علم الأديان المقارن

A new attempt in studying the text

This attempt starts where Scholar Abdul Ahad has finished, i.e. the third interpretation - that the word ()"Shiloh" is a corrupted version of() "Shaluha".

And from the word ()"yeqhath", meaning "to obey", there could be another distortion of the word() "yeqwah", meaning, "expects, awaits". Prof. Abdul Ahad preferred to overlook examining the meaning of the word "yeqhath".

The Arabic translation of the original latin Text

There is an Arabic translation 21, printed in 1753, at Malak Rotelli, the text there tallied with the third interpretation which Abdul ahad offered,i.e word ()Shelwoh is acorruption of the word Shelloh (Messenger), it has also come in in line with the second possible interpretation, i.e �Yagwah� meaning (waiting), to which he did not pay much attention.

In page 66-67, we found the quotation as follows: -

�The sceptre shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh till he come that is to be sent, and shall be the expectation of nations�

what he ment by the �that is to be sent� is the would � be messanger or awaited messanger

this forgotten arabic translation is aleteral translation of the latin one that has been adopted by the Catholic Church, it is best known by the latin vulgate it was translated from the hebrew by Eusebis Hieronymus, known as Jerome, 340-420 c.e ,at the request of pope Damasus.

St. Jerome was a renowned scholar in his time. He finished the translation around 383 C.E. He later completed new Latin translations from the Psalms and the Book of Job and wrote many letters, treatises and commentaries on the Bible. In his translation, he initially relied on the Greek translation, known as Septuagint (2). But, having realized that it was a liberal translation highlighting the meaning per se, he decided to make the translation from the original source language, i.e. Hebrew. He enlisted the help of some Jewish professors in that task. (3). Having moved to Palestine in 386 C.E., he started making the translation in Bethlehem in the year 390 C.E. and finished it in 405 C.E. (4), that is, almost two centuries before the advent of Prophet Mohammad, and four centuries after the ministry of Jesus.

The Latin text in the Vulate reads thus:

Non auferturn sceptrum de Juda, et dux de femore ejus donec veniat qui mittendus est erit expectatio gentium, et ipce. (5),

meaning, �The sceptre shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh till he come that is to be sent, and shall be the expectation of nations�.

It is rather strange that Prof. Abdul Ahad was not aware of the existence of this text, despite the fact that he was aware of the Vulgate, having mentioned it in his book in more than one place.

However, to facilitate the study of the text, we are dividing it into two segments:

a. The scepter shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh,(Non auferturn sceptrum de Juda. dux de femore ejus).

b. Till he comes that is to be sent, (donec veniat qui mittendus est).

and shall be the expectation of nations, (et ipce erit expectatio gentium).

We prefer to start with segment (b), going back to segment (a) later in this study.

Segment (b) of the Text

"Till he come that is to be sent , and shall be the expectation of nations"

It has been mentioned that St. Jerome, the translator of the Vulgate, adopted the Hebrew text as a source for his translation. It then follows (6) that the text in question should have read in Hebrew, thus:

Ad ki yavoo shalooh walow yekwa ameem., meaning:

Until the (awaited) messenger comes whom the peoples await.


��	��	��	��	��	��
��	��	�� (��)	��	��	��

However, what is found in the present day copies of the Hebrew Torah is this:

Ad ki yavoo shiloh walow yeqhet ameem, meaning:Until shiloh comes and to whom the peoples shall submit.


��	��	��	��	��	��
��	��	��	��	��	��

The words that are the bone of contention are, first () "shaluha" that has been deliberately misrepresented to read () "shiloh" in the Hebrew Torah, and second () "yiqwa" that has been changed into () "yeqhath", as is evident from the above-mentioned translation ().

The questions here are:

1. Did St. Jerome make the translation in tune with a particular reading, he preferred?, Or

2. The copy of the Torah he relied on in his translation was unusual, or non-canonical, version? Or could it be that:

3. The prevailing reading of the original Hebrew text, at his time, was thus, and had been tampered with later on?

These three possibilities, we are going to try to examine, thus:

Invalidity of the first and second assumptions

Given the task that was entrusted to St Jerome, i.e. make a direct and literal translation of the Holy Book from the original Hebrew, discarding the Greek Septuagint - that was a liberal translation, there is no alternative but to rule out the first and second assumptions.

