Some people do confuse immaculate conception with the virgin birth. But this
is a major issue of those days. And there was even a view among Protestants
that Christian traditions reflected in the Qur'an expressed the Catholic idea of
the Immaculate Conception. Gibbon and others speaks of this, so it is very
doubtful that Shoghi Effendi could have mistaken the terminology or missed the
larger sectrarian debate of his time.
Gibbon, perhaps his favorite author, seems to have seen the immaculate
conception of Mary suggested by the Qur'an and it is the quranic version of
Mary's sufferings that Baha'u'llah cites in the Iqan. Further, it is the Iqan that
Shoghi Effendi seems to correlates with the immaculate conception, depending
on how one reads the Promised Day Is Come (since he may have only been
correlating it to the Virgin Mary). But, in light of Gibbons, one would naturally
assume he means to correlate it with the immaculate conception of Mary.
The evidence that he (improbable) or the secretaries (more probable)
didn't understand and/or appreciate the specific significance of the terminology
(i.e., its clear cultural identification with the dogma expressed in the 1854
Bull) is the October 1948 letter "the 'Immaculate Conception' or what we really
mean is the Virgin Birth (for the two are different.)" It is also interesting
that letter four says: "With regard to your question concerning the Virgin
Birth of Jesus; on this point, as on several others, the Baha'i teachings are in
*full agreement* with the doctrines of the Catholic Church." This seems
exaggerated, even if one really believed that Promised Day Is Come was a direct
affirmation of the 1854 Bull and Catholic doctrine, since the Baha'i Faith
doesn't appear to be in "full" agreement with any Catholic doctrine. On the other
hand, the plural "doctrines" suggests both the virgin birth and immaculate
conception.
Three sources known to Shoghi Effendi are 1) Sale's translation of the
"Koran" (1734), 2) Gibbon's "Decline and Fall" (1737-1794) , and 3) Rodwell's
translation of the "Koran" (1861):
1) The Sale's footnote to verse 3:31: "The wife of Imran is Hannah or Anne...
Although Muhammad had no direct access to the Apocryphal Gospels, yet these
may have influenced, or at any rate, contained much in common with, the
ordinary traditions of S. Syria. And of this, the Immaculate Conception of the B. V.
Mary, supposed by Gibbon (ch. 50) to have been "borrowed from the Koran,"
probably formed a part.] Sale also adds: "It is not improbable that the pretended
immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary is intimated in this passage; for
according to a tradition of Mohammed, every person that comes into the world is
touched at his birth by the devil, and therefore cries out: Mary and her son
only excepted, between whom and the evil spirit GOD placed a veil, so that his
touch did not reach them. And for this reason, they say, neither of them were
guilty of any sin, like the rest of the children of Adam: which peculiar grace
they obtained by virtue of this recommendation of them by Hannah to GOD's
protection." (Al Koran, p. 35)
2) Of the Qur'an, Gibbon wrote: "The wonders of the genuine and apocryphal
gospels are profusely heaped on his head; and the Latin church has not disdained
to borrow from the Koran the immaculate conception[87] of his virgin mother.
Yet Jesus was a mere mortal; and, at the day of judgment, his testimony will
serve to condemn both the Jews, who reject him as a prophet, and the
Christians, who adore him as the Son of God..." [Footnote 87: It is darkly hinted in
the
Koran, (c. 3, p. 35,) and more clearly explained by the tradition of the
Sonnites, (Sale's Note, and Maracci, tom. ii. p. 112.) In the xiith century, the
immaculate conception was condemned by St. Bernard as a presumptuous novelty,
(Fra Paolo, Istoria del Concilio di Trento, l. ii.)]
3) Rodwell writes: Footnote 4, to 3:32: "According to a tradition of Muhammad
every new-born child is touched by Satan, with the exception of Mary and her
Son, between whom and Satan God interposed a veil. Hence this passage may
imply the Immaculate Conception of the B. V. Mary. See v. 37 below. With regard
to Rodwell, he did *also* use language similar to Shoghi Effendi: Qur'an
translation: "And her who kept her maidenhood, and into whom[3] we breathed of our
spirit, and made her and her son a sign to all creatures." (21:91) [Footnote
3: See Sura [cix.] lxvi. 12. "It is quite clear from these two passages that
Muhammad believed in the Immaculate and miraculous conception of Jesus." But
this doesn't mean Rodwell is in any way confusing the two, just referring to
both together. Sale, Rodwell, and Gibbon, are arguing that when the Quran says
"made her *and* her son a sign" this accords with the Catholic idea that both
Mary *and* Jesus are born miraculously, thus "Immaculate [conception of Mary]
and miraculous conception of Jesus [i.e., virgin birth]." One could read it the
other way, meaning Jesus' "immaculate and miraculous conception", but the
point is about Mary and Jesus, and Rodwell would have known what a controversy
this was, so I think it is more likely the other way. The Protestant critique of
Catholic beliefs (esp. Mary--Mother of God, immaculate conception, and
assumption of Mary) was a major theme that continued into Shoghi Effendi's day.
Protestants believed that the end-time prophecies about the anti-Christ
and the Beast, etc., concerned the Pope and Islam. The teachings of Pius IX
(immaculate conception, prohibition against Bible readings, infallibility) were
often cited as affirmations of the great evil of Roman Catholicism. A link
between the Qur'an with the Catholic doctrine would have been of special interest
to them.
One problem with arguing that Shoghi Effendi also affirmed the Immaculate
Conception of Mary is the letter saying "full" agreement with Catholic
doctrine. In reality, any correlation with the Qur'an's idea of immaculacy really
suggests something very different from Catholic Doctrine. The Catholic doctrine
hinges on original sin. The problem with saying that he didn't affirm the
Immaculate conception of Mary is the letter opposing the denial of the Immaculate
Conception by some Christians. In this context, it doesn't seem plausible that
he meant the Virgin Birth of Jesus, as all Christian Creeds affirm the virgin
birth as a true doctrine. Protestants especially, but the Eastern Church too,
however, were well known for opposing the doctrine of the Immaculate
conception of Mary (although not putting this opposition into a formal creed--so even
that is not exactly right). On the whole, if one were to take the strict
position that all the letters are authoritative, then both doctrines must be
affirmed to some degree or in full. And were it not for other writings to the
contrary, I suppose Baha'is would end up believing in the Catholic notion of
original sin too. But again, without the doctrine of original sin, it simply doesn't
make sense to say some creeds oppose the Immaculate Conception, because
otherwise, even Protestants affirm, rather than oppose, in the immaculacy of Mary,
just as would Muslims and Baha'is. For Protestants, its the Catholic view that
Mary was free of original sin that is the problem, just as with Baha'is.
Warmest,
Michael
----------
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public)
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
