# Understanding Traditional Discourses

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-20 — 1 clipping.*

---

> Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: JoAnn M. Borovicka, Understanding Traditional Discourses, bahai-library.com.
> ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
> 
> Understanding Traditional Discourses
> 
> JoAnn Borovicka
> 
> Abstract
> 
> In the Bahá’í Writings, one can find many references to ancient tradi-
> tional stories and figures from biblical scripture. Read with a literal eye,
> one might assume that all of these references confirm the historical
> accuracy of those stories and, thereby, support a literal interpretation
> of the ancient scripture cited. However, in the works of a renowned
> scholar of the Bahá’í Faith, Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl-i-Gulpáygání, we find
> a different mode of interpretation. Using the example of the Book
> of Exodus from the Hebrew Scriptures, Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl explains
> that, in Their discourses, the Prophets may indulge people’s historical
> understandings and address them according to their local traditions.
> One implication of his commentary is that even though a Central Fig-
> ure might refer to a biblical story as if it was a historical fact, this refer-
> ence would not necessarily confirm the historical accuracy of the story.
> This paper compares a brief excerpt of Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl’s discourse
> on this topic to selections of the Bahá’í sacred text and authoritative
> guidance. The outcome of that comparison will be to suggest that
> Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl’s interpretive approach in this regard is sound.
> 
> ⸻
> 
> A student of the Bahá’í Writings will notice how the Central Figures
> of the Faith often include elements of Bible stories and the mention of
> biblical figures in Their commentaries. Upon reading these references,
> this question of interpretation may arise: Does the Central Figures’
> mention of a biblical story as if it really occurred necessarily confirm
> that story as literal historical fact? Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl-i-Gulpáygání
> (1844–1914), one of the nineteen Apostles of Bahá’u’lláh and often
> 
> Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One
> 
> referred to as the greatest scholar of the Faith, directly addresses this
> question. In the collection of his works entitled Miracles and Meta-
> phors, considered the classic Bahá’í text of hermeneutics1 (the science
> of interpretation), he states:
> 
> It is clear that the prophets and Manifestations of the Cause of God
> were sent to guide the nations, to improve their characters, and to
> bring the people nearer to their Source and ultimate Goal. They
> were not sent as historians, astronomers, philosophers, or natural
> scientists. Their position in the world of creation is like that of the
> heart in the body: it has a universal position with a general effect.
> The position of the learned in the world of earthly dominion is like
> that of a specific organ. That is, they have a particular position and
> a special effect. Therefore, the prophets have indulged the people
> in regard to their historical notions, folk stories, and scientific prin-
> ciples, and have spoken to them according to these. They conversed
> as was appropriate to their audience and hid certain realities behind
> the curtain of allusion.
> 
> . . . Finally, it is well known that neither the Prophet Muhammad
> nor the rest of the prophets ever engaged in disputes with the people
> about their historical beliefs, but addressed them according to their
> local traditions.”2
> 
> This explanation connects with a basic pedagogical principle: learning
> moves from the known to the unknown. A teacher has to start with
> what the students know – or think they know – and then gradually
> bring in new information. An implication of Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl’s com-
> mentary is that if a Central Figure discourses on some element of the
> Bible as though it was fact, this reference would confirm those Bible
> verses as worthy vehicles for spiritual teaching and, because of their
> familiarity to the target audience, a worthy place to start a discourse,
> but that reference would not automatically confirm the story as his-
> torical fact. This is because the Central Figure might be speaking
> 
> Understanding Traditional Discourses
> 
> according to the prevailing, but not necessarily accurate, historical
> understandings of the people.
> 
> Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl’s interpretive approach is clearly stated. Nevertheless,
> however profound his importance in the early days of the Faith, his
> spiritual station as an Apostle of Bahá’u’lláh, and his accomplishments
> as a scholar, Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl is not a Central Figure of the Faith and
> his writings are not authoritative. My purpose in this study has been
> to try to confirm or deny Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl’s interpretive approach by
> researching this question: Is there authoritative evidence that any of
> the Central Figures or the Guardian have ever not engaged in disputes
> with people about their historical beliefs, but have addressed them
> according to their local traditions? From what I understand from
> passages gleaned from the Bahá’í sacred text and the guidance of the
> Guardian and the House of Justice, I believe that the answer to this
> question is, “Yes,” and that Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl’s interpretive approach
> is sound. A selection of sacred text and authoritative guidance relevant
> to this question is presented below.