The nature of the task St. Jerome had shouldered, dictated on him not to rely on any non-canonical version that might have been adopted by a small Jewish sect, nor should he have relied on a particular mode of reading.

Furthermore, had he different versions, the importance of his task would have made it incumbent on him to make reference to such differences; this is a common practice among the scribes, let alone the translators. This would not have escaped the attention of an outstanding scholar such as St. Jerome.

The preponderance of the third assumption

This assumption lends support to the fact that St. Jerome was translating a mode of reading/version that was authoritative, widespread and common, and not a version that was rare and limited to the followers of a particular Jewish sect.

Another aspect that could augment the argument for this assumption is the fact that the Hebrew Torah that St. Jerome translated was not any copy he secretly acquired from a Jewish school in Palestine. Rather, he got it from the Jewish rabbis from whom he learnt Hebrew and the reading of Hebrew texts.

However, at his time, St. Jerome's translation did not escape criticism for the differences between the text he offered and the Latin one that was originally translated from the Greek text that was prevalent then.

Should those differences have stemmed from his espousal of a non-canonical version, it would have constituted a big hurdle before the spread of his translation.

Indeed, the differences were as a result of his shunning of The Septuagint translation, which was, on many counts, a liberal one. That is why his translation found acceptance in the Christian World in the West; and subsequently, all objections levelled against it withered away, hence the high regard and authoritativeness the Roman Church lent to his translation in a very short space of time. (8).

It continued to be the case with the Catholic Church till the present day, despite the fact that other translations, based on the originals of both the Greek and Hebrew texts. (9).

In the light of the above, we can deduce that:

The version of the Hebrew Torah in circulation nowadays is the corrupted one, as opposed to the Hebrew version, St. Jerome based his translation on. Most probably, the tampering with the correct version took place after the time of St. Jerome, i.e. after the fifth century of the Christian Era.

The researcher is faced with two questions:

1. Is there anything in the other translations, which may lend support to The Vulgate?

2. What had happened which may have made the Jews, in their entirety, adopt the process of corrupting the text and making the distorted version widely available, and deliberately concealing and destroying the somehow correct versions?

The answer to the first question:

The answer to the first question is in the affirmative, since it is the most logical one, in that both the Septuagint and the Peschitta completely conform to St. Jerome's translation in the second part of the paragraph in question.

As for the Septuagint, the Greek text reads thus:

ewz an elo ta apokeimna autw,
kai autoz prosdokia�e tnon�.

Its English translation reads thus:

Until there come the things stored up for him ,
and he is the expectation of the nations .

It then follows that the Hebrew Torah that was in circulation during the third century, on which the Septuagint translation was then based, contained the word, ()"Yeqwah", meaning "expect" and not the word, "Yeqhath", meaning, "gather".

The Peschetta Syriac text reads thus:

The English translation reads thus:

Until the coming of the one to whom the sceptre belong , the Gentiles shall look forword�(10) .

What is not a matter of difference is that the Peschitta is older that the Vulgate. It, therefore, could not have translated from it. It has been said that the Peschitta was translated from a Hebrew text (12), or from a Greek one. Whatever the case may be, this leads to one conclusion only, i.e. the Hebrew Torah from which the Peschitta did contain the word �yeqwah�(), meaning �wait�, and not �yeqhat�(), meaning �gather�. This discovery logically points to the fact that the distortion in the Hebrew version to �yeqhat� ()happened after the time of St. Jerome too.

Answering the second question

The most important event, after the era of St. Jerome, both the Jewish and Christian communities witnessed was the mission of Prophet Mohammad. It is an historic fact that the Jews of Medina were, at the start of the mission and before changing the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Ka�ba in Mecca, supportive of the Prophet and mentioning the testimony, in their Book, in evidence of his prophethood. In support of the Prophet against the position of his people, Quraish, the Holy Qur�an, armed with this authoritative evidence, rejected the position of Quraish, �Is it not a sign to them that the learned men of the Israelites know it?� (26/197)

After the flight of the Prophet from Mecca to Medina, and the change of the direction of prayer, the Jews changed their allegiance and aligned themselves with Quraish in their war against the Prophet of Islam.

