How Was The Old and New Testament Complied

Michael Cunningham

How Was Old And New Testament Complied How? Which came first the Bible or the Church? It may appear to be a strange problem now, but many people think that Bible came before the Church. At first this may even sound like the old question, How many angels can stand on the head of pin? However, it isn't, the Bible is at the heart of what Christianity is all about. If the Bible did indeed come first, then the history of the Bible is indeed wrong. Many people are very ignorant about the true relationship of the Bible and the Church. Therefore, it is very important to take a much deeper look at exactly just how the Bible (Old and New Testaments) were complied. St. Jerome said, "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ." When it comes to how the scriptures were complied, it appears that we are very ignorant. If St. Jerome is correct then a greater understanding of how the scriptures were complied would give us a greater knowledge of Christ. To more fully understand how the New and Old Testament was complied you must look a long process in which the Bible as we know it today actually came into existence. The Bible today appears to many people to be something that it is simply not. It is much more than a nicely leather bound book that is the most popular book that was ever published. The story of how it was complied is almost as rich as the beautiful passages it contains. Much of what we think we know about the Bible and how it was compiled is based on some very large misconceptions that are commonly held by the public. Some of theses come about because of how the reader tries to interpret the material that is contained in the Bible. Some people profess it to the direct word of God written by people who took the words from God's mouth and then through a magic of a word processor compiled all of the information neatly into one nice leather bound book. Forget the fact that process actually took place over thousands of years and forget the fact that it took place in several countries. To some people, the Bible is sole source of all that you need to know about 2

God and his plans for us. Because this misconception occurs it reinforces the reason why we need to know how the Bible was complied. It is vitally important because how the Bible was complied helps a person to understand why it complied. There are three aspects of the how the Bible was complied that is significant and understanding them at this point will greatly assist anyone in understanding what the Bible actually means. These aspects are: the Bible was written by men who were inspired by God, it was compiled by Church Fathers who were inspired by God, and individuals outside of the Church greatly helped assist in its development. In the course of this paper, I will focus mainly on the last two aspects. This approach was taken not to slight the people who wrote the individual books of the Bible but to emphasize the compiling aspect of the book, as well as, some of the dramatic outside influences that took place in the Bible's development. Before one looks at the vast information that is contained in the Bible, it is essential that we consider the unusual fact that even though we have a Bible today- it didn't come together in a simple process. You can't pick a certain date when the Bible was actually put together. The people who think they know exactly how it was actually complied once they begin to study it more will find that much of their present knowledge is based on nothing more than commonly held misconceptions. To fight these misconceptions, I offer a unique look at how the Bible was complied.

Why? The first aspect this paper will investigate is why the Bible was written. To understand why or how something happened you must essentially understand the background which that led up to the event. A widely held misconception about the Bible is that it is the direct word of God or a blue print on how to run your life. Although the words in the Bible were written by Holy men under the influence of God or the Holy Spirit, the truth is much different. The Bible was created by the Church to serve the Church. A quick answer to the question appears when you ask the question which came first- the 3

Church or the Bible? The answer reveals that Church existed way before the Bible came into existence. If this is the case, then why did the Church put the Bible together? This question is essentially the same no matter what you are studying. In real estate it is location, location, location. In religion it is standardization, standardization, standardization. Standardization here allows for proper growth and development of people all over in a Church. By unifying a Church it in turn unifies a collection of people into common belief or group of people with a shared principle. Therefore, the Bible was complied by people for unifying experiences. This doesn't take away any of God's power. In fact it may actually go a long way in establishing or reinforcing many of the truths contained in the Bible. Therefore, if this theory of complying of the Bible is correct, all one has to do look at certain periods of time and see if books were complied because of a need of certain of a people. This principle of shared experiences (unification) has played an important part throughout the entirety of Bible. In fact without this principle there wouldn't be a Bible today. This shared principle is desired by all enlightened political leaders as reasonable way to unify mixed groups of people into one country. With this in mind there are three distinct leaders who played a pivotal role in establishing the Old and New Testaments. The first inspired leader that influenced the Bible was Cyrus the Great. On 12 October 539BCE Cyrus, "without spilling a drop of blood", annexed the Chaldaean empire of Babylonia and on October 29 he entered Babylon, arrested Nabonidus and assumed the title of "King of Babylon, King of Sumer and Akkad, King of the four corners of the world". Almost immediately he then extended his control over the Arabian peninsula and the Levant also quickly submitted to Persian rule. Although Cyrus did not conquer Egypt, by 535BCE all the lands up to the Egyptian borders had acceded to Persian dominance. Newly conquered territories had a measure of political independence, being ruled by satraps. These (usually local) governors took full responsibility for the administration, legislation and cultural activities of each province. (The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies, 2011) 4

In Ezra 1 1-5 we can see just how important Cyrus was to the reestablishment of Jerusalem as the center of Jewish state. Cyrus Helps the Exiles to Return (English Standard Version) Ezra 1
l The Proclamation of Cyrus

1. In the first year of Cyrus king of Persia, that the word of the LORD by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, the LORD stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom and also put it in writing:. 2"Thus says Cyrus king of Persia: The LORD, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. 3Whoever is among you of all his people, may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah, and rebuild the house of the LORD, the God of Israel he is the God who is in Jerusalem. 4And let each survivor, in whatever place he sojourns, be assisted by the men of his place with silver and gold, with goods and with beasts, besides freewill offerings for the house of God that is in Jerusalem." 5Then rose up the heads of the fathers houses of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests and the Levites, everyone whose spirit God had stirred to go up to rebuild the house of the LORD that is in Jerusalem. Clearly without Cyrus' enlightened leadership- the Jewish captivity would have lasted much longer and there would have been some serious problems with reestablishing Jerusalem as center for Jewish thought and culture. This one event impacted a great deal of the Old Testament and the New Testament events. For example: how could Jesus have thrown the money changes out of the Temple if a Temple was never built? How could Jesus have been crucified right outside of the city of Jerusalem unless the city was indeed populated with Jewish people? How could the Jewish people have had the sect of Jews- Sadducees that was established with the building of Temple in 519 BCE, which was instrumental in orchestrating the charges against Jesus which led to his Crucifixion and the complete repudiation of life after death. Thereby could you imagine how the Bible would have been written without Cyrus' help? The answer is plain, simple and to the point. NO! So without Cyrus the Great being a leader when he was and without him allowing or encouraging the Jewish people to go back to Jerusalem, the entire rest of the Bible could not exist in its present form.

The second enlightened leader that influenced the Bible was Ptolemy II of Egypt. Under his leadership he established with his father the great library in Alexandria. This was the largest library of its day and time in the world. To fill the library Ptolemy II actively sought put all of the holy works of the Jewish people in the library and to translate all of the works into the Greek language. This is how the Septuagint was begun. Ptolemy II put together a group of seventy two Jewish scholars to translate the books into one collection. The Septuagint became the oldest Greek translation of Hebrew scriptures (3rd-2nd c. BCE) and the standard version used in Hellenistic synagogues & early Christian churches. This allowed for Hellenization of the many of the Jewish customs and thoughts. This not only influenced Jewish thought of its day but it influenced all of its neighbors as well. In this period of time we also see the fighting between the Ptolemy and Seleucid Empire for the control of Jerusalem. Finally around 200 BCE, the Seleucid Empire invades and took over Judea. The new ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes attempted to suppress the practice of basic Jewish religious law, resulting in a Jewish backlash against Seleucid rule that ended with the Maccabees Revolt. For the little more than one hundred years under Ptolemy rule the Jews were allowed to maintain their customs and religion. However under the Seleucid this practice changed drastically. The Temple was desecrated and many of the Jewish customs were made illegal. Even the basic worship of God in the Temple was changed as Antiochus IV tried to impose false Gods on God's chosen people. It is also interesting to note that Antiochus IV was third great grandson of the founder of Antioch- Seleucus I. Seleucus laid out Antioch to be just like Alexandria with its grid like pattern and four parts to the city. Antiochus IV completed the fourth quarter of city during his reign and it was estimated that the city was third largest city in world around the time of the birth of Christ with an estimated population of six hundred thousand people. (Glanville Downey, Ancient Antioch (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1963)

Antiochus IV was not only interested in adding on to his capital city of Antioch, he wanted to add on to his empire as well. Antiochus IV invaded Egypt and wrestled Judea away from the Ptolemys. Instead of being respectful to the wants, cultures, and religions of the conquered people, Antiochus IV wanted all his new people to worship him and his beliefs. His new edicts with the Jews did not go over very well at all. In 1 Maccabees 41-51 we can see exactly how important these

events were to the people of Israel. (Catholic Bible on Line www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=20) The king then issued a proclamation to his whole kingdom that all were to become a single people, each nation renouncing its particular customs.
42 43 44

41

All the gentiles conformed to the king's decree, and many Israelites chose to accept his religion, sacrificing to idols and profaning the Sabbath.

The king also sent edicts by messenger to Jerusalem and the towns of Judah, directing them to adopt customs foreign to the country,
45 46 47 48

banning burnt offerings, sacrifices and libations from the sanctuary, profaning Sabbaths and feasts, defiling the sanctuary and everything holy, building altars, shrines and temples for idols, sacrificing pigs and unclean beasts,

leaving their sons uncircumcised, and prostituting themselves to all kinds of impurity and abomination,
49 50 51

so that they should forget the Law and revoke all observance of it. Anyone not obeying the king's command was to be put to death.

Writing in such terms to every part of his kingdom, the king appointed inspectors for the whole people and directed all the towns of Judah to offer sacrifice city by city.

