# Translating the Baha'i Writings

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-19 — 1 clipping.*

---

> Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Craig Alan Volker, Translating the Baha'i Writings, bahai-library.com.
> ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
> 
> Published in the Journal of Bahá’í Studies Vol. 2, number 3 (1990)
> © Association for Bahá’í Studies 1990
> 
> Translating the Bahá’í Writings
> Craig A. Volker
> Abstract
> Although the difficulties of translating the holy Word are recognized, Bahá’í institutions have always stressed the
> importance of translation. No approach to biblical or quranic translation corresponds completely to the Bahá’í ideal,
> just as no former religious leader combined Shoghi Effendi’s unique dual role as Guardian and translator. Bahá’í
> institutions have defined the most salient theoretical issues relating to Bahá’í translation. In translating the Bahá’í
> writings, faithfulness to the original text is paramount. This is defined as reflecting the beauty of the original and
> accurately conveying the concepts of the original. Consultation is an integral part of the translation process, and
> translations of scripture are seen as a tool for education. Bahá’í translators today face a number of practical problems
> caused by a lack of resources, cultural differences, and linguistic underdevelopment.
> 
> Résumé
> Tout en étant conscientes des difficultés inhérentes à la traduction des écrits saints, les institutions bahá’íes ont
> toujours mis l’accent sur l’importance de la traduction. Aucune approche de la traduction biblique ou coranique ne
> correspond exactement a l’idéal bahá’í, de même qu’aucun dirigeant religieux du passé n’a cumulé, comme Shoghi
> Effendi, les roles de Gardien et de traducteur. Les institutions bahá’ís ont défini les questions théoriques essentielles
> relatives à la traduction des écrits bahá’ís. Lorsqu’on traduit les ecrits bahá’ís, la fidélité par rapport au texte original
> est primordiale. Fidélité signifie ici refléter la beauté de l’original tout en communiquant avec précision les concepts
> qu’il contient. La consultation fait partie intégrante du processus traductionnel et la traduction des écrits saints est
> considérée comme un outil pédagogique. Les traducteurs bahá’ís de nos jours doivent affronter une serie de
> problèmes pratiques découlant d’un manque de ressources, de différences culturelles et d’un sous-développement
> linguistique.
> 
> Resumen
> Aunque la traducción de la Palabra Sagrada es de reconocida dificultad, las instituciones bahá’ís han siempre
> subrayado la importancia de la traducción. Ningún patrón de traducción bíblica o coránica alcanza allegar al
> concepto bahá’í, al igual que ningún dirigente religioso de tiempos pasados combina la doble y única función de
> Guardián y traductor como lo hizo Shoghi Effendi. Las instituciones bahá’ís han definido los asuntos teoréticos más
> resaltantes relativo a la traducción bahá’í. Al traducir los escritos bahá’ís es principalísimo mantener fidelidad al
> texto original. Gana definición al compararse fielmente a la belleza del original y cuando da a entender precisamente
> los conceptos que aquel imparte. La consulta es parte íntegra del proceso de traducción, y a las traducciones de los
> escritos se les ve como instrumentos de la educatión. Los traductores bahá’ís tienen que enfrentarse a numerosos
> problemas de índole práctico causados por falta de recursos, diferencias culturales, y subdesarrollo linguístico.
> 
> Introduction
> 
> S   ince its inception, the Bahá’í Faith has spread to all but six countries in the world (Smith, The Babi and Baha’i
> Religions 160). Indeed, the Encyclopedia Britannica claims that while only 0.1% of the world’s population is
> Bahá’í, the Bahá’í Faith is second only to Christianity as the most widely distributed religion in the world (Barrett,
> “World Religious Statistics” 303). Such a diverse community has a strong need for translation, not only for
> interethnic communication within the Bahá’í community but also for individual believer’s access to Bahá’í scripture,
> without which the ideals of independent investigation of truth cannot be realized. That translation is important
> among Bahá’ís is illustrated by the increased availability of Bahá’í literature—from eight languages in 1928 to 739
> languages in 1985 (Smith, The Babi and Baha’i Religions 160). Although there is no more a Bahá’í theory of
> translation than there is a Bahá’í theory of music or architecture, it is possible to identify certain principles that
> Bahá’í translators are expected to follow.