> 
> According to the Prevailing Understanding
> 
> In a discourse of Bahá’u’lláh on the Báb’s Surih of Joseph, Bahá’u’lláh
> explains that the Báb revealed that Tablet according to the prevailing
> knowledge of the people of that time even though their understand-
> ings were characterized by ignorance and waywardness. Bahá’u’lláh
> states:
> 
> It is known to thee that the commentary on the Surih of Joseph hath been
> revealed according to the prevailing understanding of the people of that
> time. This hath been due to pure bounty haply the wayward and igno-
> rant people may become transported to the realm of knowledge; because
> much of that which hath been stated therein are the material known
> to be truth with the people of Qur’ án. Had it been revealed according
> 
> Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One
> 
> to that which God desired, no one would have accepted and remained
> loyal. [Ayát-i-Iláhi, vol. 2, 68]3
> 
> This paper is not the place to examine the details of what the people
> believed to be truth that was based on ignorance and waywardness,
> or how the Báb spoke to and used their immediate, however faulty,
> understandings to bring them to a higher revelation of truth. What I
> believe is apparent here is that this commentary by Bahá’u’lláh could
> well have inspired Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl’s statement that “it is well known
> that neither the Prophet Muhammad nor the rest of the prophets ever
> engaged in disputes with the people about their historical beliefs, but
> addressed them according to their local traditions.”4 This teaching
> should not surprise us. In the Hidden Words, Bahá’u’lláh states: “All
> that I have revealed unto thee with the tongue of power, and have written
> for thee with the pen of might, hath been in accordance with thy capac-
> ity and understanding, not with My state and the melody of My voice.”
> [AHW #67] In the above scenario, we see that revealing a commen-
> tary “according to the prevailing understanding of the people of that time”
> [Bahá’u’lláh, Ayát-i-Iláhi, vol. II, 68] is one way that the Manifestation
> may teach in accordance with human capacity and understanding.
> 
> Discussion Conducted Conformably
> 
> Before a commentary on the biblical story of Moses’ confrontation
> with Pharaoh and the Exodus of the Hebrew tribes from Egypt,
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states:
> 
> The events that transpired at the advent of the Prophets of the past, and
> Their ways and works and circumstances, are not adequately set down
> in authoritative histories, and are referred to only in condensed form
> in the verses of the Qur’ án, the Holy Traditions and the Torah. . . To
> preclude once and for all objections on the part of any of the world’s
> peoples, We shall conduct Our discussion conformably to those authori-
> tative accounts which all nations are agreed upon. [SDC 75]
> 
> Understanding Traditional Discourses
> 
> In the above quote, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá declares that adequate histories of
> past Prophets are lacking. That would include the Dispensation of
> Moses. He also states that the histories of past Prophets exist “only in
> condensed form” [SDC 75] indicating, perhaps, that the essence of the
> Mosaic story has been preserved in largely figurative language. Alle-
> gorical stories are capable of holding layers of significant meanings
> that withstand the test of time, all condensed into powerful narratives.