The first century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote his account of this and other Jewish history of the time period in his work Antiquities of the Jews. Chapter 1 of Book 1 explained in some detail what took place in Jerusalem during those days. (Scared Texts. com) 1. At the same time that Antiochus, who was called Epiphanies, had a quarrel with the sixth Ptolemy about his right to the whole country of Syria, a great sedition fell among the men of power in Judea, and they had a contention about obtaining the government; while each of those that were of dignity could not endure to be subject to their equals. However, Onias, one of the high priests, got the 7

better, and cast the sons of Tobias out of the city; who fled to Antiochus, and besought him to make use of them for his leaders, and to make an expedition into Judea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months. But Onias, the high priest, fled to Ptolemy, and received a place from him in the Nomus of Heliopolis, where he built a city resembling Jerusalem, and a temple that was like its temple concerning which we shall speak more in its proper place hereafter. 2. Now Antiochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking the city, or with its pillage, or with the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of their country, and to keep their infants uncircumcised, and to sacrifice swine's flesh upon the altar; against which they all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death. Bacchides also, who was sent to keep the fortresses, having these wicked commands, joined to his own natural barbarity, indulged all sorts of the extremist wickedness, and tormented the worthiest of the inhabitants, man by man, and threatened their city every day with open destruction, till at length he provoked the poor sufferers by the extremity of his wicked doings to avenge themselves. 3. Accordingly Matthias, the son of Asamoneus, one of the priests who lived in a village called Modin, armed himself, together with his own family, which had five sons of his in it, and slew Bacchides with daggers; and thereupon, out of the fear of the many garrisons [of the enemy], he fled to the mountains; and so many of the people followed him, that he was encouraged to come down from the mountains, and to give battle to Antiochus's generals, when he beat them, and drove them out of Judea. So he came to the government by this his success, and became the prince of his own people by their own free consent, and then died, leaving the government to Judas, his eldest son. 4. Now Judas, supposing that Antiochus would not lie still, gathered an army out of his own countrymen, and was the first that made a league of friendship with the Romans, and drove Epiphanes out of the country when he had made a second expedition into it, and this by giving him a great defeat there; and when he was warmed by this great success, he made an assault upon the garrison that was in the city, for it had not been cut off hitherto; so he ejected them out of the upper city, and drove the soldiers into the lower, which part of the city was called the Citadel. He then got the temple under his power, and cleansed the whole place, and walled it round about, and made new vessels for sacred ministrations, and brought them into the temple, because the former vessels had been profaned. He also built another altar, and began to offer the sacrifices; and when the city had already received its sacred constitution again, Antiochus died; whose son Antiochus succeeded him in the kingdom and in his hatred to the Jews also. 5. So this Antiochus got together fifty thousand footmen, and five thousand horsemen, and fourscore elephants, and marched through Judea into the mountainous parts. He then took Bethsura, which was a small city; but at a place called Bethzacharis, where the passage was narrow, Judas met him with his army. However, before the forces joined battle, Judas's brother Eleazar, seeing the very highest of the elephants adorned with a large tower, and with military trappings of gold to guard him, and supposing that Antiochus himself was upon him, he ran a great way before his own army, and cutting his way through the enemy's troops, he got up to the elephant; yet could he not reach him who seemed to be the king, by reason of his being so high; but still he ran his weapon into the belly of the beast, and brought him down upon himself, and was crushed to death, having done no more than attempted great things, and showed that he preferred glory before life. Now he that governed the elephant was but a private man; and had he proved to be Antiochus, Eleazar had performed nothing more by this bold stroke than 8

that it might appear he chose to die, when he had the bare hope of thereby doing a glorious action; nay, this disappointment proved an omen to his brother [Judas] how the entire battle would end. It is true that the Jews fought it out bravely for a long time, but the king's forces, being superior in number, and having fortune on their side, obtained the victory. And when a great many of his men were slain, Judas took the rest with him, and fled to the toparchy of Gophna. So Antiochus went to Jerusalem, and staid there but a few days, for he wanted provisions, and so he went his way. He left indeed a garrison behind him, such as he thought sufficient to keep the place, but drew the rest of his army off, to take their winter-quarters in Syria. 6. Now, after the king was departed, Judas was not idle; for as many of his own nation came to him, so did he gather those that had escaped out of the battle together, and gave battle again to Antiochus's generals at a village called Adasa; and being too hard for his enemies in the battle, and killing a great number of them, he was at last himself slain also. Nor was it many days afterward that his brother John had a plot laid against him by Antiochus's party, and was slain by them. It is very interesting argument that Protestants make saying the Maccabees is not an inspired work of God. This is especially true when you read the words of Mattathias in 1 Maccabees 19-22.

1 Maccabees 19-22 (Maccabees) 19. But Mattathias answered and said in a loud voice: "Even if all the nations that live under the rule of the king obey him, and have chosen to do his commandments, departing each one from the religion of his fathers, 20. Yet I and my sons and my brothers will live by the covenant of our fathers. 21. Far be it from us to desert the law and the ordinances. 22. We will not obey the king's words by turning aside from our religion to the right hand or to the left."

Clearly seen by the events of what took place with the Greek influence that started with Ptolemy II and his desire to increase knowledge had a two edge sword when it comes to Bible history. By rejecting the Maccabees books, the Protestants reject concept of purifying the Church- the very essence of their reasons to break away from the Church in the first place. If you cant hold it holy to

try to purify or correct the Church when they are doing wrong- then you cant justify your justification that you are doing the same thing. Overall, it helped to codify and preserve the writings of the Jews. It helped to share these writings with a new group of people by putting them in language of the people Greek. Since the

majority of the people now spoke Greek instead of Hebrew. It also helped to destroy many of the customs that Jews held to be important like Temple worship and circumcision. The truly inspired aspect of this research can be seen by this particular point, the Maccabees revolt was made by a group of Jews against the Hellenistic removal of the items that made the Jewish people Jewish. The interesting aspect about this one event is that writing about this fact includes the books of: 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, and 4 Maccabees. They were written about God's chosen people and their fight against outside influences that crept into their religion. This fact some people after the fact then decided that these writings should be included in the Bible- goes to the heart of the problem here. The four books of the Maccabees were written about the real problems and more importantly show future generations what people should do when it comes to outside influences when they try to over power your religion. The Catholic Church accepts the first of these books as part of their Bible. The Armenian Church accepts the first three books as part of their Bible. The Orthodox Church accepted all four books as part of their Bible. Yet under direction of reformer Martin Luther Protestants have refused to add these books to their Bible. By refusing to accept these books, Luther actually undercut a great deal of his own reasons to break away from the Church in the first place. This simple fact of refusal becomes interesting because what would have happened if the Ptolemy II would have refused to translate the Jewish Holy Works into Greek in the first place? What would have happened if the Septuagint wasn't written- what would the people have done in the time of Christ or in the early Christian Church times? More importantly what would have happened if the Maccabees had not rebelled against Hellenistic take over their religion? How could have Jesus come to Jerusalem two hundred years later to the Temple if the Temple was the temple of Zeus? God works through mysterious ways indeed. He inspired Ptolemy II and the results of this ended up with the Maccabees revolt. How can the writings about this not be inspired? If we pick and chose what we read or do not read we are acting just like Seleucid King who took over Judea his will on God's people. 10

Therefore just like Cyrus the Great before him, Ptolemy influenced the complying of the Bible, the amount of Books that are in the Bible, and fact New Testament was even written in Greek in the first place. The third inspired leader that influenced the complying of Old and New Testament was Constantine The Great. Under of his rule of the Roman Empire he first issued the Edict of Milan. The Edict of Milan was issued in AD 313, in the names of the Emperor Constantine, who ruled the western parts of the empire, and Licinius, who ruled the East. The two leaders were in Milan to celebrate the wedding of Constantine's younger half-sister Constania with Licinius. The leaders were trying to appeal to the rapidly growing Christian community. By this time the Christian Church had grown from being only an Eastern Religion to becoming popular in various areas of the Empire. The Edict of Milan was different than recognizing the Christian Church as the official religion. What it did was turn the Empire's official act from being anti- Christian to being neutral and allowing people who had be persecuted in the past to seek money for their property that was taken by the government. The Edict of Milan (Lactantius, De Mort. Pers., ch. 48. opera, ed. 0. F. Fritzsche, II, p 288 sq. (Bibl Patr. Ecc.
Lat. XI).

When I, Constantine Augustus, as well as I, Licinius Augustus, fortunately met near Mediolanurn (Milan), and were considering everything that pertained to the public welfare and security, we thought, among other things which we saw would be for the good of many, those regulations pertaining to the reverence of the Divinity ought certainly to be made first, so that we might grant to the Christians and others full authority to observe that religion which each preferred; whence any Divinity whatsoever in the seat of the heavens may be propitious and kindly disposed to us and all who are placed under our rule. And thus by this wholesome counsel and most upright provision we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion, of that religion which he should think best for himself, so that the Supreme Deity, to whose worship we freely yield our hearts) may show in all things His usual favor and benevolence. Therefore, your Worship should know that it has pleased us to remove all conditions whatsoever, which were in the rescripts formerly given to you officially, concerning the Christians and now any one of these who wish to observe Christian religion may do so freely and openly, without molestation. We thought it fit to commend these things most fully to your care that you may know that we have given to those Christians free and unrestricted opportunity of religious worship. When you see that this has been granted to them by us, your Worship will know that we have also conceded to other religions the right of open and free observance of their worship for the sake of the peace of our times, that each one may 11

have the free opportunity to worship as he pleases; this regulation is made we that we may not seem to detract from any dignity or any religion. Moreover, in the case of the Christians especially we esteemed it best to order that if it happens anyone heretofore has bought from our treasury from anyone whatsoever, those places where they were previously accustomed to assemble, concerning which a certain decree had been made and a letter sent to you officially, the same shall be restored to the Christians without payment or any claim of recompense and without any kind of fraud or deception, Those, moreover, who have obtained the same by gift, are likewise to return them at once to the Christians. Besides, both those who have purchased and those who have secured them by gift, are to appeal to the vicar if they seek any recompense from our bounty, that they may be cared for through our clemency. All this property ought to be delivered at once to the community of the Christians through your intercession, and without delay. And since these Christians are known to have possessed not only those places in which they were accustomed to assemble, but also other property, namely the churches, belonging to them as a corporation and not as individuals, all these things which we have included under the above law, you will order to be restored, without any hesitation or controversy at all, to these Christians, that is to say to the corporations and their conventicles: providing, of course, that the above arrangements be followed so that those who return the same without payment, as we have said, may hope for an indemnity from our bounty. In all these circumstances you ought to tender your most efficacious intervention to the community of the Christians, that our command may be carried into effect as quickly as possible, whereby, moreover, through our clemency, public order may be secured. Let this be done so that, as we have said above, Divine favor towards us, which, under the most important circumstances we have already experienced, may, for all time, preserve and prosper our successes together with the good of the state. Moreover, in order that the statement of this decree of our good will may come to the notice of all, this rescript, published by your decree, shall be announced everywhere and brought to the knowledge of all, so that the decree of this, our benevolence, cannot be concealed.

