A COMMENTARY TO THE PREFACE OF BISHOP JACOB EUGIN MANNA\'S DICTIONARY PART IV   

     18-07-2007 

The subject of this study which was published consecutively in \"Aram\", is divided into the following five parts:
First Part: The spread of the introduction among the Syriacs and their acceptance of it.

Second Part: The historic mistakes and traditions of the introduction.

Third Part: The misuse of the introduction some Syriac sects, misdirecting and ging some of its concepts.

Fourth Part: The role of the introduction today and its influence in the historic process the Syriacs.

THE FIRST PART: The spread of the introduction among the Syriacs and their acceptance of it.

Previously, I have stated the reasons that ped spread the introduction among the lcated Syriac class of people:

A- The use of the Ancient Syriac Sources by writer, such as the poems of Mar Jacob )TOUg and other ancient sources that refer he Syriac people as Aramaic.

B- The publishing of the introduction within the pages of a Syriac dictionary, owned by most of the Syriac intellectuals for its importance to them, which helped spread those faults contained in the introduction.

C- The scarceness of the historic scientific articles about our Aramaic roots, which helped spread the introduction.

D- Bishop Manna\'s concepts, that made drawing conclusions possible, were cleverly used by some to prove their belonging to peoples that are really extinct.

These plus other reasons allowed the introduction to spread among the Syriacs, especially among the clergymen. We are sorry to say that, inspite of the historic faults contained in the introduction, there are some Syriac intellectuals who still believe the concepts and theories of this introduction. The \"Shoshoto\" Syriac periodical, for example, reprinted the introduction on its pages: \" To be a document for the truth about our Syriac Aramaic History.\" We are sorry that \"Shoshoto\" did not conduct a scientific study to verify the correctness of this introduction.

  THE SECOND PART: The historic faults and contradictions of the introduction.

It is an accepted fact that the sources upon which the Aramaic Syriac history is based are the following:

A- The writings of the Assyrian kings in the Acadian language and the ancient cuneform writings.

B- The ancient Egyptian writings.

C- The ancient Aramaic writings that were discovered among the Aramaic ruins.

D- The Holy Bible.

E- The Syriac references: History books, letters, poems and others.

Bishop Manna was wrong when he depended on ancient references, the truthfulness of which is doubtful, without modem methods that use science, archeology and modem discoveries to prove these facts. The most serious faults are:

 
First - Historic faults:

The introduction states that: \"all the tribes were recognized as the Children of Aram or Aramaic, regardless of the fact, that the inhabitants of Babylon were called Chaldeans and the inhabitants of the Assyrian kingdom were called Assyrians, the name Aramaic included all of them.\"

Then he asserts this thought by saying: The Chaldeans and Assyrians then are Aramean because if they were not, the official language of their kings would not have been Aramaic. (2)... \"

It is obvious that both the analysis and proof presented are scientifically wrong for a wrong conclusion, because the fact is that many non-Aramaic peoples, such as the Persians, Armenians, Copts and Jews used the Aramaic language. A well informed reader knows well that the ancient Assyrians came about 1 000 years before the Arameans and the Chaldeans, which makes it impossible for the Assyrian tribes to be Aramaic, while the Chaldeans, whom most of the historian consider to be Aramaic tribes, came from the west (the Syrian desert).

When bishop Manna refers to the ancient Chaldean tribes or the Chaldeans as a whole, he imagines that the modem Chaldeans are the descendants of the ancient Chaldean tribes, this is wrong, because the ancient Chaldean tribes have melted into the other Aramaic tribes when all the region was called the Aramean country. the Syriac sources have no mention of the Chaldeans as a separate people or nation.

  Second - Wrong conclusions:

We have found in the 3rd part of Manna\'s theory, about the Syriac name, that in his opinion Syriac \"in the early ages\" meant Christians, and concluded that: \"The name Syriac was not given to the Arameans until after Christ when it was given to them by the apostles, who came from Syria and Palestine, and converted these areas. Our great grandfathers who were very attached to the true Christian religion, chose to be named after their preachers, so they abandoned their ancient name and the Syriac name to be identified among there own race from the other Heathen Arameans ... \"

 
In my third article I presented several arguments quoted from the writings of our grandfathers proving that the name Syriac did not mean Christian, but was used with the Aramaic name. This is also clarified by the writings of Mar Jacob of Edessa the reknowned scholar (3):

 
Manna\'s introduction itself is full of quotations proving the use of the name Syriac and Aramaic as synonyms. Our grandfathers did not abandon their ancient name or deny it, while the Syriac clergymen used the Aramaic name by repeatedly pointing to the church in our Syriac prayers as the daughter of the Arameans.

