# Dates in Baha'u'llah and the New Era: A response to Francis Beckwith
*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-18 — 1 clipping.*
---
> Documents relevant to this issue include: The
> original article,
> Bahá'í-Christian Dialogue: Some Key Issues Considered A letter
> from the House complete with a memorandum, "Changes
> Made to "Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era" Regarding the Explanation of Daniel
> 12:12" Another letter from the House complete with a
> lengthy memorandum, "Daniel's Prophecies" a letter from
> the US National Spiritual Assembly on the same topic.
> Peter Terry's rebuttal "Truth Triumphs: A Bahá'í Response to Misrepresentations of the Bahá'í Teachings and Bahá'í History"
> A lengthy informal essay by David Friedman, "A Bahá'í response to Francis Beckwith's article 'Bahá'í-Christian Dialogue: Some Key Issues Considered'"
> As well, Douglas Martin's
> review of William Miller addresses issues of Christian
> polemicism.
>
> September 24, 1992
>
> Dear Bahá'í Friend:
>
> The National Spiritual Assembly has received your letter dated 21 September 1992
> concerning Francis Beckwith and questions he has raised in his book the Bahá'í
> Faith about the text of recent editions of J.E. Esselmont's Bahá'u'lláh and the New
> Era, we are sending the following.
>
> Mr. Francis Beckwith is a Christian who has spoken and written against the Bahá'í Faith
> from the point of view of fundamentalist Christian doctrine. The National Assembly has
> not written any refutations of his work and does not feel this would be productive at the
> present time. However, the National Assembly does provide the following comments
> about the prophecy of Daniel of the 1335 days and the reason for the removal of passages
> pertaining to this prophecy from J.E. Esslemont's Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era to
> individuals who inquire.
>
> In a letter dated 11 November 1969, the Universal House of Justice has discussed the
> changes made for the new edition of Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era. Although Mr.
> Esslemont had interpreted certain statements made by `Abdu'l-Bahá to mean that
> Universal Peace would be firmly established in the year 1957, the explanations of the
> fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel are somewhat complicated and incomplete.
> Therefore, the paragraph in which Mr. Esslemont calculates the date from the Hijrah has
> been omitted in recent editions of the book.
>
> In a letter dated 4 May 1946 written on behalf of the Guardian, the following clarifications
> of Mr. Esslemont's comments were given:
>
> As regards the statement in Esslemont: We cannot be absolutely certain of
> what the Master said because it is not in a Tablet; He did state, however, in 2 Tablets, that
> this date will see the triumph of the Cause. Reference is made to these Tablets in "The
> Passing of `Abdu'l-Bahá," and the Master's words quoted.
>
> `Abdu'l-Bahá, in a Tablet quoted on page 28 of "The Passing of `Abdu'l-Bahá", appears to
> identify the prophecy with the year 1963:
>
> Now concerning the verse in Daniel, the interpretation whereof thou didst
> ask, namely, "Blessed is he who cometh unto the thousand three hundred and thirty five
> days." These days must be reckoned as solar and not
>
> [page 2]
>
> lunar years. For according to this
> calculation a century will have elapsed from the dawn of the Sun of Truth... (i.e., a century
> after 1863).
>
> Another Tablet quoted in the same place indicates:
>
> O servant of God! The afore-mentioned thousand three hundred and
> thirty-five years must be reckoned from the day of the flight of His Holiness Muhammad,
> the Apostle of God, (Hegira) salutations and blessings rest upon Him, at the close of
> which time the signs of the rise, the glory, the exaltation, the spread of the Word of God
> throughout the East and the West shall appear.
>
> (Further prophecies of Daniel are discussed by `Abdu'l-Bahá in Some Answered
> Ouestions, part 1, chapter 10).
>
> The Guardian indicated that Daniel's prophecy alluded to the year 1963. Referring to the
> Declaration of Bahá'u'lláh in Baghdad [1863], the Guardian indicated:
>
> The "hundred lunar years" destined to immediately precede that blissful
> consummation (1335 days), announced by Daniel in that same chapter, had commenced."
> (God Passes By, page 151).
>
> In another letter written on behalf of the Guardian in December 1953, the prophecy is
> linked to the completion of the goals of the Ten Year Crusade (1953-63):
>
> ....The 1335 days is figured according to the solar calendar, but in adjusting
> the 1335 days, one must take into consideration the time at which the prophecies were
> given and change them into solar time, which would bring the date to 1963. There is one
> thing of importance for the Bahá'ís to understand; and that is, that this prophecy refers to
> happenings within the Faith, not occurrences outside the Faith. It refers specifically to the
> spread of the Faith over the face of the earth. This will be accomplished when the Bahá'í
> Faith is firmly established in all the virgin areas outlined in the Ten-Year Crusade, and the
> other goals of the Crusade are completed. Thus it behooves us to work day and night to
> accomplish this glorious goal.
