15 / 38
In another place, Bahá’u’lláh’s imperative construction in “Ponder and reflect
[
Fikr va tadabbur nimúdih
], that haply all the hidden mysteries may be freed
from the veils of nearness and remoteness” is translated as a third-person past
tense: “It [the pen] pondered and thought about the river”—and the rest of the
sentence is given the wrong tense to make it consistent with that mistake,
obscuring the fact that Bahá’u’lláh is here urging Javád to grasp the
monumental truth just imparted to him in the parable of the river. Elsewhere,
Bahá’u’lláh’s statement: “Similarly, ponder upon the mysteries of divine decree
[
qad. á
] and destiny [
qadar
]. Whatever hath appeared or will appear is like this
river,” becomes translated as: “In the same way, consider the foreordained and
predestined mysteries—what has appeared and shall appear,” thus losing the
point that Bahá’u’lláh is speaking about the specific question of the mystery of
qadar
or destiny mentioned in the Four Valleys and other writings. However,
translation errors that do not play a major role in Cole’s commentary on the
tablet will not be pursued here.
Miracles as Evidence
According to Cole’s reading of the Book of the River, Bahá’u’lláh denies being
a Prophet; instead, we are told, this tablet “gives us a humanist Baha’u’llah,
who sternly denies being able to work any miracles, who defers humbly to the
Mirrors of the Babi dispensation.” To further support this conclusion Cole adds:
“Indeed, the argument seems to be made that just as plagues no longer break out
in Iraq every 30 years as they had in past centuries . . . after the Bab’s death the
age of miracles is over with. This is in turn an announcement of a profound
secularization of sorts, isn’t it?” (“Commentary”).
However, there is absolutely nothing in Bahá’u’lláh’s tablet indicating that he
is unable to work miracles. Bahá’u’lláh begins by referring to specific rumors
that had been circulating and says that they are not true: “Of the miracles
mentioned, those which are ascribed to this humble one are fabrications
contrived by impostors” (
Ánchih az z. uhúrát-i-mu‘jizát kih dhikr shud ánchih
nisbat bih ín h. aqír ast kidhbun iftaráhu’l-mukdhibún
). It is obvious here that
Bahá’u’lláh is in no way saying that he has not performed any miracle, nor is he
saying that he is unable to work miracles. He is simply rejecting the rumor that
he has performed the specific miracles Javád has asked about. But purely
hypothetically, even if Bahá’u’lláh had denied performing any miracles, it does
not follow that he was denying he was able to perform miracles. The equation
of the two is invalid.
But we are offered a stronger, although also invalid, inference. Cole argues
that in the example of thirty-year cycles of plague, Bahá’u’lláh is rejecting the
possibility that miracles will occur at all after the Báb. But that inference is
unwarranted on three counts. First, the issue being discussed is not whether in
the future miracles will or will not happen, but whether the accounts of miracles
Concealment and Reve lat ion
39