 
Later we will find how some Syriac groups took advantage of this theory to shatter the Aramaic unity and depart from the logic of scientific history.

 
Third: Contradictions and lack of facts: Mr. Habib Isho presented a brief study in French language entitled: Should we change the name Syriac to Aramaic? I wish to point out that Mr. Isho based his brief study the introduction of bishop Manna and adopted all his theories. He states in his brief study the following: \"The name Syriac used by the Assyrians and the Chaldeans is a synonym to the name Christian and was only d in that context since the introduction of Christian religion in Mesopotamia.\"

\"There is no Christian language or a Christian people, but there are Christian peoples who speak different languages, religion means one thing while language and people mean other things. \"

\"It is more truthful to use the name Christians rather than the name Syriac.\"

He goes on to present, in his study, several statements of historians and archeological scholars in support of the necessity to use the Aramaic name (5). We are concerned only with the conclusion of this study (6): \"We conclude from these historic facts, cultural 1ditions and the trustworthy statements of writers that the name Aramaic is accepted by all the groups as referring to their language and their popular cultural identity.\"  He goes on to say in the conclusion of this study \"I wish to suggest to change the name Syriac to Aramaic and to use the .me in reference to the language, literature, writers and the Aramaic people in all religious and civil levels.\"  He ends by saying:  "The name Aramaic really unites all the Aramaic groups such as: the Assyrians, Chaldeans, Lebanese and the Syriacs .... Each group retains his special name related to the country he is living in, but they are all parts of the Aramaic nation ...\"

This is the conclusion reached by Mr. Habib Isho. He is clearly calling for unity under the banner of the Aramaic nation. We are sure that the Syriac reader will be happy for this call for Aramaic unity, because it is the noble feeling of every person who loves his own people, but unity should be based on true scientific historic foundations.

Mr. Isho\'s statement that the name Syriac was only used to mean Christian is false. The writings of our grandfathers are full of references proving that this theory is false. It is interesting that in his study he adopted the theory of bishop Manna about the Syriac name, yet he goes on to quote four quotations from the introduction where bishop Manna calls the Syriacs Aramaics, therefore contradicting the theory of bishop Manna and contradicts his own writings.

We are not sure what Mr. Isho means, in his study, by the use of the name\" Assyrians\" and \"Chaldeans\". Is he referring to the ancient Assyrians? Or to the Nestorian Syriacs who are proud of their Syriac Aramaic belonging? If he is referring to the Nestorian Syriacs, he should have clarified that the recent Assyrian name was given to them by the British and was lately adopted by the Syriac Nestorian church, therefore proving it had no relation to the ancient Assyrian people.

If he is referring to the ancient Assyrian people, which is probable, we wish to know by what right he considers them as part of the Aramaic groups? Were the ancient Assyrian tribes Aramaic, which was wrongly stated in the introduction of bishop Manna? Or is it because the official language of their kings was Aramaic, which was the feeble proof, presented by bishop Manna?

The call of Mr. Isho for Aramaic unity is truly courageous and right, only if it was not based on feeble proofs based on Manna\'s wrong historic conclusions and the contradictions of the introduction.

A- The ancient Assyrian tribes were not Aramaic.

B- Our Syriac grandfathers did not abandon their ancient Aramaic name.

C- The name Syriac, in the early centuries, did not mean Christian.

D- The ancient Assyrians are extinct, while their remnants were melted into the SyriaccAramaic people.

E- The followers of the Chaldean and Assyrian churches are Syriac Aramaics, because they are the descendants of the Nestorians who through the ages bragged in their many books and writings, of their belonging to the Syriac Aramaic nation.

F - It is not true that when the Assyrians and the Chaldeans accepted Christianity were called Syriacs, because the name Syriac was always a synonym to Aramaic only, and because the Assyrians were melted in the Aramaic pot, centuries before the introduction of the Christian religion, they \\\",ere no longer referred to as a people with an entity and ethnic base.

THE THIRD PART: Misuse of the introduction by some Syriac sects, misdirecting some of its concepts \"by the propagators of the Assyrian concept\"

The British installed the Assyrian concept in the minds of the Eastern Nestorians, for the purpose of using them during the First World War and to complete their grip on Iraq. The Nestorian Syriacs continued their clinging to this concept and they are trying now \"to use\" every possible means to confirm the new national concept as authentic. These Syriacs adopted some of Bishop Manna\'s theories about the Syriac naming and centered on the following points:

A - The name Syriac was given to the Christians, and does not mean belonging to the Syriac-Aramaic nation.