Constantine was a pragmatic leader who was in charge of consolidating his power over many different people from all over the world. The people spoke different languages, had different customs and had many different languages. By time of Constantine several countries had officially adopted Christianity as their official religion including: Armenia in 301 CE. However, multiple Gods were worshiped all over the Empire and this diversity did not help in the everyday day to day governing of the Empire. Finally during the next decade of the Fourth Century two things happened. First, the Church grew larger and larger. No longer needing to meet in hiding places and allowed to be out in the openthe Church now even grew much more rapidly. Second, Rome had two Emperors who were getting tired of not controlling the entire emperor themselves. The only way to unite the Empire under one 12

person and for it to be successful would be to have the entire Empire worship the same God. One God, one Emperor, one Empire would make it much easier to run the country. In 323 Constantine made a calculated political move on the Eastern Roman Emperor and his Brother in Law, Licinius. Licinius was rapidly defeated and the empire was once again united, with Constantine becoming the sole emperor of Rome. As consummate pragmatic politician Constantine needed to consolidate his power one more time. He could no longer just set by allow differences to tear up his country. Therefore the reasons which may have been political as well as religious, but no matter what the reason he did not wish to see the church or his empire divided. As the east came under his control, the Arian controversy came with it also began to rear its ugly head. Arius was a Deacon who preached that Jesus was son of God but he didn't always exist and was not equal to God. This was branded a heresy by the Trinity believing majority of Church leaders. They figured that a belief that Jesus did not always exist and that he was not really God, made Jesus not an important figure. It also could lead a person to the conclusion that Jesus was just a man and not God at all. Without getting a hold on this controversy the Empire would once again be divided in two. This was something that Constantine did not want or need at this time. He was trying to consolidate his power throughout the Empire and didn't want anything to interfere with this process. Constantine's interest in this controversy goes to the heart of his main interest- ruling his Empire. Constantine originally tried to resolve this issue when he sent his trusted friend and adviser, Bishop Hosius of the Spanish city of Cordova, to Alexandria, for the purpose of arbitrating between Alexander and Arius. To give weight to Hosius mission, he was armed with a letter from the emperor himself which exhorted both sides to settle their dispute and restore the internal harmony of the church. This did not work so the in 325 the Emperor called for Council to met at Nicaea. He invited every

13

Bishop from all over the Church to attend. About three hundred and eighteen came. They were mostly from the east where the controversy was taking place. This included the Armenian Bishop The original purpose of the Council was established as in an agenda that was proposed for the Council. The agenda of the synod included: (California State University- Northridge Library) 1 The Arian question regarding the relationship between God the Father and Jesus; i.e. are the Father and Son one in divine purpose only or also one in being 2 The date of celebration of the Paschal/Easter observation 3 The Meletian schism 4 The validity of baptism by heretics 5 The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius In the course of the Council the attendees agreed on Twenty Cannons and One Creed. It is interesting to note several misconceptions about this meeting. First, Constantine was in attendance for many of the meetings- not all of them. Second, the Pope Sylvester I did not call the meeting, the Emperor did and he did not attend. Third, the original creed that was agreed upon by the participants is not the same Nicene Creed that Churches use today, and fourth, there was not an attempt of the Church to vote on or establish a formal Bible at this Council. First the original Nicene Creed. Original Nicene Creed (The Seven Ecumenical Councils - The Nicene Creed and Creeds of Christendom: 8. The Nicene Creed - Christian Classics Ethereal Library. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (?), not made, being of one substance (??, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (? ? ? ?), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them. 14

The Original Armenian Nicene Creed (Source: Armenian Church) We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit. By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance. He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father. He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints. We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgment of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life. Note the differences between the original Creed and the Armenian Creed. Constantine wasn't as interested in minor differences as much as he wanted to make things more standard. No where is this more noted than in the Twenty Cannons of the Church that were also agreed to in Council of 325. These were agreements over different aspects of faith or running the Church. Even with explicit language-some Bishops took great pride in changing the meanings of words. The Bishop of Rome eventually took Cannon Six to back up their claim that Bishop of Rome was supreme to all other Bishops in the world. The teaching on the Holy Spirit was expanded by the first Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381). History of Filioque

15

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets. In one Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. In A.D. 587, the local council of Toledo (Spain) added filioque to the Creed as an attempt to combat Arianism. (The Latin word filioque is translated in English as 'and the Son' and changes the Symbol of Faith) History of Filioque And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified. This addition was intended to emphasize the consubstantiality of the Father and Son against the Arian heresy. From Spain, filioque spread to the Franks (present-day France). It was embraced by Charlemagne who went so far as to accuse the East of having deliberately omitted it from the ancient Creed. Pope Leo III (795-816) intervened, and forbade any interpolations or alterations in the Nicene Creed. He ordered the Creed, without filioque, to be engraved in Latin and Greek on two silver plates on the wall of St. Peters in Rome. Nevertheless, the addition was maintained by the Franks. The dispute grew (many historians think Charlemagne used the filioque in an attempt to justify his claim to be emperor against the Emperor of the Roman Empire located in Constantinople) between East and West and was the focus of the council of Constantinople which met A.D. 879-880. This council (recognized as the Eighth Ecumenical Council by Orthodox Christians) reaffirmed the creed of A.D. 381 and declared any and all additions to the creed invalid. This councils teaching was affirmed by the patriarchs of Old Rome (John VIII), New Rome [Constantinople] (Photius), Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria and by Emperor Basil I. Still, filioque continued to be used by the Franks and spread to the Germans. The filioque began to be used in Rome, probably first at the coronation of Henry II in 1014. Historians see this as a passive

16

acceptance by the pope (Benedict VIII) due to his reliance on the Germans for military protection. From that time, the Romans began adding the filioque to the creed and have continued doing so. Therefore, it can be clearly seen that the Filioque was added by others in the west to adapt to problem that the Western Church was facing. This created a rift between the East and West and it also set up some problems with people who believed in the Councils themselves. If the Councils were called of God and if the men who were called by God to attend the Councils were impacted by the Holy Spirit, then why change their council after the fact? This problem has plagued certain aspects of the Western Church throughout history and becomes a precursor to the problems as the Bible is complied. Besides the Nicene Creed, the Council of Nicaea agreed on Twenty Statements or Cannons that became Church law.

The Twenty Cannons of the Church that was agreed upon at Council of Nicaea 325 (Source California State University- Northridge Library) CANON 1
Eunuchs may be received into the number of the clergy, but those who castrate themselves shall not be received.

CANON 2
Those who have come from the heathen shall not be immediately advance to the priesthood. For without probation of some time a neophyte is of no advantage. But if after ordination it is found out that he has sinned previously, let him then be expelled from the clergy.

CANON 3
"The Great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion." (Full original text)

CANON 4
"It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province. But should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent bishops also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan." (Full original text) 17

CANON 5
Such as have been excommunicated by certain bishops shall not be restored by others, unless the excommunication was the result of pusillanimity, or strife, or some other similar cause. And that this may be duly attended to, there shall be in each year two synods in every province--one before Lent, the other toward autumn.

CANON 6
"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail: that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood: that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail." (Full original text)

CANON 7
"Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of Aelia [Capitolina = Jerusalem] should be honored, let him (saving the due dignity to the Metropolis [Caesarea Maritima]) have the next place of honor." (Full original text)

CANON 8
If those called Cathari come over, let them first make profession that they are willing to communicate with the twice married, and to grant pardon to the lapsed. And on this condition he who happens to be in orders, shall continue in the same order, so that a bishop shall be a bishop. Whoever was a bishop among the Cathari let him, however, become a Chorepiscopus, or let him enjoy the honor of a presbyter or a bishop. For in one church there shall not be two bishops.

CANON 9
Whoever is ordained without examination shall be deposed if it be found out afterwards that they had been guilty." [Of, e.g., blasphemy, bigamy, heresy, idolatry, magic]

CANON 10
"If any who have lapsed have been ordained through the ignorance, ore even with the [previous knowledge of the ordainers, this shall not prejudice the Canon of the Church. For when they are discovered, they shall be deposed." (Full original text)

CANON 11
As many as fell without necessity, even if therefore undeserving of indulgence, yet some indulgence shall be shown them and they shall be prostrators for twelve years.

CANON 12
Those who endured violence and were seen to have resisted, but who afterwards yielded to wickedness, and returned to the Army, shall be excommunicated for ten years. But in every case the way in which 18

they do their penance must be scrutinized. And if anyone who is doing penance shows himself zealous in its performance, the Bishop shall treat him more leniently than had he been cold and indifferent.

CANON 13
The dying are to be communicated. But if any such get well, he must be placed in the number of those who share in the prayers, and with these only. [This refers to those who have been excommunicated, or who are undergoing a major penance.]

