TREATISE ON MUSLIM POLEMICS:
THE PARAKLETOS IN JOHN’S GOSPEL
The purpose of this paper is to examine the claim from Islam, that the Greek term Parakletos, as used by the New Testament writers, is in fact a reference to the Islamic prophet Mohammed. I have divided my work into four sections. The first of them deals with a critique of the Muslim line of argument. The second deals with the Greek rendition of the Arabic Ahmad, and the Hebrew NCHM (comfort). The third section deals with the use of Parakletos in reference to the Messiah and the Spirit. And the fourth section provides an examination of the Gospel account, and explains in detail some key points. The following is the second section of the paper.
TERMS & DEFINITIONS
Click Here For Terms & Definitions (The definitions were given in the first part of this paper.)
PASSAGE FOR DISCUSSION
Click Here To See Passage For Discussion (This is found in the first part of this paper.)
GREEK RENDITIONS FOR ARABIC AHMAD AND HEBREW NCHM
PARAKLETOS OR PERIKLYTOS?
One of the reasons why Muslims single out these passages is for the unique similarity that exists between the proposed Greek renditions for Mohammed’s name, and the Greek Parakletos. The argument goes something like this.
The Aramaic NT has the word Paraqleyta, which is supposed to be a derivate of the word Parakletos (Greek). In turn, the word Parakletos is supposed to be a corruption of the word Periclytos, which in turn they say the Arabic Ahmad ‘is almost a translation of it.’ (M.A. Ali commentary on Surah 61:6) They argue that, the Aramaic spoken by the Judeans during the time of Christ was similar to the Arabic, and thus it would have contained the word Ahmad.
In other words, the assumption here is that, in the “original” Aramaic, the word Ahmad was present, and it was translated into Greek, which would be Periclytos, and later corrupted into Parakletos, and then re-translated into Aramaic, to get the word Paraqleyta. And that is their explanation of why, despite their own arguments about how the Aramaic should be the primary source for our theology, yet it does not contain the name of Mohammed, as they had for so long proposed.
Now, I will say this, the possibility of human error in transcription is not a possibility we (rational human beings) can deny at all – no matter how detailed one is in his work, the fact that we are humans makes us capable of mistake. However, this does not give us any reason for doubting the work of anyone, simply because there is a possibility for mistake in every human, without even offering a single shred of evidence for such accusations.
So far, the actual evidence suggests the opposite of what the Muslim argues; the Aramaic Bible does not say “Ahmad,” but instead uses a different word which seems to resemble the Greek word Parakletos. There are occurrences of both Hebrew and Aramaic words which resemble their Greek counterparts. So, why should this particular one be the exception?
COMFORTER: PARAKLETOS OR PARAKALON?
There is an article which has been spreading through the web, by the team at Answering-Christianity.com, in it there is a quote from a professor `Abdul-Ahad Dawud, who argues that the word Parakletos could not be referring to a comforter, because according to the Septuagint the word rendered in the Greek for comforter is Parakalon. He further argues that, the word Parakletos is not even a Classical Greek word.
His argument demands authority simply on the fact that he claims to have be an ex-Catholic minister. But it is in fact very misleading, in more than one area. For one, the word Parakletos is indeed a Classical Greek word, used for advocate or someone who comes to aid, to argue ones case before a court. In the works of Demosthenes, (Speeches 19.1; On The Embassy), we do find the use of the word, and it is used in a court setting.
The other thing mentioned is the use of the term Parakalon in the Greek (Septuagint) rendition of ‘comforter’ from the book of Lamentations. While it is true, that the Septuagint does render the term Parakalon for ‘comforter,’ it is not necessary to argue that the Greek rendition, more than 200 years later, would have to be the same. As anyone with the slightest understanding of the evolution of language would know, some terms gain new meaning over time, while others lose either meaning or use. Also, this argument ignores the fact that in the same Greek Septuagint, another term is offered for ‘comforter,’ and that term is Parakletor, as it is found in Job 16:2. (Both renditions are for the Hebrew NCHM.) The latter rendition, as we can see, bears a resemblance to the Parakletos of John, and is believed to be one of the reasons for which Parakletos was rendered Comforter in the Gospel, as opposed to Advocate, as it was in the case of Jesus in the epistle.
Other examples of how different renditions are given in the Greek to Hebrew NCHM can be found in the list of Terms and Definitions, at the beginning of the page.
Also, there is another term I would like to mention, which is translated into the Greek Septuagint, but is not used in the same manner in the New Testament. That word is Ecclesiastes, which is the rendition of the word Qoheleth, which has been given the meaning of ‘preacher.’ This is a unique rendition which does not occur in the New Testament.
One thing should be evident to the reader, in regards to translations of the Hebrew texts; they do not need to be always the same, in all instances. And it should be a given, being that even Muslims propose a similar argument about the Arabic of the Quran – single renditions do not always convey the understanding of the original Arabic. This is the same with the Hebrew, and many other ancient languages, Greek included!
-- This concludes the second part of this paper. There are four parts to it. --