B - They claim that their Assyrian ancestors \"liked to be named after the names of their preachers, so they abandoned their ancient name and adopted the name Syriac.\" In other words, they applied bishop Manna\'s theory to the ancient Assyrians and not to the Arameans, as presented in the introduction.

C - They are requesting today the return of their ancient national Assyrian name, because Syriac to them means Christian.

D - Some extremists among them, even deny the existence of an Aramaic people, of an Aramaic language, and furthere more they consider every Syriac an Assyrian and the Syriac language as Assyrian.

Those propagating the Assyrian concept insist that the name Syriac means Christian because the Eastern Nestorian sources have no mention of the Assyrian name.

 
It is sad that the educated Syriacs did not sense the danger of applying bishop Manna\'s theory to the Syriac name, as a result of which, we find today that some sects of the Syriac Aramaic people are deceived by clinging to a non-existent nationalism. As long as the Syriacs are far from the true scientific historic sources, they continue to believe the introduction of bishop Manna, and nothing will prevent some Syriac sects from propagating, in the future, for a Babylonian, Cananite or Akadian nationalism.

 
THE FOURTH PART: The role of the introduction today, and its influence in the historic process on the Syriacs.

 
We have repeatedly stated the extent to which the Syriacs are affected by the theory presented if bishop Manna\'s introduction. This introduction is still affecting some Syriac intellectuals, by direct or indirect means, regardless of the lack of evidence for its support.

First : By direct means.

In 1985 Bishop Isaac Saka published his book entitled \" \"My Syriac Church\" from which I will present some statements:

A - Bishop Isaac Saka wrote the following (9): \" The Syriacs in ancient times before Christ, were called Arameans in relation to Aram, the fifth son of Sam, Noah\'s son, the great grandfather of all the Semitic peoples. The name Syria, Syrians, and Syriac was clearly introduced to Arameans during the Greek Seleukid age before Christ, precisely after the translation of the Old Testament known as The Septuagint, which was translated from the Hebrew language to Greek in the year 280 BC, when the translators used the term Syria as a synonym or alternate to the term Aram, after which the name Syrian gradually gained ground among the Arameans. After Christ, the spread was obviously very threatening to abolish the Aramaic name, especially in the Syrian region, because Christianity was born and spread in the Syrian region by the Apostles who were all Syrians themselves. The Aramaics who accepted Christianity were so attached to their new religion, proud of their apostolic fathers who tutored them, preferred to be named after them relating themselves to the apostles, therefore they abandoned their ancient Aramaic name and adopted a new name\" the Syriacs\" to be separated and identified among their own people from the Aramaic heathes. This name spread so widely until it included the Christians in Mesopotamia, Persia, India, China even the Far East.

You have noticed, no doubt, that bishop Saka, in the second part of this quotation, copied and actually used the same terms stated in bishop Manna\'s introduction. \" thus the term Syriac or Syrian became a synonym to Christian until this day\". Compare these words to what was stated in bishop Manna\'s introduction:

\"Therefore ... the term Syriac became a synonym to the term Christian until this day\". It is true that during the depression period, the term Syriac meant Christian, but it is untrue that the Aramaic Christians were named Syriacs, because the Syriac sources do not support this theory. True historic knowledge and science is based on scientific facts and not on mere theories.

B - Bishop Isaac Saka stated that the Syriac name (10): \" Comes from King Surus who was before the prophet Moses, Sorus was Aramaic and he ruled the regions of Syria and Mesopotamia that were named after his name and were called Syria and their inhabitants were called Surusians and later Syrians.

There is no record of the term Syria or Syrians in the writings of the ancient Assyrians or in any of the many Aramaic writings. I have stated previously that the source of this name is a Greek myth.

Saka also stated saying: \" The name Syria, Syrians and Syriacs came to Arameans before Christ during the Seleukid era ... \", and elsewhere he refers to them as those Aramaics who became Christians \" They abandoned their ancient Aramaic name and adopted a new name\" Syriacs\" to be identified among their own people from the Aramaic heathhens ... \"

You may wonder, when did the name Syriac really apply to the Arameans? Is it during the days of the mithical king Seleukus? Or is it during the days of the Greek Seleukid kings? Or when they accepted the Christian religion?