The Holy Qur�an did not leave them alone. It exposed their historical plunders, laying bear their transgression against the Torah, which they distorted, in yester times and at the time of the foretold Prophet whom they were awaiting and were giving good tidings on his coming, �Those whom We have given the Book recognize him as they recognize their sons, and a party of them most surely conceal the truth while they know (it)�. (2/146). �But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard; they altered the words from their places and they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others)�. (5/13). (12)

In such ideological and political climate, it is natural that the independent researcher, let alone a Muslim one, would direct their scepticism towards those Jews who migrated to Tiberies and who, having supporting the prophethood of Mohammad earlier on, waged war against it with the sword and pen later.

The Torah text now in circulation

That which lends support to the researcher is the statements of some regarding the date of the Torah text, which carry diacritical marks, had appeared after the mission of the Prophet, not before it.

The following has been mentioned in the introduction to the French translation of the Holy Book:

The phrase, �Massoritic Text� is given on the wording that was officially adopted by the Jewish faith around the 10^th Century of the Christian Era. That was at the time when the Massoris, of the family of Ben Asheer, prospered in Tiberias - a city in Palestine, on the Western Shore of the Sea of Galilee.

The oldest surviving Massorah dates back to between 820 and 850 C.E. It is in Hebrew only.

The oldest complete manuscript, known as the Aleppo Manuscript, was scribed on the early years of the 10^th Christian Century (13).

The Hebrew Holy Book, in circulation now, has been based on the edition published in Venice in 1524, scribed by Jacob Ben Heim.

There is often the case for ambiguity surrounding in the texts, because written Hebrew is often prone to neglecting the diacritical marks. It was only in the 7^th Century (14) linguists were successful in devising an unambiguous way to write these marks, and demarcations were introduced to indicate the boundaries between the sentences � by way of dots and lines.

That was how a mode of reading and interpretation found its way to Judaism during the first millennium of the Christian Era. This is borne by the fact of the Targum, i.e. the Aramaic interpretations of the Hebrew Holy Book. (15).

The Result of Research into para. (b)

The conclusion Scholar Abdul Ahad put forward that the corruption of the word �Shiloh�, from �the messenger�, mentioned in Genesis 49/10 to �that belongs to� had occurred inadvertently by one of the scribes, is not correct. The evidence points to the other direction, i.e. the rabbinical establishment at the time of Prophet Mohammad, out of transgression and envy, deliberately embarked on the distortion. The text of the Latin Vulgate, that had been translated from the Hebrew Torah, before the ministry of Mohammad, is among the most important proofs. Among other proofs is the corruption of the word() �Yeqwa� in the same text, which means �waits� to() �Yeqheth�, meaning, �gather� as is the case in the Greek Septuagint, and the Syriac Peschitta. Of other proofs is Massorah, a collection of philological notes on the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. It was first an oral tradition, but was committed to writing in the Aramaic language in Palestine between the 6^th and 9^th centuries, i.e. after the advent of Islam.

What made Prof. Abdul Ahad do such a mistake is the fact that he was not aware of the text in the Vulgate and that evidence. And what made the Christian not to follow in the footsteps of the Jews in distorting the text is their belief that it talks about the message of Jesus Christ.

Hereunder is an illustration of the above:

A comparison of paragraph (b) between the different translations and the Hebrew text:

� Vulgate: Until he come that is to be sent and shall be the expectation of nations.

� Septuagint: Until the one, to whom things have been preserved, comes, and to whom the people look forward.

� Peschitta: Until the one, to whom it belongs, comes and to whom the people look forward.

� Massorah: Until the one, to whom it belongs, comes and to whom the people gather together.

�� (�) �� ��
Vulgate ��	Donec veniat qui mittendus est ��	et ipce erit expectatio gentium �� .
Septuagint ��	ewz an elo ta apokeimna autw ��	kai autoz prosdokia e tnon �� .
Peschitta ��	��	�� .
Massoretic text ��	��	�� .

Paragraph (a) of the text:

() �The sceptre will not depart Judah, or a lawgiver from between his feet�.


��	��	��	��	��	��
��	��	��	��	��	��

Some Jewish commentators say that the phrase, �or a lawgiver from between his feet�, does not mean a lawgiver from the offspring of Judah; rather, a lawgiver that is subservient to Judah.

This interpretation is reflected in another translation thus:

�The mace will not depart Judah, or the power sceptre from between his feet�.

The dispute involves the word() �imhuqqaq� mentioned in the Hebrew text. The Peschitta translated it into �lawgiver�

The Rabbis translated it into �scholar� (16) and �legislator�(17).