> Finally, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states a proviso of His discourse: He will speak
> “conformably to those authoritative accounts which all nations are agreed
> upon.” [SDC 75] He then proceeds to discourse on the story of Moses
> and the Exodus precisely as it is presented in the Hebrew scripture –
> which He had just stated was “not adequately set down.” [SDC 75]
> 
> We could use Bahá’u’lláh’s words to paraphrase ‘Abdu’l-Bahá ’s pro-
> viso: the discourse would be “revealed according to the prevailing under-
> standing of the people of that time.” [Ayát-i-Iláhi, vol. II, 68] The point
> being that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá ’s discourse on the Exodus events exactly as
> presented in the Book of Exodus does not automatically confirm the
> historical facts of those events. This harmonizes with Mírzá Abu’l-
> Faḍl’s interpretive approach which states that the Prophets did not
> engage in disputes with people about their historical knowledge, “but
> addressed them according to their local traditions.”5
> 
> Bring Stories Out As Though They Were Truth
> 
> Before I present the next commentary by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, some back-
> ground information on the story of the People of the Cave may be
> helpful. This miracle story, also called The Seven Sleepers, originated
> as a Christian tradition. The story goes that during the Roman per-
> secution of Christians in Ephesus in 250 AD, seven young Christian
> men who were pressed to recant their Faith under threat of death
> by the Roman Empire withdrew to a cave outside of Ephesus to
> pray. There they fell asleep. Carrying through with the persecution,
> Roman authorities ordered the mouth of the cave to be sealed as the
> 
> Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One
> 
> young men slept. Three-hundred years later, a farmer opened the
> sealed cave, and the seven sleepers awoke (thinking they had slept only
> overnight) to find that Christianity was not only the accepted religion
> of Ephesus but the state religion of the entire Roman Empire. For cen-
> turies, this miracle has been commemorated as a holy day in certain
> Christian denominations.
> 
> The tradition of the People of the Cave also appears in the Qur’án where
> chapter eighteen, entitled “The Cave,” is devoted entirely to that story.
> Muhammad, Who was specifically asked about the People of the Cave,
> begins His commentary by stating, “It is We who relate to you their
> story in truth.” [Qur’án 18:13, Sahih Int.] Then Muhammad relays a
> detailed moment-by-moment rendition of that story even adding ele-
> ments that were not in the original tradition (such as a cave watchdog
> named al Rakim). Because of this realistic telling in the Qur’án, the
> miracle of the People of the Cave is honored in Islam, as well.
> 
> When ‘Abdu’l-Bahá was asked about The Cave chapter of the Qur’án,
> He explained that although Muhammad’s reply was stated as though
> the account was true, the story of the People of the Cave was “just a
> story” and that Muhammad was indulging the people in their tradi-
> tional understandings. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states:
> 
> In the days of the Prophet, the Jews incited the Quraysh to ask about
> the People of the Cave. When the question was asked, His Holiness
> said: “I will inform you tomorrow.” . . . . Because the Prophet knew
> that this was just a story, He did not wish to give an answer, nor did He
> wish to say outright that this is something that has no truth in it, but
> when He saw that the enemies would not stay their hand, his reply was
> couched as though it were truth. For certain matters are in reality just
> stories, but the Divine Manifestations bring them out as though it were
> truth and discourse upon them. For if they were to deny well-known
> and established matters, others would consider this evidence of their
> ignorance. Therefore they bring them out as though they were truth.
> [Amr va Khalq 2:211]
> 
> Understanding Traditional Discourses
> 
> It is notable that ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states that this is the practice of not just
> Muhammad but of all of the Manifestations of God: “For certain mat-
> ters are in reality just stories, but the Divine Manifestations bring them
> out as though it were truth and discourse upon them.” [Amr va Khalq
> 2:211] ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s commentary could have inspired Mírzá Abu’l-
> Faḍl’s statement that the Prophets may speak according to the people’s
> historical notions and folk stories.
> 
> Not Necessarily Endorsing Historical Accuracy
> 
> The following is a Memorandum which responds to an individual’s
> question about a discourse of Bahá’u’lláh in the Lawh-i-Hikmat in
> which Bahá’u’lláh refers to communications between certain ancient
> philosophers. The question revolves around the issue that western
> historians would consider communication between certain philoso-
> phers implausible because of chronological differences. The Memo-
> randum states:
> 
> It is noteworthy that at both the beginning and end of this section of
> the Tablet, Bahá’u’lláh indicates that He is quoting “some accounts
> of the sages”. These would have been the historical accounts famil-
> iar to the person whom He is addressing in the Tablet. The fact that
> Bahá’u’lláh makes such statements for the sake of illustrating the
> spiritual principles that He wishes to convey, does not necessarily
> mean that He is endorsing their historical accuracy. In this connec-
> tion, it is interesting to note the answer given by the beloved Guard-
> ian’s secretary on his behalf to a question about the “fourth heaven”
> mentioned in the Kitáb-i-Íqán [pp. 89, 133]. The translation of the
> passage is as follows:
> 
> “As to the ascent of Christ to the ‘ fourth heaven’ as revealed in the
> glorious Book of Íqán, he [the Guardian] stated that the ‘ fourth
> heaven’ is a term used and a belief held by the early astronomers.
