Understanding Traditional Discourses
Exported from 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)