The only true scientific answer, is during the days of the Greek Seleukid kings.

C - Bishop Saka reached the following conclusions by saying: \" We conclude from all of this (11):

1 - Syriac and Syrian have replaced Aramaic and Aramean through Christianity, therfore Syriac became a synonym to Chrisstian, in other words every Syriac is Christian but not every Christian is Syriac.

2 - The religious name of the church of Antioch \" Syriac\" has no political or national significance, it refers to the Christian religion only and never referred to a nation. Elias the Nestorian bishop of Nisibis ( 975-1076 AD ) interpreted the term Syriac to mean Christian .... All the Syriac Christians such as the Chaldeans, Assyrians and Syriacs, wherever they are, use the term Syriac in reference to the Christian religion and not nationalism. They say \"Suryoye/Suryaye\" as synonym to Christian coming from any nationality or race. They do not say The Aramaic Church but they do say The Syriac Church.\"

These quotations from Saka\'s book are copied from Manna\'s introduction, and this is a proof of the direct influence the introduction has on the Syriac intellectuals in the end of the 20th century. The conclusions stated by Isaac Saka are based on the misleading theories of bishop Manna. I have previously presented some quotes proving that this modem theory, claiming that Syriac means Christians of all races, is wrong and false. Nevertheless, our future generations of the educated Syriacs will surely find and discover proofs in the writings of our great grandfathers that expose the falsehood of these theories. As for Saka\'s reference to Elia bishop of Nisibis to have interpreted the word Syriac to mean Christian, does not constitute a proof supporting Manna\'s theory, for the following reasons:

1 - The interpreter, who translated the history of Elia, he himself translated the name Syriac to mean Christian and not Bishop Elia.

2 - This translation was done after the 11th century AD, which gives no proof, that in the early century, the name Syriac meant Christian.

3 - Our great grandfathers used \"Mshihaya\" or \"Khristyana\" ... or \"Mhaymna\". ... to refer to Christian.

4 - There is no statement in any of the writings of our great grandfathers using the term Syriac to mean Christian until the 10th century AD.

D- Scientific logic against false theories: In the absence of statements and the scarcity of proofs, sometimes historians resort to presenting logical theories to explain historic events, but in order for these theories to be scientifically acceptable, they should be based on logical scientific arguments.

Nobody denies the fact that the name Syriac, especially to the Eastern Syriacs, implied also that it means Christian. We utterly reject the so-called \"logical\" conclusion, drawn by Isaac Saka from bishop Manna\'s \"false\" introduction when he says: \" The name Syriac was never used in reference to a nation, it was only used in reference to Christian religion.\"

Bishop Julius Yeshu Chichac ,vith the Syriac union in Sweden and central Europe, published the book of Patriarch Afram I Barsoum, which was first published in 1952 under the title\" The Name of the Syriac Nation\". Patriarch Barsoum had collected tens of Syriac quotes and proofs that confirm the fact, without any question, that the word Syriac was a synonym to Aramaic. These quotes and proofs were extracted from the depth of the writings and books of the Eastern as well as the western Syriac great grandfathers, where the name Syriac was not once used to mean Christian.

  The title of the book itself\' The Name of the Syriac Nation\" is a denial and a rejection to the conclusion of Saka.

\"Mar Jacob of Seroug in his praisal of Mar Ephrem said:

He who has become a crown to the whole Aramean nation.

He who has become a great rhetoric among the Syriacs.\"

The word \"Suryoyo\" ... ... is definitely used here in reference to the Syriac people and not to the church or the Christians.

On page 10 of the Patriarch\'s book, we read the following: \" Mar Youhanna ,John of Amid in the second vol. of his book ( The

Eastern Hermits\" p.408: ... ....

\"Mar Samuel was called Ourtian regardless of the fact that he was of the Syriac Nationality. "

He also quotes a statement from Mar Jacob of Edessa (13) : \" Three writers, by the name of Isaac used this tongue (language), I mean the Syriac tongue (language).

These quotations leave no doubt that the name Syriac was a synonym to Aramaic. We are sorry to say that the name Syriac Aramaic, because of bishop Manna\'s theory and its logically false conclusions, carries no reference to nationalism or nationality .... While we find peoples who were abolished and extinct more than 2000 years ago are being brought to life by this \" Magic theory\" !

