The Greek word "parakalein" (this is the infinitive) has the basic meanings of "to call", "to call for". Further on, it can express the meanings of (a) "to call for help", (b) "to call something to a person"; "to call upon", "to ask", "to admonish", (c) "to invite" and (d) "to comfort", "to strengthen" and alike.
The participle present activ "parakaleon" or contracted "parakalon" therefore has the meanings of "someone who calls", "calling", "calling for help", "asking", "admonishing", "inviting", "comforting" and alike.
The verbal adjective "parakletos" - or according to later pronounciation "paraklitos", the Greek spelling is unchanged - has the basic meaning of "one who can be called" and can express the meanings of "counsel", "counsel for defense", "legal advicer", "solicitor", "attorney", "defender", "advocate" and alike. The argument of Abdul-'Ahad Dawud, that "the proper Greek term for 'advocate' is Sunegorus" is erroneous:
(1) The Greek word which Abdul-'Ahad Dawud has in mind is "Synegoros".
(2) "Parakletos" is not only an appropriate Greek word for "advocate", but the Latin word "advocatus", the origin of the English word "advocate", has been formed by the Romans as precise verbal translation of "parakletos".
What according to Abdul-'Ahad Dawud "should be noticed [viz.] that there is a long alpha vowel after the consonant kappa in [verbal forms like] 'parakalon' which does not exist in the 'Paraclytos'" is wrong or irrelevant for various reasons:
(1) We don't read any "Paraclytos", but "Parakletos". There is not one old manuscript or fragment of the gospel existent showing the variant "paraklytos" or even "periklytos", as many Muslims like to emend the word "parakletos". This emendation is nothing than wishful thinking.
(2) The verbal adjective form "parakletos" - with the omission of the alpha after the kappa - is a regular derivation from the infinitive "parakalein".
(3) By the way, the quantity of the second alpha in "parakalon", whether it is a long or short vowel, arguably is short.
It is evident from the context that exactly this connotation of legal advice and defending in court is intended in Christ's prophecies of the "Paraclet". Therefore the translation "comforter", though perhaps defendable according to the older use of this word in the English language, is not the most appropriate. In the following we use the word "Paraclete", wherever the original Greek texts have "parakletos":
In Joh. 14:16 seq. Jesus Christ says: "And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete, that may abide with you forever, even the Spirit of truth" showing that the "Paraclete" is the "Spirit of truth".
In Joh. 14:26 seq. Christ knows that his prayer will be granted and describes what the Paraclet is going to do: "But the Paraclete, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."
By the way, this prophecy precisely excludes that could happen, what is the standard Muslim reproach against Christianity: that the Christians would forget about or even would temper the revelations of Christ.
In Joh. 15:26 seq. Jesus Christ not only uses the expression that he himself will send the Paraclet, but describes his actions by a term with strong forensic connotations: "But when the Paraclet is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of the truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me."
In Joh. 16:1 seq. explains Jesus Christ explains in which situations the Paraclet will testify of him and why he is "another Paraclet", namely another Paraclet besides Jesus himself who is going to the Father, whereas the Paraclet will "abide whith you forever": "They [i.e. the enemies of his followers] shall put you out of the synagogues; yea the time cometh that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. And theses things they will do unto you, because they have not known the Father nor me... It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Paraclete will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."
Even more explicit in describing the situation in court and how the Paraclete will be testifying of him is Jesus Christ in Matth. 10,17-19: "And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh."
By the way, it is evident from these quotations that the "Spirit of truth" viz. the "Spirit of the Father" is no created thing, but of divine nature. And Jesus Christ's words that he "will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Paraclete", "whom I will send unto you from the Father" underline his words "I and my Father are one" (Joh. 10:30).
It's absolutely mysterious to me how people can run away with the idea that a Muhammad could have been meant by this prophecy of the Paraclete.
Concerning Al-Kadhi's section 6) "Parakletos" or "Periklytos"? `Abdul-Ahad Dawud, who is introduced by the author as "Professor" and former "Roman Catholic Bishop of Uramiah" (at least the second qualification is a hoax and Al-Kadhi has been informed of this a long time ago) displays his inability in linguistics at various occasions, also in the matter of Parakletos/Paraklytos/Periklytos. I already have pointed to this fact, but may add the following remark:
`Abdul-Ahad Dawud is quoted to write in his "Muhammad in the Bible", pp. 208-209 "The Greek orthography of the word is Paraklytos which in ecclesiastical literature is made to mean "one called to aid, advocate, intercessor..."
The word which has the meaning of "one called to aid, advocate, intercessor..." is Parakletos (whith an eta instead of an ypsilon in the third syllable; the author perhaps is mistaken because they both are pronounced as the vowel "i", or for English speaking persons: "ee", in later times). The word "Parakletos" arguably isn't present at all in the whole Greek literature. If it were present, it would have a rather negative connotation in the sense of "notorious", according to the rules of the Greek lexic. Look for instance H. Stephanus, Thesaurus linguae Graecae, 3rd edition by C.B. Hase, W. Dindorf, L. Dindorf, Paris 1842-47, vol. VI, p. 291, where the lemma (i.e. a hypothetical word, not really occurring in the known Greek literature) "Paraclytus" is presented with a question mark and explained as "infamis" (i.e."infame"), "famosus" (i.e. "notorious"), "opp. klytos" (i.e. "opposite to famous").
It's of course of less importance that `Abdul-Ahad Dawud shows himself as moron in linguistics. But this humbug of reading "Paraklytos" instead of "Parakletos" in John 14:16 etc. (and connecting it to a Greek root which in some words has the meaning of "famous" or alike) indeed goes back to the celebrated Muslim theologian Ibn Taimiyya of the 13th to 14th century AD (see for instance the scholarly standard work of H. Stieglecker, Die Glaubenslehren des Islam, Paderborn (Germany) 1962, p. 558)
Furthermore, there is also a very detailed discussion on the Paraclete in Dr. Campbell's response to Dr. Bucaille.
In the famous "Anchor Bible" we find the following quote:
"The word parakletos is peculiar in the NT to the Johnannine literature. In John ii Jesus is a parakletos (not a title), serving as a heavenly intercessor with the Father ... Christian tradition has identified this figure (Paraclete) as the Holy Spirit, but scholars like Spitta, Delafosse, Windisch, Sasse, Bultmann, and Betz have doubted whether this identification is true to the original picture and have suggested that the Paraclete was once an independent salvific figure, later confused with the Holy Spirit." The Anchor Bible, Doubleday & Company, Inc, Garden City, N.Y. 1970, Volume 29A, p. 1135
It is not completely clear who is taking from whom, but I tend to think that this also is Al-Kadhi's plagiarism taken verbatim from Akbarally Meherally's articles (General observation from the totality of their writings: Meherally is an original thinker (though often wrong), but Al-Kadhi is only a bad plagiarizer). Probably Al-Kadhi has again not read the original sources (which is bad enough), or if he has, he is just as dishonest and lacking in integrity as Meherally, whose devious way of citing regarding the above quotation is documented in detail on this page. There is need to explain the same thing twice.
However, Al-Kadhi adds another "twist" here which is not present in Meherally's paper. He thinks that this quotation is evidence that (Christian?) scholars believe in tampering. In fact, this quotation says no such thing. It clearly only talks about some opinions of scholars who suggested a different interpretation of the meaning of the text. No hint in the above of tampering with the text. Only a disagreement what the text might mean. Al-Kadhi adds his own ignorance and inability to understand the quotation to Meherally's distortion of the clear meaning of the quotation from the Anchor Bible.
The Rebuttal to "What Did Jesus Really Say?"
Answering Islam Home Page