians living in villages near the Nazlu
river had the closest dialect to the Assyrian tribes in the highlands
of Kurdistan which means they were late comers. Those who had
arrived before the 16th century had the most deteriorated dialect.
 We need to add that the Algosh group must have been
the original dialect and the other three were its extensions.
Maclean also wrote in the "town of Mosul Syriac almost entirely
gives place to Arabic" and there are small differences between
the Syriac spoken in Algosh and the "villages Telkief, Teleskof,
and the rest..." One has to ask; why does Bishop
Sarhad accepts the Arabic speaking members of his church as part
of his nation but is unwilling to do the same with the Syriac
speaking people in Urmia only 150 miles away?
As if what he said before
was not enough Sarhad Jammo further added: "One who is from
Urmia has a continuous heritage of Iran; it is not related to
Bet Nahrain (Mesopotamia).....with my respect to the Iranian
people. They cannot say we are one nation."
No one is asking Bishop Sarhad
to consider himself Iranian. Every country has people of different
ancestry including Iran and Iraq. The heritage of Syriac speaking
people of Iraq is not the same as that of the Kurds, Arabs, and
Turkemans living in that or other countries of the Middle East.
By the same token the heritage of the Assyrians of Urmia has
little in common with the culture and the ancestry of the Azari
Turks, The Kurds and Persians of Iran. Assyrians of Iran who
primarily survived in isolated villages speak the same language
as that of the Plain of Nineveh, worship the same religion i.e.
christianity and proudly consider themselves the descendants
of the ancient Assyrians. It is well known that Assyrians have
been often driven out of their homeland because of wars and persecutions
and have settled in the neighboring regions. Not living in their
ancestral homeland does not make them any less Assyrian.
It is unconscionable to question
the heritage of the Assyrians of Urmia living only 150 miles
from Nineveh but falsely claiming to be Chaldeans living in Assyria.
Before world war one a chain of Assyrian communities leading
from the plain of Nineveh to Urmia dotted the mountains between
them, such as Tiari, Thumi, Diza, ashita, Mar Bishu, Barwar,
Jillu, Tar Gawar, Mar Gawar, Salamas. No such chain of communities
were connecting the Plain of Nineveh to Chaldea 500 miles to
the south. Only during the last two centuries Christians of the
northern Iraq have lived in southern cities of the country. Mandeans
were the only Christians who have lived continuously in the homeland
of the ancient Chaldean and are still there. They are the true
descendants of the ancient Babylonians and Chaldeans.
During the last two years
more than fifty thousand christians from Iraq were forced to
flee to Syria and Jordan because of terrorism. While some may
return the rest may choose to remain. It is unconscionable to
claim that these people few generations from now can not be considered
related to the Christians of Iraq even if they preserve their
culture and heritage. Most members of the Syrian Orthodox Church
were massacred during world war one and the rest were driven
out into Syria but that does not wipe out their history in their
former homeland. During world war one the Assyrians of Kurdistan
were massacred, the survivors fled to Urmia, a considerable number
of the Assyrians from Urmia fled to Russia where they still live.
In 1918 Assyrians of Kurdistan and urmia were driven out of Iran
into Iraq. They had come a full circle to where they had started
from. Similar exiles were the rule rather than exceptions during
Having admitted that; "Athur
[Assyria]is our ancestors our heritage our pride. That is Athur
Ashur yes." he goes on to contradict himself by explaining
why members of his church are not Assyrians: "we have Suraye
living in Telkepe, Alqosh, Karamlesh, Batnaya and these villages
are next to Nineveh in the heart of Assyria. Why do they call
The answer to his question
is very simple. For the last two hundred some years bishops and
priests like himself have falsely taught them that they are Chaldeans
and not Assyrians and warning them that if they call themselves
Assyrians they will be considered Nestorians. During the last
two years many Assyrians were driven out of the Chaldean Church
in Los Angeles because they considered themselves and their church
Bishop Sarhad's answer to
his own question was: " living in Nineveh Plain would travel
to Mosul and pass by Nineveh and Ashurbanipal palace; however,
when you ask them what they are, they say that they are Chaldeans.
Why, because they return to their origin, to their center that
was Babylon and the last dynasty of Chaldeans."
That is an absurd answer.