> 
> The Translatability of the Bahá’í Writings
> The power of language and the creative Word is extremely important in the imagery of the Bahá’í writings. As
> Bahiyyih Nakhjavani has explained, the Manifestation is the “spiritual reality of words, metaphors and of language”
> (“Some Themes and Images in the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh” 673). The Báb, for example, adopted the title “The
> Primal Point,” proclaiming his role as the Initiator of language, and spoke of God’s creation of the universe through
> seven words (de Gobineau, 259). Bahá’u’lláh says, “Should the Word be allowed to release suddenly all the energies
> latent within it, no man could sustain the weight of so mighty a Revelation. Nay, all that is heaven and on earth
> would flee in consternation before it” (Gleanings 76–77).
> Given the power of the Word of God, a question arises about the extent to which this power is veiled by
> translation and even whether translation should be attempted at all. This has been a matter of controversy in earlier
> religions. In Christianity, for example, translations have been the cause of numerous controversies, and Thomas
> More was not alone in expressing the idea that “it is dangerous to translate the text of Scripture from one tongue into
> another...for as much as in translation it is hard to keep the same sentence [i.e., sense] whole” (quoted in Kelly, The
> True Interpreter 74). In Islam the first translations of the Qur’án into Persian soon after the passing of Muhammad
> were a cause of much controversy, which was eventually settled by prohibiting official translations from the Arabic
> but permitting “explanations” in other languages for “private use” (cf. Tibawi). Even in modern times, the
> introduction of vernacular translations of the Qur’án has caused much dispute. To some extent there would seem to
> be an echo of this feeling among the Bahá’ís. For example, Rúhiyyih Rabbani (The Priceless Pearl 203) reports that
> Shoghi Effendi felt that it would prove impossible ever to translate some of Bahá’u’lláh’s writings into English.
> Similarly, Shoghi Effendi discouraged translations of the more important Arabic tablets of Bahá’u’lláh into Persian,
> describing the originals as “pearls” and translations as “shells” (letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi in Persian
> 27 March 1845—quoted in Research Department 1988, p. 4). Certainly, ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s requirements for a
> translator would discourage many:
> 
> Truly translation is very difficult. One has to have the utmost proficiency in science and religion, in divine
> wisdom, in the current trends of thought in Europe, and in philosophical and scientific terms. (Quoted in
> Research Department 1988, p. 3; original reference not given)
> 
> This does not mean translation is ruled out completely. In 1940 Shoghi Effendi explained that his ban
> applies only to translations into Persian and that in the “Tablets of the Divine Plan” ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (Tablets of
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá 52) had urged the translation of the Bahá’í writings into all languages. The Universal House of Justice
> seems to view the problem of translatability quite pragmatically: although “translation of a passage can seldom be an
> entirely faithful rendering of the original,” and the quality of many Bahá’í translations is poor, “for the time being
> we must do what we can with what we have” (letter of 8 September 1985).
> 
> The Role of Shoghi Effendi
> If pragmatism were the only reason to support translating the Bahá’í writings, the role of translation in the
> Bahá’í Faith might be no more important than in Islam or Christianity, and, as in those religions, attitudes towards
> whether or how to translate might vary from generation to generation. In the Bahá’í Faith, however, translation is
> not merely tolerated for reasons of practicality; when certain principles are followed, translation can play a key role
> in the development of the community. The most convincing argument for the acceptability and importance of
> translating the Bahá’í writings is the amount of time Shoghi Effendi devoted to this task, even while often prefacing
> his translations with comments about “the unattainable goal—a befitting rendering of Bahá’u’lláh’s matchless
> utterance” (Shoghi Effendi, letter of 14 August 1930). Indeed, it would be impossible to comprehend the important
> role translation plays in the Bahá’í Faith without an understanding of the position of Shoghi Effendi.
> As both a translator and Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, Shoghi Effendi’s position as a religious translator is
> unique. While there have been many gifted religious translators, such as St. Jerome in Christianity or Hsuan Tsang
> in Buddhism, none has been an acknowledged interpreter of the scriptures as well. Shoghi Effendi’s approach can be
> compared to Gadamer’s (“Sprache als Medium der hermeneutischen Erfahrung”) description of hermeneutic
> translation: the result of having faith in the integrity of the original text and engaging in a dialogue with it. The
> translation that results from this process is a reflection not only of the original work but also of the dialogue between
> the translator and the original. In this way the translator comes to terms with both the ideas expressed by the text and
> those elements in the text that are at odds with the “true essence” of the receptor language. Such a process is not
> unlike Ruhiyyih Rabbani’s description of Shoghi Effendi’s approach to translation (Rabbani, The Priceless Pearl
> 202ff).