CANON 14
"Concerning catechumens who have lapsed, the Holy and Great Synod has decreed that after they have passed three years as mere hearers, they shall pray with the Catechumens." (Full original text)

CANON 15
Neither bishop, nor presbyter, nor deacon shall be transferred from city to city. But they shall be sent back should they attempt to do so, to the Churches in which they were ordained.

CANON 16
Such presbyters or deacons as desert their own Church are not to be admitted into another, but are to be sent back to their own diocese. But if any bishop should ordain one who belongs to another Church without the consent of his own bishop, the ordination shall be canceled.

CANON 17
Since many enrolled among the clergy, following covetousness and lust of gain, have forgotten the Divine Scripture, which says, `He heat not given his money upon usury (Ex. 22.25; Deut. 23.29),' and in lending money asks for 1% per month interest, the Holy and Great Synod thinks it just that if after this Decree anyone be found to receive interest, whether he accomplish it by secret transaction or otherwise, as by demanding `the whole and one half', or by using any other contrivance whatever for filthy lucre's sake, he shall be deposed from the Clergy and his name stricken from the list." (Full original text)

CANON 18
Deacons must abide within their own bounds. They shall not administer the Eucharist to Presbyters, nor touch it before Presbyters do, nor sit among the Presbyters. For all this is contrary to the canons and decent order.

CANON 19
Paulianists must be rebaptized, and if such as are clergymen seem to be blameless let them be ordained. If they do not seem to be blameless, let them be deposed. Deaconesses, who have been led astray, since they are not sharers of ordination, are to be reckoned among the Laity.

CANON 20
On the Lord's Day and at Pentecost all must pray standing and not kneeling.

19

Constantine The Great was quiet during most of the Council and apparently very satisfied with progress that was made on the Council. He never asked them to look at canonizing books into a Bible. Now it can be clearly seen that The Council of Nicaea was place where you could discuss and agree with others as long as you were on the right side. The difference in creeds probably has to do with language differences and translations. It is also interesting to note, that instead of solving all the problems of the Church, this conference just started the concept that there would be another Conference called to solve the next set of problems. The next Conference of Nicaea which would be held in 381 C.E. However it has been seen as some Roman Catholics as the place where the Bishop of Rome became the supreme ruler of Christianity and by many Protestant scholars as the place where the Constantine the Great became the sole decider of what books went into the Bible. Both of these misconceptions are far from the truth. Look at Cannon Six and you will see that the Bishop of Rome was not selected in a superior position at all. In fact the position that the Bishop of Rome was Superior could be traced to the Donation of Constantine. It was allegedly written around this same time although it was not really produced until about the eighth century. This was a letter written by Constantine himself and granting Pope Sylvester I and his successors, as inheritors of St. Peter, dominion over lands in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, and Africa as well as Rome and both Italy and the entire Western Roman Empire, while Constantine would retain imperial authority in the Eastern Roman Empire from his new imperial capital of Constantinople. The text claims that the Donation was Constantine's gift to Sylvester for instructing him in the Christian faith, baptizing him, and miraculously curing him of leprosy. Now one may ask what the problem with this is. (Donation of Constantine) The answer is simple- it was not true on many levels. First, All one has to do is read Cannon Six below and see that this letter goes against the agreement of all the Bishops at the Council of Nicea. 20

Second, according to the legend surrounding the Donation, the Pope Sylvester I cured Constantine of leprosy with the waters of baptism. This was supposed to have taken place in the year 326 in the city of Rome. There is just one problem it didn't happen like that. Instead the truth was that Constantine postponed his baptism to right before his death. He was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia in April of 337 not Pope Sylvester I in 326. By the time of Constantines baptism, the Pope Sylvester I had died and therefore couldn't have baptized him. The other fact was Constantine was on his death bed when he was baptized he was not cured. He died about three or four weeks after the event. Therefore, none of the Donation was true. (Life of Constantine) Constantine was a very manipulative person but he did not do this an it was Pope Leo IX in 1054 who was the first Pope to actually cite the Donation in his famous letter of excommunication to Michael Crularius, Patriarch of Constantinople. In this letter Pope Leo IX cited the Donation to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood. However according the Church Council of Nicaea 325 the Bishop of Rome didn't have that type of power. He was just one among equals not a superior. Much of what we have thought we learned about how the Bible came about was based on misconception. (Catholic Encyclopedia) Now, since the background of the early church and some of its parts is more fully understood. Let us turn our attention to the history of the Bible as a book. This history begins shortly after the Council of Nicaea and probably would never have come into existence with the Council of Nicaea. The Church had grown so large and over such a large area that in 331 C.E. the Emperor Constantine asked Eusebius of Caesarea to make 50 bibles for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople in the growing number of Orthodox churches. This was documented by Eusebius himself in his book Life of Constantine. Then in 367 C.E. Athanasius of Alexandria made his list of canonical books in his ThirtyNinth Festal Epistle of A.D. 367. He was the most prominent theologian of the fourth century, and he served as bishop of Alexandria. 21

The Bible history as a book begins shortly after the Council of Nicaea. The Church had grown so large and over such a large area that in 331 C.E. the Emperor Constantine asked Eusebius of Caesarea to make 50 bibles for the use of the Bishop of Constantinople in the growing number of Orthodox churches. This was documented by Eusebius himself in his book Life of Constantine. Then in 367 C.E. Athanasius of Alexandria made his list of canonical books in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle of A.D. 367. He was the most prominent theologian of the fourth century, and he served as bishop of Alexandria. Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle of A.D. 367 Source (Bible Research) English But since we have made mention of heretics as dead, but of ourselves as possessing the Divine Scriptures for salvation; and since I fear lest, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians, some few of the simple should be beguiled from their simplicity and purity, by the subtlety of certain men, and should henceforth read other booksthose called apocryphalled astray by the similarity of their names with the true books; I beseech you to bear patiently, if I also write, by way of remembrance, of matters with which you are acquainted, influenced by the need and advantage of the Church. 2. In proceeding to make mention of these things, I shall adopt, to commend my undertaking, the pattern of Luke the evangelist, saying on my own account, Forasmuch as some have taken in hand to reduce into order for themselves the books termed Apocryphal, and to mix them up with the divinely inspired Scripture, concerning which we have been fully persuaded, as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, delivered to the Fathers; it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance. 3. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after 1 these four books of Kings, the first and second being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third 2 and fourth as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. 3 Again Ezra, the first and second are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [Minor Prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament. 22

4. Again, it is not tedious to speak of the books of the New Testament. These are: the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. After these, The Acts of the Apostles, and the seven epistles called Catholic: of James, one; of Peter, two, of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, written in this order: the first, to the Romans; then, two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians, then, to the Philippians; then, to the Colossians; after these, two of the Thessalonians; and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John. 5. These are the fountains of salvation that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone the teaching of godliness is proclaimed. Let no one add to these; let nothing be taken away from them. For concerning these, the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures. And he reproved the Jews, saying, Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of me. 6. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded. It is very interesting to note several important things here. This was a letter written by one person, the author was at that time of writing the letter the Bishop of Alexandra. Although he had been a Bishop for almost 40 years when he wrote this, it is still his opinion and not official Church doctrine goes to Athanasius and uses him as an expert source. He ends his Epistle with the statement, Let no man add to these Canonical Books, or take anything from them. This was an appeal not to add to or take away from concept of what should be. However, by simplifying this statement to its own devices we see that the mere mention of the statement actually adds and therefore he takes out his own logic. The Protestants try to argue a bad logical fallacy here. They appeal to history but they only used some historical facts. A fact that is based upon the premise that Bishop Athanasius should know what he is talking about because he was a Bishop of his Church and recognized as a Saint in both the East and the West. This is odd- the same people totally reject the Churches represented here but uphold the concept that they selected a very learned man to make 23

decisions. If the Church was right in selecting him Bishop, then they are right about the Bible as well. This would knock out the logic expressed by the Protestants They can't be right in one thing and wrong in the other. Another thing that is neglected to be mentioned is that fact that a Bishop is the Bishop when he is speaking for the Church but when not speaking for the Church, he is just a regular person subject to problems of a regular person. By upholding Bishop Athanasius' selection as a great thing on the part of the Church, the Protestant who are arguing that the Bishop is going against the Church are not realizing that are only proving the point of the success of the Church. By arguing the fact that you shouldn't add to his Epistle, Protestants exclaim that Athanasius words represents the judgment of the Church Catholic in the fourth century on the question, What Books are to be received as Canonical, i.e. as Divinely-inspired Scripture? And it justifies the course taken by the Church of England in this fundamental matter, in opposition to the Church of Rome, which in the fourth Session of the Council of Trent, on the 8th of April, 1546, affirmed that such books as Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees I and II are to be received as Canonical. Thus some Protestants claim that the Church of Rome does what Athanasius forbade, when he said, Let no man add to these Canonical Books, or take anything from them. Maybe Athanasius was exactly right when he said let no man. Note that he was referring to a single person. The Church has judged what was or should be in the Bible since Ptolemy II when he called on the 70 Scholars to translate the Holy Scriptures down to conferences of the Church today. One thing of note here is to realize that Bible is a product of the Church not the other way around. The Church existed before the Bible and Jesus existed before the Church. We are almost getting into an Arius controversy if think that Jesus did not exist before the Church. Without Jesus we would have no Church and without the Church we would have no Bible. God throughout the Old and New Testament has worked through his Church and people.