> The followers of the Shi’ah sect likewise held this belief. As the
> 
> Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One
> 
> Kitáb-i-Íqán was revealed for the guidance of that sect, this term
> was used in conformity with the concepts of its followers.”
> 
> (3 November 1987, written on behalf of the Universal House of
> Justice to an individual believer)6
> 
> The above guidance directly states that “The fact that Bahá’u’lláh
> makes such statements for the sake of illustrating the spiritual prin-
> ciples that He wishes to convey, does not necessarily mean that He is
> endorsing their historical accuracy.” This guidance is reminiscent of
> Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl’s statement that the Manifestations are not sent as
> historians, but as spiritual teachers.
> 
> In addition, the guidance from the Guardian quoted in the above
> Memorandum explains that Bahá’u’lláh used the term “fourth heaven”
> in the Kitáb-i-Íqán in conformity with the understandings of the
> Shi’ahs to whom the Tablet was directed. (Islamic cosmology includes
> various traditions involving seven heavens.) Thus, we have another
> example from the sacred text that lends credence to Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl’s
> interpretive approach which recognizes that the Prophets may indulge
> understandings and speak according to what the people ‘know,’ but
> that this does not necessarily endorse those understandings.
> 
> Irrespective of Authenticity or Reliability
> 
> The following guidance on behalf of the House of Justice responds
> to an inquiry about an apparent contradiction between a discourse of
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in which He dismisses the biblical story of Lot as a “con-
> fused dream” and a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi which
> appears to give legitimacy to the same story.
> 
> In his email letter of 14 February 2015, Mr. ___ provides a provi-
> sional translation, obtained online, of an extract of a Tablet of
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá concerning the story of Lot and his daughters found
> 
> Understanding Traditional Discourses
> 
> in the Old Testament.7 In this extract ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states that the
> “story of Lot and his daughters and the apostasy of some of the
> prophets recorded in the Torah and the Psalms” are “confused
> dreams” that “are the words of historians among the People of the
> Book for which God has revealed no authority”. Mr. ___ then refers
> to an extract of a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi, found
> in Lights of Guidance8, which states that, according to the text
> of Genesis 19:29–38, Lot bears no responsibility for the actions
> of his daughters. Mr. ___ concludes by asking how the Guardian
> could give legitimacy to the story in light of the statements made
> by ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in His Tablet. The Research Department offers
> the following response.
> 
> To date, nothing has been found in the letters written by or on
> behalf of Shoghi Effendi in the Archives at the Bahá’í World Centre
> pertaining to the above-mentioned extract of a Tablet of ‘Abdu’l-
> Bahá. However, we note that various statements of the Guardian
> regarding the authenticity of the Bible are consistent with the state-
> ments of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá regarding the story of Lot. For example, in a
> letter dated 11 February 1944 written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi
> to an individual believer, we read: “When ‘Abdu’ l-Bahá states we
> believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe
> every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic
> saying of the Prophet.”
> 
> With this in mind, it would appear that, in the letter to which Mr.
> ___ refers, the Guardian is commenting on the meaning of the story
> of Lot and his daughters as found in the Bible, irrespective of its
> authenticity or reliability, and that he is not maintaining that the
> text of Genesis 19:29–38 is to be understood literally.9
> 
> The above guidance, that Shoghi Effendi was commenting on the
> meaning of the story of Lot irrespective of its authenticity or reliabil-
> ity could be seen as a paraphrase of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s statement entered
> earlier in this paper that “certain matters are in reality just stories, but
> 
> Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One
> 
> the Divine Manifestations bring them out as though it were truth and
> discourse upon them.” [‘Amr va Khalq 2:211] To comment on the mean-
> ing of a story irrespective of the story’s authenticity or reliability also
> evokes Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl’s statement that the Prophets may address
> people according to their local traditions.