> In hermeneutic translation, this dialogue produces a synthesis between the ideas of the original and the
> reaction of the translator, which reflects a deeper understanding of the text as it is recreated for a new audience.
> Benjamin (“Die Aufgabe des Uebersetzers” 189) describes this as the process of finding the “intention” of the text in
> the receptor language in which the original grows through translation. Where hermeneutic translations of scripture,
> such as Buber and Rosenzweig’s translation of the Torah into German, have not been accepted in the past, it has
> often been because the translator’s vision of the intention of the text is questioned by the audience. This cannot be
> the case with Shoghi Effendi’s translations into English for a Bahá’í audience. While Shoghi Effendi himself wrote
> that his translations were not final and would be subject to review in future (Shoghi Effendi, letter of 14 August
> 1930), his position as Guardian allowed him to make decisions about the authorized interpretation of a potentially
> ambiguous text at the same time that he was translating it into English. Because of this and because of the inherent
> ambiguity of Persian and Arabic rhetoric, which Shoghi Effendi felt had to be made more explicit in English
> translation, Ruhíyyíh Rabbani (The Priceless Pearl 202) explains that this interpretive dimension made his
> translations an even clearer representation of the spirit of Bahá’u’lláh than the originals. For this reason, most
> translations into other languages are now done from Shoghi Effendi’s English translations, rather than from the
> Arabic and Persian originals.
> The most noticeable characteristic of Shoghi Effendi’s translations is their literary style in sharp contrast to
> the earlier translations of Bahá’í writings into English, described by David Hofman as ranging from “bizarre to
> banal” (George Townshend 61). Shoghi Effendi’s style reflects his love of the language of the King James Bible and
> his conscious attempt to set a high cultural standard for the Bahá’í community. His literary style was the result of an
> attempt to create a style that could act as a bridge between the conventions of modem English and the rich and very
> figurative style of the originals. The Universal House of Justice (Research Dept., Memorandum 1985) has contrasted
> this style to that of modem translations of the Bible, noting that while a colloquial or straightforward translation
> might be an adequate reflection of the koine Greek or ancient Hebrew style of the Bible, to have made a similar
> colloquial translation from the highly literary styles of the Persian and Arabic Bahá’í writings would have been
> unfaithful to the original.
> 
> Faithfulness
> Translators of scripture are all too aware that they are translating the Word of God, so rendering that Word
> in the receptor language faithfully is of the utmost importance (cf. Cary, “The Word of God into the Languages of
> Men”). It is therefore not surprising that much of the dialogue in the Bahá’í community regarding translation has
> dealt with trying to define “faithfulness.”
> 
> Beauty
> In discussing translations of the Writings ‘Abdu’l-Bahá instructed that not only should they be made “into
> every tongue,” but that this should be done “conformably to the originals” and “with power and grace of style”
> (Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá 66). Between these two ideals of beauty and conformity there would
> seem to be a dynamic tension.
> Shoghi Effendi often deplored “offhand and ungrammatical translations,” stating that “proper and adequate
> translations” should “not only convey the true spirit of the original but also possess some literary merit” (letter to
> George Townshend, 1926). Similarly, the Universal House of Justice (letter of 7 October 1973) and its Research
> Department (Memorandum 1985) have discussed the “exalted and poetic” style of the original that should be
> conveyed using a translation style “in which there is an abundance of spiritual and poetic terminology” (Research
> Department Memorandum 1985). In most societies this is not an everyday register of language, and the Universal
> House of Justice has specifically stated, “We have noticed a tendency in a number of countries to attempt to
> translate Bahá’í literature into the current, easy, everyday language of the country. This, however, should not be an
> overriding consideration” (letter of 7 October 1973). In another letter (letter of 3 February 1988) the House of
> Justice explains that this directive was given not only because of the elevated style of the original texts but also
> because if translators try to follow the literary styles of the day, these styles change every few decades, and new
> translations would be needed. In the same letter the House of Justice notes that “one merely has to consider the large
> number of new translations of the Bible that have appeared, and are still appearing, and yet many English-speaking
> Christians prefer to continue using the Authorized Version in spite of its proven inaccuracies. Holy scriptures have a
> profound meaning for their readers and to change the familiar words too often can be gravely disturbing” (Universal
> House of Justice letter of 3 February 1988).