24

Finally let's review exactly how the books of the Bible became canonized in the first place. A look through Church History to see what was considered and when. The Canon of the Bible source: Cannon of The Bible Melito, bishop of Sardis, an ancient city of Asia Minor (see Rev 3), c. 170 AD produced the first known Christian attempt at an Old Testament canon. His list maintains the Septuagint order of books but contains only the Old Testament protocanonicals minus the Book of Esther. The Council of Laodicea, c. 360, produced a list of books similar to today's canon. This was one of the Church's earliest decisions on a canon. Pope Damasus, 366-384, in his Decree, listed the books of today's canon. The Council of Rome, 382, was the forum which prompted Pope Damasus' Decree. Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse wrote to Pope Innocent I in 405 requesting a list of canonical books. Pope Innocent listed the present canon. The Council of Hippo, a local North Africa council of bishops created the list of the Old and New Testament books in 393 which are the same as the Roman Catholic list today. The Council of Carthage, a local North Africa council of bishops created the same list of canonical books in 397. This is the council which many Protestant and Evangelical Christians take as the authority for the New Testament canon of books. The Old Testament canon from the same council is identical to Roman Catholic canon today. Another Council of Carthage in 419 offered the same list of canonical books. Since the Roman Catholic Church does not define truths unless errors abound on the matter, Roman Catholic Christians look to the Council of Florence, an ecumenical council in 1441 for the first definitive list of canonical books. The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time. There was no canon of scripture in the early Church; there was no Bible. The Bible is the book of the Church; it is not like some to like it to be considered the Church of the Bible. It was the Church-her leadership, faithful people--guided by the authority of the Spirit of Truth which discovered the books inspired by God in their writing. The Church did not create the canon; she discerned the canon. Fixed canons of the Old and New Testaments, hence the Bible, were not known much before the end of the 2nd and early 3rd century. 25

This presents us with the problems facing Christians today. All Christians accept the Bible but all Christian view the Bible in different ways. The Protestants view the Bible to be the inspired word of God and rule book for people to follow. At the time when their church broke away, they rejected the Church and its teachings, history, and customs. Rather they placed their faith in Bible. The main difficulty here is Bible is work of the Church. It is historically short sighted accept the Bible without accepting the Church. When the Roman Church broke away from the Eastern Church in 1054 much of the legalistic thought of Roman had crept into the Church's views. They tried to settle problems with the letter of the law only to find out law can not satisfy the need of spirit. This can be seen on the Roman Church's view of the Bible vs. the Greek Church's view of the Bible. It is interesting to note the Orthodox Bible includes the Greek Septuagint and the New Testament. It include the seven books which are generally rejected by Protestants and a small number of other books that are in neither Western canon making their Bible have 49 Old Testament books. Their view of the Bible is very interesting. They view that the scriptures are not the source of the traditions associated with the Church but rather the opposite; the biblical text came out of that tradition. It is also not the only important book of the Church. Unlike the Roman Church which canonized the Catholic Bible at the Council of Trent, the Orthodox Church has never done that. In review- three political leaders had great influence on how we got the Bible today. Each person influenced events but was not officially responsible for the formalization of the Bible. However, without each of them the Bible wouldn't have existed because essential aspects of the story would have been missing. Without Cyrus allowing the Jews to go back home we would never have the Temple rebuilt or Jerusalem wouldn't have been a Jewish city. Without Ptolemy II and his father we would not have had Library in Alexandria or the Septuagint. Without the Septuagint much of our Bible would have been a great deal different. Also without the Ptolemy losing Judea to the Seleucid Empire we would never have had the Maccabees period of the Bible. Without Constantine we wouldn't have 26

had the Edict of Milan (313) or the Council of Nicaea (325). Therefore to answer this question properly we need to look at all of these aspects of answer. I've also included the times at the end of Ptolemy rule of Judea to contrast this with the troubles Judea had with Antiochus IV. Antiochus IV completed the last part of final quarter to Antioch. Antioch became the third largest city in the world and the center for both Maronite Church development and early Christian thought. Antioch was the center of early Christian Church and this could not have been accomplished without the Seleucus' help. Part of the mystery of our Lord is that he can work through all sorts of people for his purpose. Just because we may not understand what is going on doesn't mean that it isn't going on or it didn't happen: then came Constantine. Although he did become a saint and did a great deal to help Christianity, he was still just a man. Without any of these three people, we would not have a Bible today. Therefore the Bible was complied with many cases by Non Jewish people for God's purposes. The Bible itself was a collect of books that were passed down by our ancestors. It wasn't passed down as leather bound book but rather as a series of scrolls used in worship. This can be reinforced by the fact that Orthodox have never officially canonized a Bible, the Protestants follow the lead of Martin Luther who in the 16th century decided to break away from the Roman Catholic Church. The English Protestant Churches have been using the King James Version of the Bible which was an English Translation of Luther inspired Bible in 1611. So to answer the question that was the original question of the report- how as the Bible complied, all one has to do is understand how the Bible came about. It was a long process. The Bible came from a process that was based in God's promise to his people and in the words of his son Jesus Christ.

27

Appendix In order to better understand what took place during the time period of the when the Bible came into being; I like to apply a special and unique understanding to this question. In both the December 17th and 18th Homily, Msgr. Donald Sawyer of the Our Lady Maronite Catholic Church asked his parishioners , Who are you? The people answered by reciting their name. That is when Msgr. Sawyer would ask again, But who are you? This line of questioning got me thinking about the concept that we are the subtotal of experiences and more importantly we are genetic total of all of relatives since the beginning of time. Several minutes into his homily Msgr. Sawyer asked everyone, Do you have skeletons in your family? This homily got me thinking a great deal about the scriptures. Many of the relatives were in the scriptures. For purposes of this assignment I have tried to tie in some of the more interesting ones and I have included it the appendix of the report. It wasn't because that I didn't feel it was important. It was because I wanted to end with the links so others could see the relationships and through these relationships understand how things took place. I have included my genealogy to Cyrus the Great. In the front part of this report I explained why without Cyrus the Great we couldn't have had Bible. Also in that same line I have included my genealogy back to Nebuchadnezzar II the Babylonian Emperor who conquered Jerusalem and took the Jews into captivity. It was ability of Cyrus the Great to allow people to worship as they please and live freely within his Kingdom that allowed the Jews the ability to go back and rebuild the temple. I have also included my genealogy to father Abraham then next to that I have included my genealogy to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, King of Syria the famous King who the Maccabees rebelled against. On Hanukkah, the Jews regained control of Jerusalem and rededicated the Temple. Clearly 28

Genealogy Sunday is not just reading in Mathew it is reading in the rest of the book as well. When looking into the Bible history and looking into the importance that city of Antioch played in this process- please note that Antiochus IV third great grandfather Seleucus I was the person who founded the town of Antioch and laid it our to look like Alexandria. Without Antiochus IV completing the rest of Antioch during his reign or not taking over Judea- Christianity might not have even taken place. For more than one hundred years, the Ptolemys ruled Judea and the area was peaceful. There were no rebellions and the Jews could worship pretty much like they wanted. Without heavy handed policies of Antiochus IV the Maccabees might never have rebelled and the entire setting of Christ's return would have changed.

29

Genealogy- A Family History Back To Father Abraham ABRAHAM (Abram / Avraham / Ibrahim) (c. 1992-1817 BC) = Sarah (Sr / Sarai), His half-sister Isaac (Yitzhak) = Rebekah (Rivqa / Rabk), dau. Bethuel; Isaacs first cousin once removed Jacob (Yakov / Yaqub / Israel) = Leah (Lea) (1st wife), dau. Laban ben Bethuel ben Nahr ben Terah Judah (Judas / Yehuda) Tamar of Kadesh, daughter-in-law of Judah (tricked Judah into sleeping with her) Phares (Pharez / Perez), illegitimate son of the above = Barayah Esrom (Hezrn / Hezrom) = Kanita, dau. Zebulun & Niiman Aram (Rama / Arni) = Kiya-tasherit Amminadab = Thehara (Tara) Nahshon (Nashn / Naasson / Putiel) = Simar, dau. Yuhannas Salmon (Salma) = Rachab (Rahab / Saphila), dau. Bezaleel Boaz = Ruth the Moabite (descendant of Lot, brother of Abraham) Obed = Abalit, daughter of Sonas Jesse (Yishay) = Habliar, daughter of Abrias David (Dawud), King of Judah and Israel = Bathsheba (Bath-shuah), dau. Ammiel Solomon (Shlomo), the Wise, King of Judah & Israel = Naamah the Ammonitess Rehoboam, King of Judah = Maachah Abijam, King of Judah Asa, King of Juda = Azubah, daughter of Shilhi Jehoshaphat, King of Judah Jehoram, King of Judah = Princess Athaliah (Atalyahu) of Israel, dau. King Ahab of Israel & Jezebel of Tyre Ahaziah, King of Judah = Zibna of Beersheba Joash, King of Judah = Jehoaddan of Jerusalem Amaziah, King of Judah = Jecoliah of Jerusalem Uzziah, King of Judah = Jerusha, daughter of Zadok Jotham (Yotam), King of Judah Ahaz, King of Judah = Abijah 30

Hezekiah (Hazaqiyahu), King of Judah (d. 709 BC) = Hephzibah Manasseh (Menashe), King of Judah = Meshullemeth Amon, King of Judah = Jedidah of Bozkath, daughter of Adaiah Josiah (Yoshiyahu), King of Judah = Zebidah of Rumah, daughter of Pedaiah Jeconiah (Jehoiachin / Joachin), King of Judah Shealtiel of Judah Zerubabbel (Sheshbazzar) of Judah Hananiah, 5 Yeshaya, 8 th Exilarch

th

Exilarch th Exilarch th

Rephaiah, 10

Arnan, Exilarch Obadiah (Ovadaya), 11 Exilarch th Exilarch

Shecaniah I (Shakhna), 12 Shemaiah (Shemaya) Neariah (Naariya), 18 Elioenai, 20 Akkub, 27 th th

