While the Paraclete mentioned in john is of perennial interest to many, to my knowledge, scholarship does not carry out serious discussions on the identity of the Plaraclete. The Early Church established the association with the Holy Spirit, and, indeed, the context of the occurrences in John seems impossible to confuse or interpret otherwise. It was a great surprise to me to learn that this was not always so, particularly with:
|And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
A Quranic variant of this attributes the Paraclete to the advent of the next prophet, Mohammad. It's a bit in the weeds, I concede, but if we recall that Islam was originally viewed as simply the "Ishmaelite Heresy" (John of Damascus), we can see the groundwork being laid for plurality (for better or for worse) in exegesis even in the early days, with stark theological implications to follow.
It was necessary that the pains of hell were not eternal , because Satan will come out one day to become the Paraclete. God deceives no one, not even the devil.
This seems to be in reference to Satan's imprisonment foretold in Revelation. However, given that Paraclete only occurs in John, let's assume for the sake of argument we're still considering John 14:16 for Bloy's exegesis.
Perhaps part of the dilemma is that παράκλητος seems to be an amorphous concept, as evidenced by a wide range of translations: Advocate, Intercessor, Comforter, Supporter, Attorney, ect. While the context for Paraclete as the Holy Spirit still seems strong, it may also be the case that it has not been ontologically resolved in the absolute sense, hence the compulsion to fill in the gaps by some exegetists.
I have not seen modern scholarship take on Bloy's view (assuming I have conveyed it accurately, French is not my forte); are there similar exegetical stances to be found in modern scholarship to help us determine if his view would likely hold up to scrutiny? Why/why not?
Personally, I think there may be some evidence for it, though it is weak, circumstantial evidence:
- The Johannine tradition is the more spiritual and apocalyptic compared to the Synoptics
- The Johannine tradition has more Hellenistic influence, including dualism, which may be consonant with having an antichrist Paraclete to stand abreast the divine Paraclete
- However even if we accept Bloy's take on John 14:16, other instances of Paraclete are less ambiguous, leaving us to conclude there are multiple Paracletes in John.