> George Grace (personal comment) has pointed out that in many societies, keeping translations of scripture
> from being too accessible to the masses has been a tool for oppression. Given the Bahá’í principle of independent
> investigation of truth, this matter should be a great cause of concern among Bahá’ís. In Islam during the many
> centuries when translation was officially prohibited, “unofficial” vernacular summaries were written in the guise of
> commentaries. A similar practice exists among Bahá’ís. Thus, the Universal House of Justice has authorized
> simplified English translations for use in Papua New Guinea (Universal House of Justice, letter of 20 September
> 1973) and translations of parts of Arabic prayers into Persian (Universal House of Justice, letter of 7 August 1984).
> In both cases care is made to ensure that these translations are not labelled as, or used instead of, the authorized
> translation. Indeed, it is required that the original appear on the same page so as to avoid any confusion about the
> role of the translation-commentary.
> 
> Accuracy
> The Universal House of Justice also writes that a Bahá’í translator “must always bear in mind that he or she
> is dealing with the Word of God, and, when striving to convey the meaning of the original, he should exert his
> utmost to make his rendering both faithful and befitting.” (Universal House of Justice letter of 29 October 1973).
> One obvious aspect of faithfulness is to avoid adding to the revealed Word; Ruhíyyíh Rabbani (The Priceless Pearl
> 206) records Shoghi Effendi’s uneasiness about even the addition of headings to classify sections in a proposed
> compilation of prayers by Bahá’u’lláh.
> Common sense tells us that faithfulness also means conveying all the ideas in the original, which Shoghi
> Effendi considered even more important than the beauty of the translation: “...literary considerations are, no doubt,
> important, but are quite secondary when compared to the ideas and thoughts constituting the Message itself” (letter
> of 14 October 1936). Gruber says that often initial translations of the Writings are too general “with considerable
> loss of the power of the original: for example, rendering ‘God grant that the light of unity may envelope the whole
> earth’ as ‘may God make the opinion of the people of the world one’” (Gruber, Translation Goals 2). At the same
> time the Universal House of Justice has recognized that an overly literal translation can also be problematic by
> producing “phraseology or imagery that would convey the wrong impression” (Letter of 7 October 1973).
> While Shoghi Effendi is by far the foremost Bahá’í translator, there is an obvious limit to the extent to
> which other Bahá’í translators can follow his example, since none can claim to have the ability to make
> interpretations of the meaning of a text for others, or even necessarily to have a clear vision of the real intention of
> the original. To determine what the ideas of the original actually are, translators of the Bahá’í writings into
> languages other than English are strongly encouraged to use the English translations of Shoghi Effendi as their
> starting point. This method is advised not only because Shoghi Effendi could produce both translation and
> authorized exposition but also because, for European languages at least, the thought patterns of English are easier to
> understand than are those of Persian or Arabic and because as an international language English can act as a type of
> bridge between the Middle Eastern culture in which the Writings were revealed and the wider world (Universal
> House of Justice, letter of 14 March 1977).
> 
> Consultation
> As in many Bahá’í endeavors, the concept of consultation is important in achieving faithfulness in
> translation. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (Tablets of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá 151–52), for example, preferred translation by a committee of
> two translators who are native speakers of the source language and two writers who are native speakers of the
> receptor language. That such a group of Bahá’í scholars could not be formed was given as a reason by Shoghi
> Effendi (letter of 15 July 1947) for not translating the Qayyúmu’l-Asmá during his lifetime. Both Shoghi Effendi
> (letter of 14 December 1938) and the Universal House of Justice (letter of 31 May 1981) have stressed the
> importance of receiving expert outside advice when necessary, or for translators working from Shoghi Effendi’s
> English translations to collaborate with Persian or Arabic speakers to refer to the originals when the English versions
> ambiguous or when additional clarification is needed (Universal House of Justice, letter of 30 July 1987). Even
> Shoghi Effendi was in the habit of sending the first drafts of his translations to George Townshend for comment and
> review or asking him for assistance in translating Arabic words that referred to biblical passages (Hofman, George
> Townshend 58).