Exilarch

Exilarch

th

Babylonian-Jewish Exilarch

David of Judah Shemaiah (Shemaya) of Judah David of Judah Shechaniah (Schania) of Judah Hizkiah of Judah Shalom of Judah Nathan De-Zuzita of Judah Hurya of Judah Shlomo of Judah Jacob (Yakov) of Judah st nd th Ahijah, 1 Exilarch of 2 branch of Exilarchate / 44 Exilarch Nakhum II, 2 nd Exilarch th Exilarch 31

Mar-Ukba I (Nathan), 7

Huna II, 8

th

Exilarch th Exilarch th Exilarch Exilarch

Nathan I, 11

Nehemiah I, 14

Mar-Ukba III, 17 Abba, 20 th

th

Exilarch rd Exilarch

Kahana I, 23

Prince Nathan of Judah (d. 413) Khanai of Judah Zutra of Judah Maremar of Judah Haninai of Judah (d. 520) = Havah theHeiress (d. 493), dau. Huna VI, s. Kahana II, s. Mar-Zutra I, s. Prince Nathan Mar-Zutra II, 30 th Exilarch = sister of Pahida

st Ahunai [Huna-Mar II], 31 Exilarch Hofnai (Qafni), 32 Haninai, 33 rd nd Exilarch

Exilarch

Bostanai (Bostonai), Jewish Exilarch, heir of the Royal House of Judah = Princess Dara-Izdadwr (Izdundad) of Persia Shahari (Shariyar) = sister of Baw (Bau; Bav), founder of the Buwayhids Yomtov-Ruzbihan-Yitzak (Ahunai) Zakkai Yehuda the Exilarch (d. 771) Makhir (Machir) (Theuderic / Thierri) de Gellone, Marquis de Narbonne (d. 793) = Aldana Adalesme de Autun = Albane Gerard, Comte de Auvergne = Princess Rotrude de France, dau. Louis I, the Pious, son of Charlemagne Ranulf, Duc dAquitaine (d. 866) = Irmgard Ebles Mancer, Comte de Poitou = Emiliane William de Poitou, Duc dAquitaine (c. 925-963) = Gerloc of Normandy, dau. Rollo the Dane William II de Poitou, Duc dAquitaine (d. 995) = Emma de Blois Guillaume III (V) Le Grande, Duc dAquitaine (d. 1030) = Agnes de Bourgogne Guillaume VI (VIII), Duc dAquitaine (c. 1026-1086) = Hildegarde de Bourgogne 32

Guillaume VII (IX), Duc dAquitaine (1071-1126/7) = Mathilde de Toulouse Guillaume VIII (X), Duc dAquitaine (1099-1137) = Aenor de Chatellerault Eleanor de Poitou dAquitaine (1122-1204) = Henry II Plantagenet Curt Mantel, King of England (c. 1132-1189) Princess Elizabeth Plantagenet (1282-1316) = Humphrey VIII de Bohun (1275-1321) William de Bohun m Elizabeth de Badlesmere Richard FitzAlan (1346-1397) = Elizabeth de Bohun Elizabeth FitzAlan (1366-1425) = Robert Goushill Elizabeth Goushill (1402-1431) = Robert Wingfield Henry Wingfield 1434-1493 Elizabeth Rowles 1450-1494 Robert Wingfield 1490-1575 Majory Quarles 1502-1574 Robert Wingfield 1532/34-1575 Elizabeth Cecil 1542-1611 Adam Claypoole 1565-1634 Dorothy Wingfield 1566-1619 John Claypoole 1595-1664 Marie Angell James Claypoole 1634-1687 Helen Mercer Joseph Claypoole 1677-1744 Rebecca Jennings Joseph Claypoole 1709-1784 Ann Griffin John Bishop Mary Ann Claypoole 1748-1795 James Bishop Chloe Lake Aquila Bishop 1790- 1839 Isabel Anne Henshaw Alban Aquilla Bishop Michael Franklin Cunningham 1859 Lulu Bishop Russell Cunningham 1894 Claire Mac Arthur 1892 Ronald Cunningham 1928 Virginia Grendahl 1927 Michael Cunningham 1951 Carolyn Despain 1951

33

Family Back To Babylonian -Jewish Captivity 70. NEBUCHADNEZZAR II, Babylonian Emperor 605-562 (above) =1 Amytis, dau of Cyaxares, King of Media =2 Sharrat of Assyria, prob. dau of Ashur-uballit II, last Assyrian king =3 Nitokris, dau of Egyptian Pharaoh Necho II issue of 1: (1)/(71a) Evil-Merodach [Amel-Marduk], Babylonian Emperor 562-560 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------note: Evil-Merodach [Amel-Marduk], Babylonian Emperor 562-560 =1 [name]; =2 [name], a Jewish princess, widow of Shealtiel, captive royal Jewish heir, & mother of Zerubabel, post-exilic royal Jewish heir issue by 1: (72a) Indu (dau), (72b) Amytis (dau), [1st] wife of Sheshbazzar, a.k.a. Zerubabel, royal Jewish prince (72c) Kati (dau) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------issue of 2: (2)/(71b) Kash[sh]aya (dau), wife of Neriglissar [Nergal-shar-usur], Babylonian Emperor 560-556, &, mother of (72a) Labash-Marduk, Babylonian Emperor 556, and, two daus, namely: (72b) Gigitum [wife of Nabu-shuma-ukin, a Babylonian prince] & (72c) Amytis [one of the wives of CYRUS [II] THE GREAT, 1st Shah of Persia, &, mother of his daughter, Atossa] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------issue of 3: (3)/(71c) Neitaqert (Nitocris) (daughter), wife of Nabonidus [Nabu-Na'id], Babylonian Emperor ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------71. Neitaqert (Nitocris) (above) = Nabonidus [Nabu-Na'id], Babylonian Emperor 556-539 (above) issue:

34

(1)/(72a) Belshazzar, last Babylonian Emperor 539BC, father of a son [name], claimant 539BC, father of Bel-simanni, claimant 528BC, father of Samas-eriba, claimant 482BC, last Babylonian prince (2)/(72b) Nidintu-Bel [Nabu-kudurri-usur], claimant 522 (below) (3)/(72c) Bel-shalti-nanna (dau), married a Persian prince (4)/(72d) Akabu-uzama (dau), married a Persian prince (5)/(72e) Ina-esagila-ma (dau), married a Persian prince 72. Nidintu-Bel [Nabu-kudurri-usur], Nebuchadnezzar III = [name], dau of ... 73. Nebuchadnezzar [IV], claimant 521 (ex 519) = [name], dau of ... 74. Andria [Andia], the Babylonian heiress = Artaxerxes I, Shah of Persia 465-425/4, his 4th wife 75. Parysatis (dau) = Darius II "Nothus", Shah of Persia 423-404 [her half-bro] 76. Artaxerxes II, Shah of Persia 404-359 = Aspasia [his 4th wife] 77. Apama (dau) = Pharnabazus, Satrap of Daskalytis (d387/374) 78. Amastris (dau) = Spitamenes, Satrap of Bactria 79. Apama (dau) = Seleucus I, King of Syria 312/305-282/280 [his 1st wife] 80. Achaeus [Achaios], prince (d267) = Aesopia, nat. dau of ALEXANDER [III] "THE GREAT" of Macedon-Greece by Barsine, dau of Artabazus, Satrap of Bithynia (d325) 81. Alexander [V], governor of Sardis, claimant to grandfather's empire (d243) = Nysas 82. Athena, sis of Philip [V], claimant 232BC vs Demetrius II of Greece = Agathocles of Megalopolis 83. Alexander [VI], claimant (d192) vs Philip V of Greece = Apama 84. Apama, sis of Philip [VI], claimant 192BC vs Philip V of Greece = Amynandros of Athamanie (d189) 35 claimant 522 (above), styled self as

85. Alexander [VII], claimant (d145) = Cleopatra of Commagne 86. Cleopatra = Mithradates VI "The Great", King of Pontus 121-63BC 87. Cleopatra = Tigranes II "The Great", King of Armenia 95-56 88. daughter = Mithradates III, King of Parthia 57-55BC 89. Ariobarzanes of Atropatene = daughter of Castor I Tarcondarius, King of Galatia (d42), &, wife, daughter of Seiotarus, King of Galatia & Pontus, &, wife, Stratonice, daughter of Mithradates VI "The Great", King of Pontus (above), &, wife, Antiochis, daughter of Attalus II "Philadelphus", King of Pergamum, &, wife, Stratonice, daughter of Ariarathes IV, King of Cappadocia 90. Artavasdes, Prince of Atropatene, d20BC = daughter of Antiochus I, King of Commagene, &, wife, Isias Philostorgos 91. Darius, Prince of Atropatene, d10BC = daughter of Phraates IV, King of Parthia 92. Vonones II, King of Parthia 10BC-AD51 93. Vologasus I, King of Parthia AD 51-77 = X of Armenia 94. Meherdates, Prince (d76) = Awde, daughter of Mannos VI, King of Osrhoene, &, wife, daughter of King Izates II of Adiabene 95. Sanatruces I, King of Armenia 114-117 96. Vologasus I, King of Armenia 117-140 97. Ghadana = Parsman II [Pharasmenes] "Kveli", King of Iberia [Georgia] 113-122? [or 116-132] 98. Rhadamist[us] [Adam], King of Iberia 122/9-132/5 99. P'arsman III, King of Iberia 132/5-182/5 100. daughter = Vologases II "The Great", King of Armenia 180-191, became Arsaces XXIX Vologases V/IV, "Great-King" of Parthia 191-208 101. Chosroes I "The Brave", King of Armenia 191-217 102. Tiridates III/II, King of Armenia 238-252 103. Chosroes II "The Valiant", King of Armenia 279-287 (d297) 36

