Three copies of the same talk give the span as six thousand years, six hundred, and sixty. Noticing such a thing is where inquiry begins, and the Bahá’í writings themselves distinguish the kinds of difference a careful reader will meet. Some arise in transmission, since no scribe could capture at the moment of revelation all that was sent down; some are revisions, for Bahá’u’lláh explains that Tablets dispatched in their original form were later read back to Him and brought into line with the grammar of the people, to forestall the cavils of opponents. Others are deliberate. The Báb wrote in open defiance of the rules of Arabic grammar, and when the divines of Tabríz criticized His grammar He answered that the Word of God is not subject to the conventions of its creatures; the rules were deduced from scripture in the first place. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá notes with equanimity that ancient Bibles disagree about a patriarch’s age, and assigns the histories to historians and the commandments to Moses. Luke, opening his Gospel by acknowledging earlier narratives and the testimony of witnesses, shows a sacred author visibly at work on his sources [1]. From here the questions lead on to authentication and transcription of the Writings, their preservation, and the limits of language itself.
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."
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, 1916-Mar-19, to Ella G Cooper -- AB11297)
02
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.
(Bahá’u’lláh, Su'al va Javab (Questions and Answers), to Zaynul-Muqarrabin -- BH00069)
03
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.
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Maqaliy-i-Shakhs Sayyah (A Traveller's Narrative), 1886 ca. -- AB00003)
04
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.
(The Báb, Words spoken at the examination in Tabriz, 1264-07 ca. -- BBU0004)
05
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.
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Words spoken at Rue St. Didier 30 in Paris, 1913-Mar-15 -- ABU2619)
06
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.
Further quotations · supplied wording and references
07
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.
GPB.021
Supplied quotation · catalogue passage not verified
08
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.
(The Bab, Sahifiy-i-'Adliyyih, provisional translation, in MNP.057)
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.).
(Armin Eschraghi, in "Undermining the Foundations of Orthodoxy -- Some Notes on the Bab's Sharia", MNP.225)
Supplied quotation · catalogue passage not verified