> In the above discussion of Shoghi Effendi’s role as a Bahá’í translator, mention was made of his similarity
> to Western hermeneutic translators. There is an important difference between hermeneutic translation and Bahá’í
> translation, however. In hermeneutic translation, an attempt is made to be faithful to the word as the basic unit of
> translation, rather than sentences or paragraphs, as well as an attempt always to translate each word in the source
> language with the same word in the receptor language so as to give the flavor of the sentence patterns and rhythm of
> the original (cf. Buber). Among many Bible translators this approach has generally been rejected, and Bahá’í
> translators would concur; Arabic Bahá, for example, is generally translated as “Glory,” as in Bahá’u’lláh “the Glory
> of God,” but in the Bahá’í calendar, Jalál is translated as “Glory” and Bahá as “Splendor.” The Universal House of
> Justice has explained the necessity of doing this as the result of the lack of a perfect correspondence between words
> in different languages. It strongly encourages translators to follow the example of Shoghi Effendi, who would
> alternate among different words in the receptor language when a Arabic or Persian word could be rendered by more
> than one English word (Rabbani, The Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith 86).
> By conveying all the semantic possibilities of the original word in this way and by using units larger than
> the individual word as translation units, Bahá’í translation resembles the work of functional linguist Bible
> translators, such as Eugene Nida or members of the Wycliffe Bible Translators (Summer Institute of Linguistics).
> But again there is a difference, in that the Bahá’í concept of “faithfulness” differs from that used by these Bible
> translators, for whom a translation is “faithful” if it can evoke the same response as was created in the audience of
> the original. A corollary of this is that different audiences within one language community will need different types
> of translations: a university professor is thought to need a different translation of the Bible than a poorly educated
> teenager, for example. This view is rejected by Bahá’í translators; although certain aids may be devised to assist
> poorly educated believers, generally the Bahá’í community is expected to rise to the level of translation that reflects
> the high literary niveau of the original Writings, rather than compromising the style in which these were originally
> written.
> 
> Translations as Education
> Translations as education implies that translations of the Writings should not only present the spiritual
> meaning of the original but that they should also be a means for improving the general educational level of their
> audience. Thus, Shoghi Effendi joked that if American Bahá’ís could not understand his translations, they should
> learn English (Rabbani, The Priceless Pearl 358), and he explained his ban on translations of the Writings from
> Arabic into Persian in part as a desire for Bahá’í children and youth to be well versed in Arabic (Research
> Department Memorandum 1988, 5, citing letters written on Shoghi Effendi’s behalf to the National Spiritual
> Assembly of Iran—no dates given). Similarly, when the Universal House of Justice allowed “translations” in simple
> English for use in Papua New Guinea, it was only on the condition that the original English translation appear on the
> same page, not only to preserve the integrity of the authorized translation but also to “provide a means whereby the
> people of Papua and New Guinea could improve their knowledge and understanding of the English language” (letter
> of 20 September 1973). Elsewhere, in noting that “Books of Scripture themselves mould the language in which they
> are written,” the Universal House of Justice has stated that translators into English should emulate the elevated style
> of Shoghi Effendi’s translations to enable English-speaking children and youth to “use the English language
> effectively for thought and for expression” (letter of 14 December 1938). Although religious authorities have often
> used the study of scripture to help develop students’ linguistic and reasoning skills, this seems to mark the first time
> in the translation of scripture that one of its conscious aims is to educate the audience in linguistic as well as in
> religious matters. This is an obvious link to the emphasis on scholarship and universal education in the Bahá’í Faith.
> 
> Current Problems in Bahá’í Translation
> Although it cannot yet be said that there is a comprehensive theory of translation of Bahá’í scripture, the
> most crucial theoretical issues have been discussed by the central authorities of the Faith. The most immediate
> problems faced by Bahá’í translators today are therefore not theoretical but practical problems.
> Some problems, for example, arise in using the English translations of Shoghi Effendi as the basis for
> translation into other languages. Usually ambiguities in the English version can be resolved by referring to the
> original text, but for the translator who does not know Arabic or Persian, this must be done on an ad hoc basis by
> individual translators or their Persian or Arabic speaking associates. The only bilingual glossaries of words and
> phrases used by Shoghi Effendi and their original equivalents are incomplete and in such a state as to be potentially
> misleading to translators who do not know Arabic or Persian (Universal House of Justice, letter of 30 July 1987).