= Alcathoe, daughter of Rhescuporis IV, King of Bosphorus [Ukraine] 104. Tiridates V/IV [Tiran[es] "Helios"] "The Great", King of Armenia 298-330, = Ashken, daughter of Ashkhadar, King of the Osseti [Assyrians] 105. Chosroes III "The Short", King of Armenia 330-6, 337-9 106. Bambishen = Athenogenes (At'anakines), Prince Suren-Pahlav (d353) 107. St. Narses "The Great", Primate of Armenia, Prince of the Gregorids (d373) = Sandukht, daughter of Vardan I, Prince of the Mamikonids 108. St. Sahak [Isaac] "The Great", Prince/Primate, d438 109. Sahakanoysh, the Gregoridan heiress = Hamazasp I, Prince of the Mamikonids, High-Constable of Armenia 387-432 [note: the Mamikonids descended from Mancaeus, an exiled Chinese prince, who defended Tigranocerta from the Romans in 69BC, and, through him, from ancient Chinese emperors] 110. St. Hmayeak, a general (d451) = Dzovik, daughter of Vram Artsruni 111. Vard, Marzpan [Governor] of Armenia 505-509/514 112. Hmayeak (Hmaycek), Prince, d555 113. Mousegh I, Governor of Armenia 591-593 114. Vahan II "Le Loup", Governor of Armenia 593-606 115. David, Prince of Taron, d620 116. Hamazasp III, Governor of Armenia 656-661 = daughter of Theodor Rshtuni 117. Hrahat, Prince, d732 118. David, Prince, d744 119. Samuel II, Governor of Armenia 755-772 120. Dzovik = Smbat VII [II/IV/VI], Prince of the Bagratids, High-Constable of Armenia 761-773 [note: the Bagratids claimed descent from ancient Jewish royalty, i.e., Israels Davidic Dynasty] 121. Ashot IV "The Carnivore", Prince of Armenia 806-826 122. Smbat VIII [III], High-Constable of Armenia 826-855, d862/7 = Eirene, dau of Bardas (d866), bro of Theodora, wife of Byzantine Emperor Theophilos 123. Ashot V & I "The Great", Prince 856, then, King of Armenia 884/5-890 124. Sofie = Grigor-Derenik Artsruni, Prince of Vaspurakan 857-868 & 874-886 37

[note: the Artsrunis claimed descent from ancient Assyrian royalty, as per 2 Kings 19:37] 125. Gagik II [Khatchik-Gagik], King of Vaspurakan 903-936 (d943) = Melike, daughter of Grigor Abul-Hamza, Prince Artsruni 126. Abusahl-Hamazasp III, King of Vaspurakan 953-972 = Gaday 127. Sennacherib-John, King of Vaspurakan 1003-21 (d1027) = Khoshush, dau of Gagik I of Armenia & Kotramide, dau of Vasak VII of Siounie 128. Marie = Giorgi I, King of Georgia 1014-1027 [his 1st =] 129. Bagrat IV, King of Georgia 1027-1072 = Borena of Ossetia 130. Giorgi II, King of Georgia 1072-1089 = Helene 131. David IV "The Builder", King of Georgia 1089-1125 = Rusudan of Armenia 132. Rusudan = David of Ossetia, son of Athom, King of Ossetia 133. Aspae = George Palaeologus (d1167) 134. Irene = Isaac [John], Prince (d1174) [his 2nd =], son of Byzantine Emperor John II 135. Theodora (d1183) = Byzantine Emperor Andronicus I [his 3rd =] 136. Irene = Isaac II, Byzantine Emperor 1185-95 & 1203-4 137. Irene = Philip of Swabia, Holy Roman Emperor 1198-1208 HRE Henry II -Maria Swabia Robert I Count of Artois Maud Brabant Edmund King of Sicily- Blanche of Artois Henry Plantagenet- Maud Chatworth Eleanor of Lancaster-Richard HatFritz Alan Richard Fritz Alan- Elizabeth de Bohun Elizabeth Fritz Alan Robert Goushil Robert Wingfield 1403-1451 Elizabeth Goushill 1402-1453 Henry Wingfield 1434-1493 Elizabeth Rowles 1450-1494 38

Robert Wingfield 1490-1575 Majory Quarles 1502-1574 Robert Wingfield 1532/34-1575 Elizabeth Cecil 1542-1611 Adam Claypoole 1565-1634 Dorothy Wingfield 1566-1619 John Claypoole 1595-1664 Marie Angell James Claypoole 1634-1687 Helen Mercer Joseph Claypoole 1677-1744 Rebecca Jennings Joseph Claypoole 1709-1784 Ann Griffin John Bishop Mary Ann Claypoole 1748-1795 James Bishop Chloe Lake Aquilla Bishop 1790- 1839 Isabel Anne Henshaw Michael Franklin Cunningham 1859 Lulu Bishop Russell Cuningham 1894 Claire Mac Arthur 1892 Ronald Cunningham 1928 Virginia Grendahl 1927 Michael Cunningham 1951 Carolyn Despain 1951

Family Back To Cyrus The Great Cyrus the Great m Cassandane Darius I the Great m Atossa (daughter of Cyrus) Xerxes I the Great m Amestris 74. Andria [Andia], the Babylonian heiress = Artaxerxes I, Shah of Persia 465-425/4, his 4th wife 75. Parysatis (dau) = Darius II "Nothus", Shah of Persia 423-404 [her half-bro] 76. Artaxerxes II, Shah of Persia 404-359 = Aspasia [his 4th wife] 77. Apama (dau) = Pharnabazus, Satrap of Daskalytis (d387/374) 78. Amastris (dau) = Spitamenes, Satrap of Bactria 79. Apama (dau) = Seleucus I, King of Syria 312/305-282/280 [his 1st wife] 80. Achaeus [Achaios], prince (d267) = Aesopia, nat. dau of ALEXANDER [III] "THE GREAT" of Macedon-Greece by Barsine, dau of Artabazus, Satrap of Bithynia (d325) 81. Alexander [V], governor of Sardis, claimant to grandfather's empire (d243) = Nysas 82. Athena, sis of Philip [V], claimant 232BC vs Demetrius II of Greece 39

= Agathocles of Megalopolis 83. Alexander [VI], claimant (d192) vs Philip V of Greece = Apama 84. Apama, sis of Philip [VI], claimant 192BC vs Philip V of Greece = Amynandros of Athamanie (d189) 85. Alexander [VII], claimant (d145) = Cleopatra of Commagne 86. Cleopatra = Mithradates VI "The Great", King of Pontus 121-63BC 87. Cleopatra = Tigranes II "The Great", King of Armenia 95-56 88. daughter = Mithradates III, King of Parthia 57-55BC 89. Ariobarzanes of Atropatene = daughter of Castor I Tarcondarius, King of Galatia (d42), &, wife, daughter of Seiotarus, King of Galatia & Pontus, &, wife, Stratonice, daughter of Mithradates VI "The Great", King of Pontus (above), &, wife, Antiochis, daughter of Attalus II "Philadelphus", King of Pergamum, &, wife, Stratonice, daughter of Ariarathes IV, King of Cappadocia 90. Artavasdes, Prince of Atropatene, d20BC = daughter of Antiochus I, King of Commagene, &, wife, Isias Philostorgos 91. Darius, Prince of Atropatene, d10BC = daughter of Phraates IV, King of Parthia 92. Vonones II, King of Parthia 10BC-AD51 93. Vologasus I, King of Parthia AD 51-77 = X of Armenia 94. Meherdates, Prince (d76) = Awde, daughter of Mannos VI, King of Osrhoene, &, wife, daughter of King Izates II of Adiabene 95. Sanatruces I, King of Armenia 114-117 96. Vologasus I, King of Armenia 117-140 97. Ghadana = Parsman II [Pharasmenes] "Kveli", King of Iberia [Georgia] 113-122? [or 116-132] 98. Rhadamist[us] [Adam], King of Iberia 122/9-132/5 99. P'arsman III, King of Iberia 132/5-182/5 100. daughter 40

= Vologases II "The Great", King of Armenia 180-191, became Arsaces XXIX Vologases V/IV, "Great-King" of Parthia 191-208 101. Chosroes I "The Brave", King of Armenia 191-217 102. Tiridates III/II, King of Armenia 238-252 103. Chosroes II "The Valiant", King of Armenia 279-287 (d297) = Alcathoe, daughter of Rhescuporis IV, King of Bosphorus [Ukraine] 104. Tiridates V/IV [Tiran[es] "Helios"] "The Great", King of Armenia 298-330, = Ashken, daughter of Ashkhadar, King of the Osseti [Assyrians] 105. Chosroes III "The Short", King of Armenia 330-6, 337-9 106. Bambishen = Athenogenes (At'anakines), Prince Suren-Pahlav (d353) 107. St. Narses "The Great", Primate of Armenia, Prince of the Gregorids (d373) = Sandukht, daughter of Vardan I, Prince of the Mamikonids 108. St. Sahak [Isaac] "The Great", Prince/Primate, d438 109. Sahakanoysh, the Gregoridan heiress = Hamazasp I, Prince of the Mamikonids, High-Constable of Armenia 387-432 [note: the Mamikonids descended from Mancaeus, an exiled Chinese prince, who defended Tigranocerta from the Romans in 69BC, and, through him, from ancient Chinese emperors] 110. St. Hmayeak, a general (d451) = Dzovik, daughter of Vram Artsruni 111. Vard, Marzpan [Governor] of Armenia 505-509/514 112. Hmayeak (Hmaycek), Prince, d555 113. Mousegh I, Governor of Armenia 591-593 114. Vahan II "Le Loup", Governor of Armenia 593-606 115. David, Prince of Taron, d620 116. Hamazasp III, Governor of Armenia 656-661 = daughter of Theodor Rshtuni 117. Hrahat, Prince, d732 118. David, Prince, d744 119. Samuel II, Governor of Armenia 755-772 120. Dzovik = Smbat VII [II/IV/VI], Prince of the Bagratids, High-Constable of Armenia 761-773 [note: the Bagratids claimed descent from ancient Jewish royalty, i.e., Israels Davidic Dynasty] 121. Ashot IV "The Carnivore", Prince of Armenia 806-826 41