We are also sorry to say that many of the Syriacs still accept this theory with all its faults and defects, without any effort on their part to verify the truthfulness of its information, which constitute a great danger for them. We reject the deceiving proofs presented to us by Isaac Saka. If the Eastern Syriacs ( Chaldeans and Assyrians ) consider themselves until this day that they are \"Suriaye\", isn\'t this one of the sound scientific proofs that they are Syriac-Aramaic??

Patriarch Mar Ignatious Afram ends his book by saying (14) : \" There is no way to change what British and French languaages agreed to handle this term, and it would be clearer if we add the term Syriac Aramaic in referring to the Language and Syrian-Aramean in referring to the people and Syriac-Aramean Church in referring to the church\".

 
Second: By Indirect means:

The Syriac writers have used the theories of bishop Manna without questioning its authenticity, most of them used to give direct reference to bishop Manna and his introduction, but today, after the introduction and theories of bishop Manna have become so popular and widely spread and accepted

as facts, the Syriac writers give no more direct reference to bishop Manna\'s introduction. Actually, some of his theories have become so popular and widely spread in the Syriac circles to the extent that some Syriac historians and Intellectuals indirectly base their intellectual, historic and national studies on the theories of bishop Manna.

\"Bahro Suryoyo\" the well-known magazine (15) made an interview with Dr. Joseph Yacoub about the history of the Syriacs and their present problems. Dr. D. Yacoub is well known for his efforts and struggle for the unity of the Eastern Christians. During this interview the following statements were expressed:
 
\"I am an Assyrian-Syriac, I refuse to divide my single identity by its inseparable dual naming presently and historically. My historic publications are prompted by this faith of mine... in expression of my feelings and emotions I literally declared that: The Chaldeans and Assyrian are Syriacs and their original language is the Aramaic-Syriac language ....\"

Elsewhere he answered saying: \"The name Syriac is the national spiritual name which includes all the Babylonian, Assyrian, Chaldean and Aramaic peoples\"

In another answer he says: \"With the introduction of the Christian gracious religion, the name Syriac included all our ancient national names, such as the Babylonians, Assyrians, Chaldeans and Aramaic ..., The mixing of these exhausted peoples in the Syriac identity was natural... \"

Dr. Yacoub should be noted for his scientific knowledge when he declares that the Chaldeans and the Assyrians speak the Syriac-Aramaic language, when the other propagators of the Assyrian nationalism claim that they speak Assyrian. When Dr. Yacoub declares that the Chaldeans and the Assyrians are Syriacs, he really means that they are Christians. This is clear why he said \"I am Assyrian-Syriac\"  when he means to say I belong to the ancient Assyrian people and to the Christian religion.

The doubtful theories of bishop Manna created a problem for the Syriac historians, because it made them believe that the name Syriac referred to the ancient peoples, while all the Syriac and Greek sources confirm that the Aramaics are the only people that were called Syriacs.

Dr. Yacoub says: \" The mixing of these exhausted peoples was natural ... \" , what he means is that the melting of these peoples in the spiritual nationalism ( Syriac Christianity). I have presented many real proofs and quotes confirming that the name Syriac did not mean Christian, but was a synonym to Aramaic, therefore, the ancient peoples were not melted in their spiritual nationality but melted into the Syriac-Aramaic nation, hundreds of years before Christ (17). If we suppose that the name Syriac included the ancient Babylonian, Assyrian and Chaldean peoples, why did the (Eastern and Western) Syriacs only boast about their Aramaic belonging, without any reference to the Babylonians, Assyrians and the Chaldeans ?

 
THE FIFTH PART - The failure of Bishop Manna.

First - Summary and conclusion: This constitutes the summary of our long study of bishop Manna\'s introduction. I have clearly pointed out the historic mistakes he committed, because he did not read the ancient Aramaic and Assyrian writings.

Bishop Manna. claims saying: \" We were prompted to set a special chapter for this subject to put an end to the conflicts going on among many of the Chaldeans and the Syriacs when each group claims being authentic or more ancient without reference to any firm present scientific proof\" We have no doubt that bishop Manna is referring to the Chaldeans of his day, then he goes on to discuss the Chaldean tribes and kings stating that the modern Chaldeans are the descendants of the ancient Chaldeans. In his dictionary (18) he explains the term Chaldean: \" Chaldeans: scholars, prominent state figures of the Babylonian people and its vicinity, or a generation of the ancient peoples noted in their era for their superiority in their firm governmental rule, science especially astrology, their language most eloquent among the Aramaic languages, their original homeland included Babylon, Assyria, Mesopotamia, and they are the great grandfathers of the Eastern Syriacs who are rightly called today Chaldeans. \"

A - Bishop Manna is trying to assert that the Eastern Syriacs are the descendants of the ancient Chaldeans and their Chaldean name is based on sound scientific grounds.