The history of the Chaldean Church is well documented. Those
who established it and joined it were of Assyrian ancestry. It
was clergies like himself who indoctrinated them to believe that
Chaldean is not only the name of their church also their national
identity. That they were the descendants of the Chaldeans and
not Assyrians. In the process they have done them a great disservice
by alienating them against their true identity and giving them
another which is impossible to justify historically , Geographically
and religiously. There was no Christian community in Mesopotamia
which called itself Chaldean before 1553. One can not falsify
history and expect others to believe it. Such misinformation
always collides with irrefutable historical facts. Eager to have
members of their church reject their Assyrian ancestry Sarhad
Jammo and others have turned a great christian denomination into
a an antagonistic, and, divisive movement which prevents cooperation
between a people who share the same homeland, heritage, religion
[Christianity], culture, language, history and destiny. In doing
so they are undermining the survival of the christians of Iraq
including those belonging to their own Church.
Bishop Sarhad and others take
pride in the fact that Chaldeans represent 75 to 80 percent of
the Christian population in Iraq but they do not want to explain
how it happened. They also don't want to mention the role of
the Vatican, its missionaries, the diplomatic and financial help
from the French government which forced the other two Christian
denominations into submission by enticing or forcing their members
to join the Chaldean church.
Henry Lobdel who about the
end of the 1800 spent a considerable amount of time in Mosul,
Algosh and other towns of the Plain of Nineveh wrote: "Patriarch
of the valley [Mosul and Nineveh] had gone over to the Pope and
taken most of the people with him. The Papists [Chaldeans] had
possession of the churches and the schools, the convents the
revenues all the ecclesiastical property, so long as the fugitives
adhered to the faith of their fathers [Church of the East] they
could expect neither charity nor justice. They were denied the
needful food, raiment, and shelter. Nay they were even refused
burial in the churches that were properly their own. But if they
would only turn Papists, not only charity but bribes were distributed
with a liberal hand, "Forty thousand piasters of French
gold are said to have aided the arguments employed to convince
them [ to change] the identity of that church [Chaldean] with
their own." Faced with such discrimination also
persecution by the Valli of Mosul instigated by the Catholic
missionaries to force them into submission those who refused
to join the Chaldean Church had no choice but to flee into the
Rassam a member of the prominent
Chaldean Church family admits that followers of the Church of
the East were often forced to join the Chaldean rite through
coercion. In one instance he writes: "It is extraordinary
to state that the delegates of the Roman Church have not succeeded
in converting the Nestorians of Shaikh to their dogmas, though
so near a Turkish town, where former possess so much power under
the protection of the French Government".The Roman Church
often used the influence of the French government to encourage
the Ottoman and the Kurds to terrorize those who refused to join
the Chaldean church. Rassam adds: "..the Nestorians of Shakh
told me that the Chaldean Catholics of Jezeerah, who were their
co-religionist, had always tried through their influence with
the local authorities to bully them into submission to the Pope".
Such prctices prompted an
Englishman of early 20th century to write: It is unfotunate that
the Asiatic Christian "is a very undesirable creature, more
bigoted than the most fanatical Muhammadan .....[his] attitude
towards his coreligionist of different tenets can be only described
Those who became Catholic
were gradually convinced that they were chaldeans not only religiously
also ethnically. Anyone who dared to call himself Assyrian would
be accused of being Nestorian. It is no wonder that there were
no members of the Church of the East living in the plain of Nineveh
before 1918, though before the mid 18th century the region was
the power center of that denomination. From 1830 to the end of
the world war one the Christian inhabitants of the Plain of Nineveh
consisted mainly of members of the Chaldean Church and Syrian
Orthodox Church, only for a brief period members of the Church
of the East who had fled the massacres of Bader Khan in the mountains
were allowed to stay in Mosul. While going to another church
changes a person's religious beliefs it does not alter his/her
ancestry or nationality.
Chaldean means nothing more
than belonging to the Chaldean church. According to all sources
including the Vatican. When Sulagga arrived in Rome he was first
proclaimed patriarch of "Mosul and Athur" (Assyria)
on Feb. 20, 1553 by Pope Julius III. Roman documents
also refer to Sulagga as the elected patriarch of "the Assyrian
Nation". This is a testimony to the fact
that those who lived in the plain of Nineveh were considered
Assyrians. The Carmelites in their Chronicle assert that Sulagga
was proclaimed "Patriarch of the Eastern Assyrians"
but on April 19, 1553 he was redefined as the "Patriarch
of the Chaldeans".