St. Jerome translated it into �dux� and �ruler�.

The Septuagint translated it into �leader�

The root of the word is() �haqaq�, meaning, �to make a law�; one of its derivatives is ()�hoq�, meaning �law�, ()�huqqa�, meaning, �constitution�, �law�, and ()�hqeiqa�, legislation, making law.

In this light, those who translated it into �lawgiver� are in the right.

The Hebrew origin of the phrase, "from between his feet" reads thus( ): Mebain rijlayo, which in turn translates into: offspring, progeny (18).

Another distortion of the text

There is a strong possibility that the name "Judah" in the text is a corruption of the name "Jacob". (19).

This is because in Judaism, the exegetes and interpreters of the Law are confined to the descendents of Aaron and thus they have to follow the tradition. According to this premise, some Torah exegetes tried to interpret the phrase,( ) "Mebain rijlayo" into "the lawgivers who obey him", i.e. to the king of Judah's descent, or "who follows his orders".

In this light, the text could read, "The mace will not depart Judah, nor a lawgiver sitting afoot (or following his orders)". This expression, however, does not assume that the lawgiver, mentioned in the text, of a Judaic descent. Yet, this interpretation is diametrically opposed to the apparent meaning of the phrase, and in contradiction to the Torah usage of it. Something similar has been mentioned in Deuteronomy 28/58,() "Mebain rijlayha", meaning the female reproductive organ; similarly, the phrase, ( )"Mebain rijlayo" means the male reproductive organ, metaphorically used for "offspring".

In their Targum, both Onkilos (sic) and Jonathan point to the same meaning, i.e. mentioned, "the children of his children". (21).

Should the case be thus, the original text purportsThat :�the dominion and the right to Law-making will not be taken away from the House of Jacob, until the messenger, who will be sent to the nations, comes�.

Eventually, the text shall be in line with historical context of the children of Israel, from the time of Jacob and Jesus Christ, as all the prophets and their vicegerents are of his descent. If, however, the name "Judah" were to be adopted, the text will run against the historical facts, unless we interpret it arbitrarily.

Studying the phrase, "The nations shall look forward to", a return to para (b)

According to the Jews and Christians, the word �nations� denotes: Nations who have no revealed books, i.e. non-monotheistic. (22).

The Theology Dictionary has this to say on the different connotations of the word "nations". (23):

According to the Old Testament, the human race is divided into two groups:

1. The people of God, �Am� in Hebrew and ( )in Greek. (24) This is the chosen and promised one.

2. The nations, �Joeem� in Hebrew and ()in Greek. They are the ones who do not know God, nor do they form part of the life of His people, i.e. �gentiles� (25).

However, the original Latin equivalent of "nations", that is mentioned in the Vulgate translation in its modern editions, is "gentium".

In the Latin dictionary - Latin Roman tongue, the word "gentium" means "foreigners". In the ecclesial liturgy, it describes non-Jews and non-Christians, i.e. "heathen" and "pagan". (26).

In the English translation of the Peschitta (27), printed in 1957, the word "gentiles" in the phrase under discussion thus: "To whom the gentiles shall look forward", which literally means, "To whom non-Jews shall look forward".

This clearly manifests that "Shiloh", in its Hebrew corrupted meaning - or "Sheloh", in its Samaritan corrupted meaning, or "Shalooha", i.e. "the messenger", as in the Latin Vulgate version - means, "Non-Jewish nations, as well as the Jews themselves, shall look forward to". As for the Jews' looking forward to him, this is clear from the text that made the mission of this messenger as a sign of the abolishment of the supremacy of the Israelite Law, in all its forms.

Insofar as the non-Jewish nations' waiting for him, this has been made abundantly clear in many a text, that he would come to them with a Law and a light from God.

Genesis 49/10, after the scrutiny:

In the light of the above-mentioned scrutiny, verse 10 of Chapter 49 of the Book of Genesis should read, "The sceptre shall not depart Jacob, and the interpreter of the Law of his descent, until the expected one to be sent come, and to whom non-Jewish nations look forward�.

The significance of the text after the scrutiny

There is no fundamental difference between the original and the corrupted texts insofar as the outcome is concerned, which points to: That religious sovereignty and the Law that should be adhered to among the Israelites shall abide until the awaited non-Israelite godly person, who will be sent by God, comes. When he comes, both the sovereignty and the Law will depart the House of Jacob and bequeathed to that person.