B - In spite of Manna\'s reading many of our great grandfathers\' writings, he did not present any statement that refers to the Chaldeans as a people or as a nation.

 

C - Manna stated that the Aramaic name included the Chaldean tribes before Christ and that the name Syriac was given to the Eastern Aramaics or the Chaldeans and Assyrians. He also stated that Iraq was called the land of the Aramaics. In spite of all these statements he goes on to say that the ancient Chaldeans are\" the ancestors of the Eastern Syriacs who are rightly called today Chaldeans.\" The truth is that the New Chaldean name was given to the catholic Nestorians in the beginning of the 17th century and the name was given only to the church and had no relation to the ancient Chaldean tribes.

D - The theories of bishop Manna left the door wide open for the promoters of the Assyrian nationalism to assert that the name Syriac means Christian.

Second - How to react to this introduction? My wish at last is that the Syriac intellectuals and writers would be watchful for the danngers of Manna\'s historic mistakes and drop out his false theories about the Syriac name.

I also wish that every researcher of the Syriac origins and history would give the proper references in his historic study to the statements that refute or support the theories of bishop Manna.

The religious conflicts caused separations and divisions among the Syriac people, but the Syriac Maronites, Nestorians and the Jacobites still call themselves Syriacs. After the enforcement of the Ottoman \"Millet\" system of religious regulations in which every Christian religion was considered as a separate \"Millet\" or a separate people, and especially after the 19th century\'s nationalistic awakening, these religious conflicts became more acute and lead to nationalistic disagreements among the members of the same Aramaic-Syriac people. Each \'\'Millet\'\' held fast to the name of its church: The Maronites then distanced themselves from the name Syriac because they considered it to mean the Jacobites, and they tried , to a certain degree, to make the \"Maronite\" a separate nationality of their own. The Chaldeans, clearly described in Manna\'s introduction, tried to link their name to the ancient Chaldeans, who were really Aramaic. At last with the help of the British, the Nastorian Syriacs claimed to be the heirs of the ancient Assyrians.

The scholars of these churches, in the past, boasted of their Syriac-Aramaic belonging and their Syriac-Aramaic language. During this age of Technology and freedom, we find their intellectuals and writers boasting of imaginary belongings that have no historic roots, resorting to all ways and means to support their claims to the extent that they called the Syriac-Aramaic language\" Chaldean\" then \"Assyrian\", why not call it Babylonian also !!

For these reasons, I wish that those who republished the dictionary of bishop Manna would have dropped his Introduction from the dictionary, because it is based on 19th century information that is full of obvious historic faults and contains theories that cause divisions and chattering among the same Aramaic people. I wish, at least, that they would print an insert containing a study that exposes those mistakes and grievous contradictions contained in the introduction to avoid its dangers.

 
Sources and references:

1 - The Syriac \" Shoshoto\" periodical 30th issue ( 1990) p.26

2 - The introduction of bishop Eugin Manna p13

3 - The writings of Jacob of Edessa in: \" Patrologie Orientale #- 13 p. 692

4 - Ishow (H) Faut-il remplacer Ie terme Syriaque par Ie terme Arameen? dans:

Orientalia Chritiana Analectica T -197 p.360 5 - Ibid p. 362

6 - ibid p. 364

7 - Youaresh Abdo - \" Aramaic, Syriac or Assyrian ?\" The The educated Assyrian 28th issue 1981

8 - Hassan Bar Bahloul the Nestorian Syriac says ..... = .... Assyria=Enemy

9 - Bishop Isaac Saka \" My Syriac Church\" damascus 1985 p. 23

10 - Ibid. P.23

11 - Ibid. p. 24

12 - Patriarch Mar Ignatious Afram I Barsoum I \"In the name of the Syriac Nation \" 2nd edition p. 8

13 - Ibid. p. 12

14 - Ibid. p.44

15 - \" Bahro Souryoyo \"periodical 125th issue 1989 paqes 29,40,41

16 - The introduction p. 17

17 - \" Aram \" periodical, about the introduction of bishop Manna. 1 st issue Where I explained, in the first part of this study, the factors that contributed and lead to the melting of the remnants of these ancient peoples in the pot of the Aramaic nation.)

18 - The dictionary of bishop Manna p. 238