122. Smbat VIII [III], High-Constable of Armenia 826-855, d862/7 = Eirene, dau of Bardas (d866), bro of Theodora, wife of Byzantine Emperor Theophilos 123. Ashot V & I "The Great", Prince 856, then, King of Armenia 884/5-890 124. Sofie = Grigor-Derenik Artsruni, Prince of Vaspurakan 857-868 & 874-886 [note: the Artsrunis claimed descent from ancient Assyrian royalty, as per 2 Kings 19:37] 125. Gagik II [Khatchik-Gagik], King of Vaspurakan 903-936 (d943) = Melike, daughter of Grigor Abul-Hamza, Prince Artsruni 126. Abusahl-Hamazasp III, King of Vaspurakan 953-972 = Gaday 127. Sennacherib-John, King of Vaspurakan 1003-21 (d1027) = Khoshush, dau of Gagik I of Armenia & Kotramide, dau of Vasak VII of Siounie 128. Marie = Giorgi I, King of Georgia 1014-1027 [his 1st =] 129. Bagrat IV, King of Georgia 1027-1072 = Borena of Ossetia 130. Giorgi II, King of Georgia 1072-1089 = Helene 131. David IV "The Builder", King of Georgia 1089-1125 = Rusudan of Armenia 132. Rusudan = David of Ossetia, son of Athom, King of Ossetia 133. Aspae = George Palaeologus (d1167) 134. Irene = Isaac [John], Prince (d1174) [his 2nd =], son of Byzantine Emperor John II 135. Theodora (d1183) = Byzantine Emperor Andronicus I [his 3rd =] 136. Irene = Isaac II, Byzantine Emperor 1185-95 & 1203-4 137. Irene = Philip of Swabia, Holy Roman Emperor 1198-1208 HRE Henry II -Maria Swabia Robert I Count of Artois Maud Brabant 42

Edmund King of Sicily- Blanche of Artois Henry Plantagenet- Maud Chatworth Eleanor of Lancaster-Richard HatFritz Alan Richard Fritz Alan- Elizabeth de Bohun Elizabeth Fritz Alan Robert Goushil Robert Wingfield 1403-1451 Elizabeth Goushill 1402-1453 Henry Wingfield 1434-1493 Elizabeth Rowles 1450-1494 Robert Wingfield 1490-1575 Majory Quarles 1502-1574 Robert Wingfield 1532/34-1575 Elizabeth Cecil 1542-1611 Adam Claypoole 1565-1634 Dorothy Wingfield 1566-1619 John Claypoole 1595-1664 Marie Angell James Claypoole 1634-1687 Helen Mercer Joseph Claypoole 1677-1744 Rebecca Jennings Joseph Claypoole 1709-1784 Ann Griffin John Bishop Mary Ann Claypoole 1748-1795 James Bishop Chloe Lake Aquilla Bishop 1790- 1839 Isabel Anne Henshaw Michael Franklin Cunningham 1859 Lulu Bishop Russell Cuningham 1894 Claire Mac Arthur 1892 Ronald Cunningham 1928 Virginia Grendahl 1927 Michael Cunningham 1951 Carolyn Despain 1951

43

Family Back To Antiochus IV Epiphanes, King of Syria /Archelaus /Archelaus, High Priest of Comana | | /Ariobarzanes, King of Pont ==> | | /Mithradates II, King of Pont | | /Pharnaces I, King of Pont | | | | /Antiochus II Theos, King of Syria ==> | | | \Laodice | | | \Laodice ==> | | /Mithridates V, King of Pont | | | | /Antiochus II Theos, King of Syria ==> | | | | /Seleucus II Callincus, King of Syria | | | | | \Laodice ==> | | | | /Antiochus III, King of Syria | | | | | | /Achaios, Prince of Syria ==>* | | | | | | /Andromachos, General of Syria | | | | | | | \(__) ==>* | | | | | \Laodice | | | \Nysa | | | | /Ariobarzanes, King of Pont ==> | | | | /Mithradates II, King of Pont | | | \Laodice | | | | /Antiochus II Theos, King of Syria ==> | | | \Laodice | | | \Laodice ==> | | /Mithradates VI Eupator Dionysius, King of Pont | | | | /Antiochus II Theos, King of Syria ==> | | | | /Seleucus II Callincus, King of Syria | | | | | \Laodice ==> | | | | /Antiochus III, King of Syria 44

| | | ==>* | | | | | | ==>* | | | | | | | | | ==> | | | | | | | | | ==> | | | | | | ==> | | | | | | | \(__) Archelaus,

| | | | | | | | | | |

| | |

| | |

/Achaios, Prince of Syria /Andromachos, General of Syria | \(__)

| \Laodice /Antiochus IV Epiphanes, King of Syria | | /Ariobarzanes, King of Pont | | | | | | /Mithradates II, King of Pont \Laodice | /Antiochus II Theos, King of Syria \Laodice \Laodice

\Laodice \Laodice High Priest of Comana

45

King Back ThroughKhosrov I King Of Armenia Alexander To Antiochus IV

/(Dareios) Of Medie b: /Vononnes II King Of Persia b: | \(Unk Dau) Of Persia

35 BC => 10 BC d: 51 b: 30 BC => 77 72 Adiabene b: 25 BC d: 36 => 5 AD d: 60 => Characene b: 20 BC d: After 21 | | | | |

/Vologaises I King Of Persia b: 25 d: /Mithridates King Of Armenia b: Abt 45 d: Abt | | | /Monobazos I King Of /Izates II King Of Adiabene b: | \Helene b: 15 BC d: 60

\(Unk Dau) Of Adiabene b: 30 | /Abinerglos King Of

| \Symmacho b: 5 AD /Sanatroukes King Of Armenia b: 65 d: 110 | | /Mannos III Safelou King Of Osrhoene b: 45 BC d: 4 BC | | /Abgar V Oukhama King Of Osrhoene b: 25 BC d: 50 | | /Mannos VI King Of Osrhoene b: 15 d: 71 | | | | /Mithridates b: 35 BC d: 49 => | | | \Shalmath b: 10 BC | \Awde Of Osrhoene b: Abt 45 | | / b: Abt 40 BC d: Abt 7 BC => | | /Alexander b: Abt 15 BC d: Abt 26 | | | \Glaphyra => | \(Unk Dau) Of Judea /Vologaises I Artaxias King Of Parthia And Armenia b: 95 d: 147 | \(Unk) /Vologaesh IV Peroz King Of Parthia d: 191 | \Satinik Of The Ossetian Alans /Vologaeses V Dikaios Epiphanes Philhellen, King Of Persia b: 130 d: 208 Khosrov I King Of Armenia b: 165 d: 216 | /Kartam | /Pharasmenes I King Of Iberia d: 58 | | \(Unk Dau) => | /Mithradates I King Of Iberia d: 106

46

| /Amazaspus I King Of Iberia d: 116 | /Pharasmanes II King Of Iberia d: 132 | /Radamistus King Of Iberia d: 135 | | | /Vononnes II King Of Persia b: 10 BC d: 51 => | | | /Vologaises I King Of Persia b: 25 d: 77 | | | /Mithridates King Of Armenia b: Abt 45 d: Abt 72 | | | | | /Izates II King Of Adiabene b: 5 AD d: 60 => | | | | \(Unk Dau) Of Adiabene b: 30 | | | | \Symmacho b: 5 AD => | | | /Sanatroukes King Of Armenia b: 65 d: 110 | | | | | /Abgar V Oukhama King Of Osrhoene b: 25 BC d: 50 => | | | | | /Mannos VI King Of Osrhoene b: 15 d: 71 | | | | | | \Shalmath b: 10 BC => | | | | \Awde Of Osrhoene b: Abt 45 | | | | | /Alexander b: Abt 15 BC d: Abt 26 => | | | | \(Unk Dau) Of Judea | | \Ghadana Of Armenia b: 100 | | \(Unk) | /Pharasmenes III King Of Iberia d: 185 \(Unk Dau)

47

Bibliography
Armenian Apostolic Church, New York City, New York, 2012 California State University- Northridge Library, 2012, https://www.csun.edu/ Cannon of the Bible, http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm, 2012 Catholic Bible On Line, 2011, www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=20 Catholic Encyclopedia, www.catholicencyclopedia.com, 2012 Binz, Stephen J. Introduction to the Bible: A Catholic Guide to Studying Scripture. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2007. Fischer, James A. Interpreting the Bible: A Simple Introduction. New York: Paulist Press, 1996. Glanville Downey, Ancient Antioch (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1963 Lactantius, De Mort. Pers., ch. 48. opera, ed. 0. F. Fritzsche, II, p 288 sq. (Bibl Patr. Ecc. Lat. XI Mueller, Steve. The Seeker's Guide to Reading the Bible: A Catholic View. Chicago: Loyola Press, 1999. Murdy, Kay. What Every Catholic Needs to Know About the Bible: A Parish Guide to Bible Study. San Jose: Resource Publications, 2004. Nutting-Ralph, Margaret. Scripture: Nourished by the Word. Chicago: Loyola Press, 2002. St. Mary's Press. Understanding the Bible: A Guide to Reading the Scriptures. Winona: MN, 2008. Montague, George T. Understanding the Bible: A Basic Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Revised & expanded edition. New York: Paulist Press, 2007. Miller, John W. How the Bible Came to Be: Exploring the Narrative and Message. New York: Paulist Press, 2004. Scared Texts. com, 2012 The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies, 2011, http://www.cais-soas.com/ The Seven Ecumenical Councils - The Nicene Creed and Creeds of Christendom: The Nicene Creed Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2012 Valentine, Thomas Ross, History of Filioque, http://aggreen.net/filioque/filioque.html, 2012.

48

49