However, there is a difference between the two texts in two respects:

1. The corrupted text mentions Judah, whereas the assumed original, i.e. the uncorrupted one - according to our research, should have mentioned Jacob.

2. The original purports that the divine person, who will come sometime in the future, will be a God-promised messenger. The corrupted text is unequivocally bereft of this purport.

�� 3 �.� = 9 �� . prosdokia = ��	�� �� �� (�) (�� )� ��	��
�� 2 � .� = 4 �� . �� = ��
�� 4 � . � = 2 �� . Expectatio = ��
�� �� �� ��/13	�� �� �� (�) ��	��

��

�� (�3 �.�) �� (�2 �.�) �� (�) �� .
�� : �� 10 �� 49 �� (��).
�� (��) (��) �� (��) �� (��) (��) �� (��) .
�� .

Septuagint, translated from Hebrew, circa 3^rd century B.C., i.e. 9 centuries before Prophet Mohammad�s ministry. It is still in existence.

(???? Greek word???) = expect.

Peschitta, translated from Hebrew, circa 2^nd century C.E., i.e. 4 centuries before the Prophetic mission. It is still in circulation. ( ???? foreign word ???)= expect.

Vulgate, translated from Hebrew, circa 4^th century C.E., i.e. 2 centuries before the Prophetic mission, Expectatio = expect.

The Hebrew copy before the Mission of Prophet Mohammad. It is missing.

(???? Expect ???)

The Hebrew copy, after the Mission of Prophet Mohammad, till now.

(???? Gather ???)

�But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard: They change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the Message that was sent to them..� (5/13).

(???Another Square???)

The three old versions of the Old Testament, i.e. Septuagint, circa 3^rd century B.C, the Peschitta, circa 2^nd century C.E., and Vulgate, circa 4^th century C.E., were all translated from Hebrew before the Prophet Mohammad�s ministry, in several centuries.

What is found in these translations is that Verse 10, Chapter 49 of the Book of Genesis contains the word �expect�.

This means that the Hebrew version, which was available before, and at the advent of, the Prophetic mission contains the word �yiqwa�, meaning, �expect�. That is, it should be found in the Hebrew version in circulation after the advent of the Prophetic mission too. Yet, what is found, instead, is the word �yeqhath�, meaning, �gather�.

This is clear evidence that the literal distortion in the Hebrew text did, indeed, take place. However, whether the distortion was deliberate or due to an oversight, the research has proved that it was deliberate.

1. It can be found in the Library of the British Museum under the title, "Biblia Sacra Arabia", code number 3 b 4.

2. "Septuagint" is a Greek word whose literal translation is "the 70-strong" in reference to the seventy rabbis who translated the Torah in the third century BC. under the supervision of Ptolemy Philadelphia ()???.

3. Please look up the words "vulgate" and "Jerome" in Encyclopaedia Britannica.

4. You may refer to the Dictionary of the Bible. Also, The Interpreters Dictionary of Ancient Versions of the Bible.

5. Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament in the Original Tongues.

Also, you may consult both the Paris and London versions of 1645 and 1657 respectively. The British version's can be found in the Library of the British Museum under: Biblia Hexaglota MDCCLXXIV.

6. I should say though that this is according to the third assumption, which Abdul Ahad came up with. However, we have already explained that the word "messenger" can be found in other Hebrew forms stemming from the word ()"Shalah", i.e. ()"Meshleh" and() "Shleh". It also has equivalents such as ()(mubashir)()(seer) and others that all lead to the same result.

7. This interpretation has been supported by the Jewish researcher Samson H. Levy in his book, The Messiah, an Aramaic Interpretation, 1974, p.8, p.149.

8. The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible. And this is what the Dictionary of the Bible has to say of the Vulgate, " The Christian World shall remain greatly indebted to him, i.e. Jerome, for it, i.e. his translation".

9. The conclusion of both Jews and Christians in translating the Old Testament from Hebrew is one. This is because both of them have been under false impression that the Hebrew version is the oldest and that it is the original tongue of the Torah. However, the reason for this mistake will be made manifest.

10. The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts containing the Old and New Testaments, translated from the Peschitta, the authorised Bible of the Church of the East, by George M. Lasma, A.J. Holman Co., Philadelphia.

