One explanation is that the term denotes al-Ḥāmid or al-Ḥammād—or simply ḥamd (praise), as noted earlier—and a number of scholars have preferred this view. They argue that the linguistic evidence in the original language supports the meaning of “praise,” citing as proof Joshua’s words: “Whoever performs a good deed will have a good Paraclete,” that is, a good praise.

The second opinion—adopted by most Christians—is that it means “the Savior,” and they in fact refer to the Messiah himself as “the Savior.” They say that the word is Syriac and that its sense is “the Savior.”(1) They add that in Syriac it is fārūq, which was rendered fāriq, while the element līṭ is an added particle,(2) functioning much like the Arabic usage in the phrases “a man he is,” “a stone he is,” or “a horse he is.” Līṭ plays the same role in Syriac.

A third group of Christians maintains that in Syriac it means “the Comforter,” and they assert that the same holds true in Greek.

These last two interpretations are challenged on the grounds that Christ’s language was neither Syriac nor Greek, but Hebrew. The reply is that although he spoke Hebrew and the Gospel was originally revealed in Hebrew, it was later translated into Syriac, Latin,(3) Greek, and other languages. The majority of Christians still insist that the word signifies “the Savior,” and they themselves call the Messiah “the Savior”; indeed, the Gospel now in their hands records him as saying, “I have come only to save the world.”(4)