It was logical for the Roman
Catholic Church to call the Patriarch of the newly established
church by a name other than Assyrian because the inhabitant of
the Plain of Nineveh were already known as Assyrians and were
predominantly members of the Church of the East and Syrian Orthodox
The name Chaldean was chosen
for the new church and its followers to distinguish them from
the other two denominations. They were called Chaldean to describe
their religious affiliation just as members of the Church of
the East were called Nestorians and those of the Syrian Orthodox
Church were called Jabobites. The name Chaldean for a Christian
Church could be justified based on the Old Testament claim that
Abraham the father of the Jewish and consequently Christian religion
lived in the so-called Ur of Chaldee in Mesopotamia, but it does
not make those who attend it ethnically Chaldeans. This name
was clearly chosen for religious reasons and not ethnic identity.
It is unfortunate that it has led to such historical confusions.
It took some time before the
name Chaldean was used as substitute for Assyrian. After Sulagga's
death there was an attempt to unite the two factions of the Church.
Mar Obdisho Bar Yohanan Bet Maron of Jezireh succeeded Sulagga.
He was unable to travel to Rome until late 1561. On February
19, 1562, Cardinal Amolis in a codex to the committee of the
cardinals in Tredando introduced Sulagga's successor Patriarch
Obdisho Bar Yohanan Bet Maron (1555 -1570) as "..The Patriarch
of the Assyrians who has been elected by the clergies and approved
by their people".
Obdisho unlike Sulagga resided in Sarit. In letters from India
to the Pope Mar Abraham a bishop of the newly formed Chaldean
faction in that country continued to refer to Obdisho as the
"Patriarch of the Assyrians" or "Patriarch of
Assyria" . (Venerabili Fratri Abdisu Patriarchae Assyriorum
sive de Muzal Pius Papa Quartus (1)". and "Abdisu Patriarca
d' Assiria".) 
1. Assyrian Star interview;/
No. 5, September-October issue 1974.
2. Journal of the Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol 18, N0. 2, 2004,
3. Parpola JAAS.
4. Josef Wiesehofer translated by Azizeh Azodi, "Ancient
Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD p. 199.
5. Yoab Benjamin, " A Comparative Study of 'Abdisho's Paradise
of Eden and the Makamat of al-Hariri", Journal of the Assyrian
Academic Society, Vol. VIII, NO.1, 1994 p.57.
6. Hurmuzd Rassam, Assur and the Land of Nimrud, Cincinnati;
Curts & Jennings, 1897 pp.. 173-74.
7. Abdel Rahman Badawi Ed. "Orosius, Tarikh Al 'Alam",
Al Muassasa al Ararabiyya lil Dirasat wal Nashr, Beirut, First
Edition, 1982.as quoted by Fred Aprim in his Assyrians: the Continuous
8. Arian Ishaya, "B. Nikitine and the Assyrians", JAAS,
Vol. VII, No. 1 spring 1993, p. 54.
9. Arthur John Maclean, " Grammar of Vernacular Syriac Spoken
by the Eastern Syrians of Kurdistan- Northwest persia and the
Plain of Mosul", Cambridge University Press 1985 p. XIII.
10. ibid. p-XV.
11. Rev. w. S. Tayler, "Memoir of Rev. Henry Lobdel (Mission
of the American Board at Mosul)", 1895 p. 166.
12. See Catholicism in the Plain of Nineveh in the middle of
the page at: http://www.chaldeansonline.net/church.html)
13. Rassam p.389)
14- Soane Ely Bannister, "To
Mesopotamia and Kurdistan in disguise, with Historical notices
of the Kurdish Tribes and the Chaldeans of Kurdistan", London
1912 p. 64.
15. Rabban, "Chaldean Rite", Catholic Encyclopedia,
1967, Vol. III, pp.427-428.
16. Xavier Koodapuzha, "Faith and Communion in the Indian
Church of Saint Thomas Christians, Oriental Institute of Religious
Studies, Kerala, India, p.59.
17. A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia and the Papal Mission
of the XVII and XVIII Centuries, Vol. I, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode,
18. Dr. Sarhad Jammo, "The Two Branches of Eastern Church,"
Bayn-Al-Nahrayn 95/96, Baghdad 1996 p. 196.
19. Sequens expositio excerpta est ex Archivio Vaticano, Archivio
de Castello, Armad VII, cap. 5. N, IX) also (Ex Archivio Vaticano
Secreto, Archiv. de Castello, Armad. VII, Caps. V. N. 9)