> There is no equivalent of the detailed exegeses that translators of Christian scripture have at their disposal, although
> the Universal House of Justice has indicated that “the methods used by Shoghi Effendi in making his translations
> constitute a field of study that, it is hoped, will be increasingly explored by Bahá’í scholars in the years to come”
> (letter of 30 July 1987).
> In some cases additions had to be made in English that could be misleading to translators in other
> languages. For example, Shoghi Effendi often used the phrase “There is none other God but Thee” (e.g., in the Short
> Obligatory Prayer) in his translations. Udo Schaefer (personal communication) argues that in this phrase “other,”
> which is not a literal translation of any Arabic word and has only been added in English for stylistic reasons, is
> unnecessarily translated into other European languages, creating an unnatural “translationese” style (e.g., German
> “Es ist kein anderer Gott außer Dir.... On this point the German Publishing Trust states that “as a rule, it is not a
> poor grasp of English, but a poorly developed sense for correct German style that is the cause of questionable
> translations” [my translation, Entwurf 3]).
> In many societies, especially in the Third World where the vast number of Bahá’ís live, illiteracy and poor
> education are problems, since the relatively few Bahá’ís with a sufficient level of education to be able to translate
> are often busy with other administrative tasks. In some societies there simply are no educated believers, and
> translations by persons with a poor grasp of the source language (English or a national language) cannot be expected
> to be completely accurate. To help overcome this problem, simplified English texts of the Writings have been
> developed by Dr. Gruber in Nigeria for use by translators whose command of literary English is somewhat weak
> (Universal House of Justice, 30 July 1987).
> In some situations cultural expectations of translators can be a problem if they are normally expected to
> embellish the original. One translation of the Short Obligatory Prayer into a vernacular language of Papua New
> Guinea, for example, had to be revised when it was found that the translator had inserted an extra paragraph,
> because the original prayer was “too short”!
> Where Third World indigenous language communities have been subject to colonialism, emulating the
> elevated style required by Shoghi Effendi’s example can be difficult, since the use of such a style is often linked to
> traditional practices that do not survive the onslaught of Westernization. Similarly, in some regions, such as
> intensely multilingual Melanesia, it is more efficient at least initially to translate into pidgin languages used as
> lingua franca, which by their very nature do not make the distinction between elevated and colloquial registers and
> do not normally have a well-developed written or oral literary tradition. In all languages, the first translators of the
> Bahá’í writings must invent “Bahá’í terminology” to some extent. (Gruber [Translation Goals 2] discusses some
> practical aspects of this.) Translators in these pidgin languages are faced with the additional task of creating a
> literary style worthy of the Writings at the same time that they work to enlarge somewhat limited lexicons.
> 
> Conclusion
> The study of the translation of scripture offers a good opportunity to demonstrate the Bahá’í ideal of the
> harmony of science and religion, and it is to be expected that in future the translation of the Bahá’í writings, and in
> particular the methods used by Shoghi Effendi, will attract the attention of an increasing number of scholars, At this
> stage it is already possible to identify certain characteristics that set the principles of Bahá’í scriptural translation
> apart from those used in Christianity and Islam. All three religions, of course, emphasize the importance of
> faithfulness to the original text. The Bahá’í approach differs from Christian translation of the Bible in that the
> principles followed cannot be labelled wholly hermeneutic or wholly functional. For example, like hermeneutic
> translation, the work of the foremost Bahá’í translator is the result of dynamic extraposition, but unlike hermeneutic
> translation, the goal of translating one word in the source language to one word in the receptor language is rejected.
> The use of different near synonyms and the reliance on meaning over form are like the approach of functional
> linguist translators, but the refusal to tailor a translation to its specific audience is not. As in traditional Islam,
> simplified vernacular translations written as commentaries are allowed where translation is not possible, but unlike
> in Islam, ordinary translations are normally allowed and are quite acceptable for public or private worship.
> Two developments in Bahá’í translation set it apart from other translations of scripture. One is the view that
> translations should educate the readers linguistically as well as spiritually, and the other is the existence of
> translations of scripture made by a world leader recognized by all members of the faith as an authorized interpreter
> of its scripture.