>
> The Universal House of Justice explains in its letter of November 11, 1969, mentioned
> above, that:
>
> these passages do not give exactly the same date and cover a period of time
> rather than a specific year. However, it is apparent from the Guardian's letter dated 30th
> June 1952 that the crucial date in this period is Ridvan 1963, the occasion of the
> celebration of the centenary of the Declaration of Bahá'u'lláh.
>
> [page 3]
>
> Thus, it is clear that Mr. Esslemont's interpretation of the statements made to him by
> `Abdu'l-Bahá cannot be wholly supported by the authorized texts of `Abdu'l-Bahá and the
> explanations of the Guardian. As you know, Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era has often been
> used to introduce the Bahá'í Teachings to the public, and, as such, it was important that
> the teachings be represented as accurately as possible in the text. The fact that changes
> have been made to Mr. Esslemont's original text has been clearly pointed out in the
> prefaces to the various editions of the book. The preface to the 1937 edition, prepared by
> the Bahá'í Publishing Committee, explained:
>
> As Dr. Esslemont himself recognized, the Faith entered a new phase of its
> history after the ascension of `Abdu'l-Bahá. The result is that the author's views, some of
> them written prior to 1921, no longer on certain aspects of the subject correspond to the
> evolutionary character of the Faith. His treatment of events and social conditions then
> existing, moreover, no longer appears fully relevant. Unavoidably, a few errors of fact had
> entered his text, while his explanation of the stations of the Bab and of `Abdu'l-Bahá have
> been replaced in the minds of Bahá'ís by the authoritative interpretations since made by the
> first Guardian of the Faith, Shoghi Effendi. The present edition therefore represents a
> revision made by the American National Spiritual Assembly, acting under the advice and
> approval of Shoghi Effendi. These revisions in no respect alter the original plan of Dr.
> Esslemont's book, nor affect the major portion of his text. Their purpose has been to
> amplify the author's discussion in a few passages by the addition of material representing
> the fuller knowledge available since his lamented death, and newer translations of his
> quotations from Bahá'í Sacred Writings.
>
> From the Preface to the 1950 Edition:
>
> ...This edition does not displace the text as it has appeared since major
> revision was made in the book under the direction of the Guardian of the Faith in 1937, as
> the time has not come for anything like a thorough recasting of the book to make its
> references to world conditions completely contemporaneous...It should be added that any
> further revision of the text in the future is subject to approval by Shoghi Effendi. The
> Committee has no authority to pass upon revisions which may be desired by Bahá'ís of
> other countries for their particular need.
>
> Finally, the Bahá'í Publishing Trust prefaced its 1970 edition as follows:
>
> Since 1937 no revision has been made to the text of
> Dr. Esslemont's book, although in 1950 some minor corrections were introduced. On the
> other hand, the diffusion and development of the Bahá'í Faith since that time have been
> tremendous, and there has been added to the Bahá'í
>
> [page 4]
>
> bibliography a rich legacy of
> incomparable expositions, translations, and historical accounts from the pen of Shoghi
> Effendi, Guardian of the Faith and the appointed interpreter of its Sacred Writings. It has
> therefore been deemed necessary to bring the book up to date in order to maintain its
> usefulness for modern readers. This has been done with a minimum of alteration to the
> text, and chiefly by the use of footnotes and of an epilogue giving the current statistics of
> the Bahá'í Faith...
>
> We thank you very much for your response to the questions of the seeker who had read
> this book and hope that the above will be of use should you encounter such questions
> again in the future. We are also enclosing a copy of a review of a book by William Miller
> which refutes issues similar to those raised by Francis Beckwith.
>
> With warm regards,
> For the Office of the Secretary
>
> enclosure
>
> [Note: I do not know what book review is intended, as no
> enclosure was included in my copy of this letter. However, it is very likely that the review
> intended was the one written by Universal House of Justice member Douglas Martin of
> William Miller's The Bahá'í Faith: Its History and Teachings. This review is available here.
> -J.W.]
>
> — *Dates in Baha'u'llah and the New Era: A response to Francis Beckwith (Used by permission of the curator)*