> 
> Discussion
> 
> Returning to the question of this study: Is there authoritative evi-
> dence that any of the Central Figures or the Guardian have ever not
> engaged in disputes with people about their historical beliefs, but have
> addressed them according to their local traditions? It is the opinion of
> this writer that the answer is, “Yes” and that Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl’s inter-
> pretive approach in this regard is sound. Bahá’u’lláh, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá,
> the Guardian, the House of Justice, and Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl use different
> but harmonizing descriptors of this phenomenon:
> 
> •    Tablets may be “revealed according to the prevailing understanding
> of the people of that time.” [Bahá’u’lláh, Ayát-i-Iláhi, vol. 2, 68]
> 
> •    The Central Figures may conduct discussions “conformably to
> those authoritative accounts which all nations are agreed upon.”
> [‘Abdu’l-Bahá, SDC 75]
> 
> •   “[C]ertain matters are in reality just stories, but the Divine Mani-
> festations bring them out as though it were truth and discourse
> upon them.” [‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Amr va Khalq, 2:211]
> 
> •    The Central Figures may use terms of certain religious sects
> “ in conformity with the concepts of its followers.” [The Guardian10]
> 
> Understanding Traditional Discourses
> 
> •    “The fact that Bahá’u’lláh makes such statements for the sake
> of illustrating the spiritual principles that He wishes to convey,
> does not necessarily mean that He is endorsing their historical
> accuracy.” [Memorandum11]
> 
> •    “Finally, it is well known that neither the Prophet Muhammad
> nor the rest of the prophets ever engaged in disputes with
> the people about their historical beliefs, but addressed them
> according to their local traditions.” [Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl] 12
> 
> •    In a Tablet recorded in Gleanings, Bahá’u’lláh asks: “What
> language should He Who is the Mouthpiece of God choose to
> speak, so that they who are shut out as by a veil from Him can
> recognize His glory?” [GB LIII] I propose that the examples
> cited in this paper demonstrate that a language that the Cen-
> tral Figures and the Guardian may choose to speak according
> to Their wisdom is the language of traditional understand-
> ings, and this may include discourses on meaning-filled bibli-
> cal stories that may not represent literal historical facts. This
> phenomenon begs the question: How might one distinguish
> between statements that indulge the people’s historical beliefs
> about biblical scripture and those that confirm the historicity
> of those stories or figures?
> 
> In two of the examples presented in this paper, the Central Figures
> state provisos that could be seen as alerts that the discourses will be
> revealed according to prevailing understandings. In The Secret of
> Divine Civilization, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá states that He is speaking “conform-
> ably” to what the people believe. Similarly, in the 2 November 1987
> Memorandum it is pointed out that in the Lawh-i-Hikmat Bahá’u’lláh
> prefaces His commentary on the ancient philosophers with a state-
> ment that He is “quoting some accounts of the sages.” Perhaps readers
> 
> Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One
> 
> could train themselves to be sensitive to such alerts. But we can also see
> from other examples that the Central Figures do not always give such
> notice. For example, when Bahá’u’lláh uses the term “fourth heaven”
> in the Kitáb-i-Íqán [¶98] He does not alert the reader that He is about
> to speak conformably to the prevailing understandings of a particular
> religious sect. It would follow that readers cannot depend on getting
> written notice that a Central Figure is about to speak according to pre-
> vailing understandings.
