Here are yet three more excellent questions I have received from blog readers, all of them both interesting and important.

QUESTION:

I recently came across a rather bold and curious linguistic claim regarding the term ‘Paraclete’ within the Gospel of John, and I was hoping to ask your opinion of it. To be exact, it theorizes that the word “Parakletos” may be translated as “praised in excess over” or “glorified in excess over”. Apparently, according to this claim, the word “kleos” (κλέος) translates to “glory” or “renown”.

An example cited to support this theory is the Queen Cleopatra, whose name is the Latinised form of the Ancient Greek Kleopatra, meaning “glory of her father”, derived from ‘kleos’ meaning “glory” and ‘pater’ meaning “father”. So, according to this theory, if we adopt the meaning of “praise” or “glory”, then the verbal adjective ‘kletos’ can be translated as “praised” or “glorified”.

The resultant alternative literal translation apparently renders ‘parakletos’ as “praised more than/in excess over” or “glorified more than/in excess over”.  If I may ask, in your academic opinion as a biblical scholar and as a colleague of the late Bruce Metzger, does this theory have linguistic validity? Any clarification would be immensely welcome, and I am truly so sorry for bothering you.

 

RESPONSE:

Is the person who claims this an expert in ancient Greek?  That would be interesting!

So far as I know, the word is never used that way in Greek.  It comes from the verb parakaleo, which means “to call to your side,” and almost always (the verb) means to call someone over to help, either as an advocate, an intercessor, or an encourager.  It (the verb) can mean to cheer up, encourage, comfort, console, summon, or support — but it doesn’t mean to “praise in excess.”

So too the noun (paraklete)  means someone who is called to assist, for example as a legal assistant or advocate in court.

So no, I don’t think it can mean (well, at least, that it ever does mean) “praised in excess over.”

I think this person’s confusion may from a false etymology;  parakaleo and parakletes derive from the verb KALEO, “to call”; they do not come from the verb KLEO which means “to celebrate.”  The words do look similar, but they are not related etymologically.

 

QUESTION:

We have all heard of the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible that have been attributed to Jesus. Although scholars state that Isaiah 7:14 actually reads ” a young woman has conceived”, apologists argue that the Hebrew word for young woman can also mean virgin, and some have referred to other verses outside of this example in which the same “young woman” word in Hebrew is used when referring to a virgin. One example I believe was used was Sarah possibly. Anyway, are there other examples where that term is used and was actually referring to someone understood to be a virgin?

 

RESPONSE:

It very much depends what you mean by “can also mean.”  There is a Hebrew word for “woman who has never had sex” (BETHULAH) and that is not the word used in Isa 7:14; the word that is used there normally means “young woman” (ALMAH) and applies to a young woman independently of whether she has had sex yet or not.  If she is very young and not married yet, the normally assumption is that she has not had sex (hence it *can* refer to a woman who has not had sex).  If she’s a young woman who *has* had sex she still is a young woman (ALMAH).

The other big issue is what verse the *says* about the woman in relation to her being pregnant.  It does not say she *will* become pregnant but that she already is.  It uses the “perfect tense” for “conceived.”  That will require some explaining.

Hebrew doesn’t have verbal tenses like English (past, present, future; perfect; past perfect; future perfect; etc.)  It’s main tenses are “perfect” for actions that are already completed and “imperfect” for those that are not completed yet (whether in the past, present, or future).  By using the Perfect tense here it indicates that the woman is already pregnant (a completed action) not that she is going to be.

And when you read the entire chapter, that’s the point.  She’s pregnant (perfect tense).  She will give birth (imperfect tense).  And before the child is very old, the problems confronting the king Ahaz (to whom Isaiah is speaking) will have disappeared.

 

QUESTION:

Not a challenge, just a quibble from someone with no specialist knowledge– but surely the fact the disciples were “Aramaic speakers who were almost certainly uneducated and illiterate” would make them _more_ likely to rely on some kind of professional help than highly erudite figures like Cicero? There may be little or no evidence of full-time secretaries composing finished works around an outline provided by the ostensible author, but isn’t there clear evidence of people working in public spaces as professional letter-writers?

 

RESPONSE:

Yes, if (since) the disciples were illiterate that would seem to make them more likely to depend on  professional writers – if there were professional writers like that, who composed writings for those who were illiterate.  There certainly were professional writers, and illiterate people did sometimes have recourse to them (to record a land deed, or a divorce certificate, or some other document).  But we have no record of professional writers who produced full compositions (poetry, philosophical essays, religious treatises; or whatever).  The writings of the New Testament are that sort of thing, narratives and extended epistles dealing with significant religious, philosophical, historical issues.

The ancient “professional writers” who did produce personal letters were hired to take dictation for brief one-page letters which were highly formulaic, and legal documents such as land deeds, divorce certificates, legal disputes, etc.  Never do we hear of lengthy “letters” that provide detailed guidance, instruction, exhortation, correction, (or comparable things) being produced by a secretary/amanuensis.

The closest things to these NT epistles are such works as the letters of Seneca to Lucius (which themselves are nowhere near as extensive as most of the NT writings).  But none of these was composed by another person (a scribe or professional writer) and we hear of no such thing being produced for someone who was illiterate.

What we do have, on the other hand, are scores of examples of are people writing letters claiming to a be a famous person, knowing full well they were someone else.