11. The Inerpreters Dcitionary of the Bible has this definition to offer for the word "Peschitta", �The Old Testament of the Peschitta, especially the first five Books, Pentateuch, may have been translated by Jews or Christians of Jewish origins. This opinion is formulated on the basis that the Peschitta text is very close to the Hebrew text and Targum Onkilos (sic).

12. Look up Encyclopaedia Judaica and the biographies of the Prophet, the conquest of Banu Quinaqa'.

13. This means that the original which gave rise to all contemporary versions of the Torah is an one that was written, in an Islamic climate, almost a century after the advent of Prophet Mohammad.

14. In other words, at the time of the Prophet's ministry. And according to the reports of the Holy Qur'an on the Jews of Madina, we are of the opinion that the tampering with the words was instigated by them and under their influence; in the 10th Century CE, i.e. some three centuries after the advent of Islam, a group of them went to Tiberias where they finalised and perpetuated the distortion by way of diacritical marks (Massorah).

15. Page 52 of the Introduction to the Holy Book, Darul Mashriq, 1991 where they confirm that it is borrowed from the French ecumenical translation of the Holy Book.

16. The Pentateuch. Reference could also be made to The Art Scroll Tanach Series, Vol. 1 (b).

17. The Living Torah. Reference could also be made to The Art Scroll Tanach Series, Vol. 1 (b)", where it is mentioned that the exegete Radak (sic) is of the opinion that() "Mahoqiq" was a descendant of the leaders who are lawgivers; he translated it to "teachers of the Law", i.e. the authors of the known Targum. You may consult: The Aramaic Bible, Vol. 1A, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis by Martin McNamara, Chapter 49 Notes, Note 24, p.220.

18. As in "the Living Torah and Pentateuch Torah", and also in "The Art Scroll Tanach Series, Vol. 1 (b)": For contemporary translators; and as had been translated by Onkilos (sic), "Neither a lawgiver among the children of his children", the Targum attributed to Jonathan, where he translated it into, "of his progeny" and others.

19. As far as I can judge, the distortion took place after the era of Solomon, whose descendants usurped power from those of the vicegerent of Solomon who was of an Aaron descent.

20. Commonly know as( Radak), an engraved word,( Rabi. David Kimchi).

The Art Scroll Tanach Series, Vol. 1 (b), 1160-1235. You may also consult the Arabic Torah, among the compilations of London and Paris, that is most probably the translation of Sa'adia; the translation there goes like this, "nor a lawgiver from between his feet".

21. The Aramaic Bible, Vol. 1B, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Genesis, Michael Maher.

22. It is evident that the term "nations", as is espoused by both the Jews and the Christians is equivalent to the term "gentiles" mentioned in the Holy Qur'an, "But if they dispute with you, say: I have submitted myself entirely to Allah and (so) every one who follows me; and say to those who have been given the Book and the unlearned people: Do you submit yourselves? So if they submit then indeed they follow the right way; and if they turn back, then upon you is only the delivery of the message and Allah sees the servants". (3/20). "And among the followers of the Book there are some such that if you entrust one (of them) with a heap of wealth, he shall pay it back to you; and among them there are some such that if you entrust one (of them) with a dinar he shall not pay it back to you except so long as you remain firm in demanding it; this is because they say: There is not upon us in the matter of the unlearned people any way (to reproach); and they tell a lie against Allah while they know". (3/75).

There is another meaning for the word in the Holy Qur'an; it is that of (unlettered), "And there arc among them illiterates who know not the Book but only lies, and they do but conjecture". (2/78).

23. The English equivalent of the Judeo-Christian concept of nations is Gentiles. Reference could be made to al-Mugni al-Kabir Dictionary, Webster�s International Dictionary; in this Dictionary, it is stated that it is of Neo-Latin origin, i.e. Latino-Christian, meaning, "foreigner, heathen".

24. In The Intermediate Greek Lexicon states that, in the Old Testament, the word "Laos ??? page17 ?? describes the Jews then the Christians of late as an equivalent of "heathens" which describes the unbelievers or idolaters.

25. Vocabulaire de Theologie Biblique, publie sous la direction de Xavier Leon-Dufour, Darul Mashriq, Beirut, 1986, p.103.

(26) A Latin Dictionary ,Lewis Short .

(27) � (The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts containing the old and New Testament�translated from the peshetta , the authorized bible of the church of the east ,by George M�. Lasma�A�. J�. holman dompany�Philadelphia.