> 
> Although the question of how one might distinguish between state-
> ments that indulge the people’s historical beliefs and those that con-
> firm the scriptural stories as literal events is intriguing, there is reason
> to believe that it is not the most important question. Consider, for
> example, Bahá’u’lláh “Responses to questions of Mánikchí Sáhib”
> found in The Tabernacle of Unity. Mánikchí Sáhib had requested
> distinct rulings on an array of seemingly contradictory religious tradi-
> tions. Which was most acceptable in the sight of God? In His response,
> Bahá’u’lláh does not engage in the disputes surrounding those tradi-
> tions but confirms the unity of the divine process that is evident in all
> of them. In His discourse on differing religious principles Bahá’u’lláh
> states, “These differences are not worthy of mention. The eye of divine
> mercy casteth its glance upon all that is past. It behoveth us to mention
> them only in favourable terms, for they do not contradict that which is
> essential.” [TU 2.18] Bahá’u’lláh also repeatedly states the following
> imperative as the ultimate answer to all of Mánikchí Sáhib’s inquiries
> about differing religious traditions: “Be anxiously concerned with the
> needs of the age ye live in, and centre your deliberations on its exigencies
> and requirements.”[TU 2.5, 2.7, 2.16, 2.31]
> 
> In light of this Tablet and the guidance and sacred text explored ear-
> lier in this paper, one might consider that when a Central Figure of
> the Faith refers to an ancient biblical story He may be engaging that
> tradition in favorable terms because it does not contradict that which
> is essential, is well known among the people, and is judged to be a
> worthy vehicle to convey eternal spiritual verities. The question of the
> 
> Understanding Traditional Discourses
> 
> historicity of the tradition cited pales in comparison to the imperative
> to “Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and centre
> your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”[TU 2.5, 2.7, 2.16,
> 2.31] The most pertinent questions may be: What is the essential spiri-
> tual instruction in this discourse that draws on an ancient tradition?
> What does it teach about the needs of this age? What do I need to do
> to today to embody the spiritual principles that the Central Figure is
> teaching through that tradition?
> 
> I closing, I’d like to return to this excerpt from Mirza Abu’l-Fadl’s
> commentary in Miracles and Metaphors which speaks eloquently to
> a phenomenon that, I believe, has been confirmed in the sacred and
> authoritative text explored in this paper:
> 
> It is clear that the prophets and Manifestations of the Cause of God
> were sent to guide the nations, to improve their characters, and to
> bring the people nearer to their Source and ultimate Goal. They
> were not sent as historians, astronomers, philosophers, or natural
> scientists. Their position in the world of creation is like that of the
> heart in the body: it has a universal position with a general effect.
> The position of the learned in the world of earthly dominion is like
> that of a specific organ. That is, they have a particular position and
> a special effect. Therefore, the prophets have indulged the people
> in regard to their historical notions, folk stories, and scientific prin-
> ciples, and have spoken to them according to these. They conversed
> as was appropriate to their audience and hid certain realities behind
> the curtain of allusion.
> 
> . . . Finally, it is well known that neither the Prophet Muhammad
> nor the rest of the prophets ever engaged in disputes with the
> people about their historical beliefs, but addressed them according
> to their local traditions.”13
> 
> Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One
> 
> BIBLIOGRAPHY
> 
> Bahá’u’lláh.
> Arabic Hidden Words
> Ayát-i-Iláhi, vol. 2 – The quote from this source was provided by Foad Seddigh
> Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’ lláh. Bahá’í Publishing Trust, Wilmette,
> IL: 1983.
> Kitáb-i-Íqán Bahá’ í Publishing Trust, Wilmette, IL: 1994.
> The Kitáb-i-Aqdas. Bahá’í World Centre, Haifa: 1992.
> Laáí ael-Hiekmat, vol. 2 – The quote from this source was provided by Foad
> Seddigh
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá.
> Amr va Khalq – The quote from this source was provided by Robert
> Stockman.
> The Tabernacle of Unity. Bahá’í World Centre, Haifa: 2006
> The Secret of Divine Civilization. Bahá’í Publishing Trust, Wilmette, Illinois:
> 1990.
> Cole, Juan R. I.
