Textual differences and the work of understanding

Question: In the copies of the talk given by Abdul-Baha to the Society of Friends in London, there seems to be a discrepancy in the time in the opening line. In some it reads, "About six thousand years ago," in others "six hundred years," and in others "sixty years."

57. QUESTION: Concerning disparities between certain revealed verses.

ANSWER: Many Tablets were revealed and dispatched in their original form without being checked and reviewed. Consequently, as bidden, they were again read out in the Holy Presence, and brought into conformity with the grammatical conventions of the people in order to forestall the cavils of opponents of the Cause. Another reason for this practice is that the new style inaugurated by the Herald, may the souls of all else but Him be offered up for His sake, was seen to be marked by substantial latitude in adherence to the rules of grammar; sacred verses therefore were then revealed in a style which is for the most part in conformity with current usage for ease of understanding and concision of expression.

Eminent doctors in overwhelming might compassed Him on all sides, and such was the onset of orthodoxy that it had been no great wonder if a mere youth had not withstood the mountain of Elburz. They demanded proof. Without hesitation He recited texts, saying, "This is the permanent and most mighty proof." They criticized His grammar. He adduced arguments from the Qur'an, setting forth therefrom instances of similar infractions of the rules of grammar.

...His Holiness the Bab -- may my spirit be sacrificed for Him -- entirely abrogated the rules of language and freed the Arabic tongue. Thus, all the writings of His Holiness -- may my spirit be sacrificed for the dust of His footsteps -- demolished the edifice of Arabic grammar. The Ancient Beauty -- may my spirit be sacrificed for His loved ones -- likewise, in His early writings, opposed the vain imaginings of grammatical rules. However, in the Most Great Prison, in consideration of certain scholars' objections, the verses and writings were revealed in accordance with the people's rules. Notwithstanding this, on certain occasions, merely to prevent the Arabic language from becoming fettered again in chains and bonds, words were revealed that broke through the rules of the people. A detailed explanation would be lengthy, and time does not permit....

The Qur'an itself does in no wise accord with the rules and conventions current amongst men. The Word of God can never be subject to the limitations of His creatures. Nay, the rules and canons which men have adopted have been deduced from the text of the Word of God and are based upon it. These men have, in the very texts of that holy Book, discovered no less than three hundred instances of grammatical error, such as the one you now criticise. Inasmuch as it was the Word of God, they had no other alternative except to resign themselves to His will.

Likewise, should there be any hair-splitting objection based upon syntax, pronunciation, or Arabic grammar, it has to be readily rejected, inasmuch as these rules are themselves derived from the words of God, whereas the revelation of the verses is not bound by them. There is no doubt that the Author of these verses hath disclaimed these rules, and the knowledge thereof, for Himself. Nay, rather, no testimony is more weighty and conclusive before those endued with true understanding, than the very absence of such knowledge, and the revelation of this unconventional form of verses and words. For the fruit of the conventional kinds of knowledge is the understanding of the Book of God, and therefore, knowing them hath never been, nor will ever be, necessary for the Exalted Tree Who revealeth the supreme Book Itself. Rather, all rules of grammar attain binding authority by virtue of that which is revealed by God.

There are three ancient Bibles.

1st the Jewish Bible,

2d the [Sanhedrin] Bible which was translated by seventy wisest Rabbis into Greek at the time of Alexander [crossed out and replaced with Ptolemy],

3d the Samaritan Bible.

These three Bibles differ a great deal from each other on historical ground. For instance, in one Bible you read the age of a certain patriarch was 120 yrs; in another bible it says 80 yrs and in the third bible it says 60 yrs. It is most difficult to say which one of these Bibles is correct, for each [seat] holding fast to his own bible claiming it to be the only authoritative one and the other two as unreliable.

Therefore all the historical parts of the Bible belong to the historians but the commandments and the Decalogue belong to Moses.

O Zayn, the delay in answering what you asked about the verses has been for the preservation of change, for in the early days there was absolutely no consideration of the people's rules at the time of revelation, while in these days it is observed out of wisdom. Therefore, if a Tablet from before is read in the presence of the Countenance, it descends in some stations differently than what was revealed before. This refers to the outward expression, but in reality whatever was revealed was and will be correct.

… That which flowed from the Pen of this Servant, in the very presence of the Countenance, hath been disseminated abroad; it is thus possible that in certain places omissions may have occurred, or that there may be excesses or deficiencies, for no soul is able, at the very moment of revelation, to commit to writing in its entirety that which is sent down.

What thou hast mentioned of grammatical errors and lack of connection stems from people's ignorance, just as the eloquent Arabs of old claimed that words like "qistas," "tannur," and "sijjil" were foreign terms, and that some words were mere ancient tales. They claimed there was no apparent connection between certain verses, and that some verses violated Arabic grammar rules, such as His words, exalted be His mention: "His name shall be the Messiah" and "Verily this is one of the greatest" and "These two are certainly sorcerers."

In answer to a criticism calling His [the Bab's] attention to an infraction by Him of the rules of grammar, He cited certain passages from the Qur'an as corroborative evidence, and, turning aside, with firmness and dignity, a frivolous and irrelevant remark thrown at Him by one of those who were present, summarily disbanded that gathering by Himself rising and quitting the room.

Supplied quotation · catalogue passage not verified

And now regarding some of the passages in which words have been altered or have flowed in contradiction to the grammatical rules of the people of veils: It is so that people will be certain that the author of these passages did not come to them by borrowing verses and scholarly knowledge. The ruling on altering [words] (Qur'an 10:64) was rescinded by a new mode [of writing] and the prohibition on contradicting grammar was rescinded by a divine grammar.

Catalogue reference: BB00017 · passage alignment is approximate; supplied wording retained.

Some of the Bab's earliest verses were an open provocation to the Shi'i clerics. One example was his stance on the complex rules of Arabic grammar. He not only wrote in a fashion that contradicted those rules, he even went so far as to call them 'satanic' (al-qawa'id al-shaytaniyyah) (Qayyum al-Asma', sura 86) and claimed that through his intercession God had decided to free language from the rules and chains placed on its neck in the past (Risalah fi 'Ilm al-Nahw, vol. 67, p. 121; cf. Amanat 1989, pp. 269f.).

Supplied quotation · catalogue passage not verified