> “I Am All The Prophets: The Poetics of Pluralism in Bahá’í Texts” in Poetics
> Today, 14:3, 1993. https://bahai-library.com/cole_poetics_pluralism
> “Interpretation in the Bahá’í Faith,” in Bahá’ í Studies Review, 5:1. London:
> Association for Bahá’í Studies English-Speaking Europe, 1995. https://bahai-
> library.com/cole_interpretation_bahai_faith
> “Problems of Chronology in Bahá’u’lláh’s Tablet of Wisdom” in
> World Order 13:3, 1979, pp. 24-39. http://bahai-library.com/
> cole_problems_chronology_hikmat
> Fananapazir, Khazeh, S. Fazel, and Sen McGlinn. “Some Interpretive Principles in
> the Bahá’í Writings” in Bahá’ í Studies Review, 2:1. London: Association for
> Bahá’í Studies English-Speaking Europe, 1992. <https://bahai-library.com/
> fananapazir_fazel_interpretive_principles>
> Hall, James. Philosophy and Intellectual History. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching
> Company, 2003.
> May, Dann. “A Preliminary Survey of Hermeneutical Principles Found within the
> Bahá’í Writings” in Journal of Bahá’ í Studies, 1.3, 1989.
> 
> Understanding Traditional Discourses
> 
> McLean, Jack. “Shoghi Effendi’s Concept of History” Presented at the combined
> Irfán-Association for Bahá’í Studies Conference, London, England, July 2-4,
> 2004. https://bahai-library.com/pdf/m/mclean_shoghieffendi_concept_his-
> tory.pdf.
> Mitchell, Glenford E. “The Literature of Interpretation: Notes on the English Writ-
> ings of Shoghi Effendi” in World Order 7:2, Winter 1972. https://bahai-library.
> com/mitchell_literature_interpretation.
> Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl. Miracles and Metaphors. Los Angeles: Kalimat Press, 1981.
> Sours, Michael, “Seeing with the Eye of God: Relationships Between Theology
> and Interpretation” in Bahá’ í Studies Review 1.1, London: Association for
> Baha’i Studies English-Speaking Europe, 1991. https://bahai-library.com/
> sours_seeing_eye_god.
> Stockman, Robert and Jonah Winters. Resource Guide for the Scholarly Study of the
> Bahá’ í Faith. Wilmette, IL: Research Office of the Bahá’í National Center,
> 1997. http://bahai-library.com/stockman_winters_resource_guide.
> Universal House of Justice.
> “Lot and His Daughters” Memorandum, 29 March 2015. http://bahai-library.
> com/uhj_lot_daughters.
> “Resurrection of Christ and the Bible” Memorandum, 14 September 1987.
> http://bahai-library.com/uhj_resurrection_bible.
> “Socrates” Memorandum, 22 October 1995. http://bahai-library.com/
> compilation_socrates_bwc#15.
> Wansborough, Henry. “The Four Gospels in Synopsis” in The Oxford Bible
> Commentary. Edited by John Barton and John Muddiman. Oxford: Oxford
> University Press, 2013, pp. 110-27.
> 
> Lights of ‘Irfán Book Twenty-One
> 
> NOTES
> 
> 1     See Stockman and Winters, chapter 30: “Hermeneutics and Interpretation”
> 2     Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl, p. 9-10
> 3     Provisional translation by Foad Seddigh, also found in Laáí ael-Hiekmat, vol.
> 2 page 57
> 4     Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl, p. 9-10
> 5     Ibid.
> 6     Memorandum 3 November 1987 cited in “Socrates” Memorandum, 22
> October 1995.
> 7     http://www.kashkul.org/2010/09/09/the-true-torah/
> 8     See Hornby, #1689
> 9     Memorandum 29 March 2015 (29 March 2015, written on behalf of the Uni-
> versal House of Justice to an individual believer, see “Socrates” Memorandum
> to the Universal House of Justice, last entry)
> 10     “Socrates” Memorandum 22 October 1995
> 11    “Socrates” Memorandum 22 October 1995
> 12    Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl, p. 9-10
> 13    Mírzá Abu’l-Faḍl, p. 9-10
>
> — *Understanding Traditional Discourses (Used by permission of the curator)*