> Thus, even at this early stage in the history of the Bahá’í community one can discern certain attitudes
> towards the translation of scripture. The most important is that, in contrast to earlier religions, there is no doubt
> translation is acceptable. Ideally, a translation must be faithful to the original, by which is meant that the semantic
> meaning of the original must be expressed and the style be as uplifting, dignified, and literary as the original. In
> fulfilling this criterion of faithfulness, a translation of the Bahá’í writings can act as a tool for the intellectual as well
> as the spiritual education of the community. Fulfilling this ideal is, of course, not always possible, so that finding
> ways of doing so is certain to generate lively discourse among Bahá’í translators for some time to come.
> 
> Works Cited
> ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Tablets of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Vol. 1. Chicago: Bahá’í Publishing Society, 1909.
> ———. Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. Comp. Research Department. Trans. Committee at Bahá’í
> World Centre and Marzieh Gail. Haifa: Bahá’í World Centre, 1982.
> ———. Tablets of the Divine Plan. Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1987.
> 
> Bahá’u’lláh. Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh Trans. Shoghi Effendi. 2d ed. Wilmette, Ill.: Bahá’í
> Publishing Trust, 1976.
> ———. The Kitáb-i-Íqan: Book of Certitude. Trans. Shoghi Effendi. Wilmette: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1950.
> 
> Barrett, David. “Religion: World Religious Statistics.” In 1988 Britannica Book of the Year. Ed. Daphine Daune and
> Louise Watson. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1988: 303.
> 
> Benjamin, Walter. “Die Aufgabe des Uebersetzers.” 1923. Reprinted in Stoerig (Das Problem): 182–95.
> 
> Buber, Martin. “Zu einer Verdeutschung der Schrift.” Reprinted in Stoerig (Das Problem): 346–88.
> 
> Cary, Edmund. “The Word of God into the Languages of Men.” Babel 9 (1963): 87–91.
> 
> Entwurf eines Merkblattesfuer Uebersetzer. Hofheim: Bahá’í-Verlag. n.d.
> 
> Gadamer, Hans-Georg. “Sprache als Medium der hermeneutischen Erfahrung.” In Stoerig (Das Problem): 428–35.
> 
> Gobineau, Comte G. de. Les Religions et les Philosopies dans I’Asie Centrale. Paris: Editions G. Cres, 1928.
> 
> Gruber, Jeffrey. Translation Goals. Ife, Nigeria: mimeo. Circular to National Spiritual Assemblies in Africa, dated 3
> March 1984.
> 
> Hofman, David. George Townshend. Oxford: George Ronald, 1983.
> 
> Kelly, Louis. The True Interpreter. New York: Martin’s Press, 1979.
> 
> Nakhjavani, Bahiyyih. “Some Themes and Images in the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh.” In Bahá’í World. Vol. 16. Haifa:
> Bahá’í World Centre, 1978: 670–74.
> 
> Nida, Eugene. Toward a Science of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1964.
> 
> Rabbani, Rúhíyyih. The Priceless Pearl. London: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1969.
> ———. The Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith. London: Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1988.
> 
> Research Dept., Bahá’í World Centre. Memorandum to the Swedish Bahá’í Publishing Trust, 1 July 1985.
> ———. Memorandum to the Universal House of Justice, 18 September 1988.
> 
> Shoghi Effendi. Letter to George Townshend, 28 March 1926.
> ———. Letter written on his behalf to an individual believer, 14 August 1930.
> ———. Letter written on his behalf to an individual believer, 14 October 1936 .
> ———. Letter written on his behalf to an individual believer, 14 December 1938.
> ———. Letter written on his behalf to the National Spiritual Assembly of India and Burma, 20 December 1940.
> ———. Letter written on his behalf to an individual believer 15 July 1947. Smith, Peter. The Babi and Baha’i
> Religions: From Messianic Shi‘ism to a World Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
> 
> Stoerig, Hans Joachim ed. Das Problem des Uebersetzens. Stuttgart: Henry Goverts Verlag, 1963.
> 
> Tibawi, A.L. “Is the Qur’an Translatable?: Early Muslim Opinion.” The Moslem World. 82.1: 4–16.
> 
> Universal House of Justice. Letter to an individual believer, 8 December 1964.
> ———. Letter written to the Spiritual Assembly of the Bahá’ís of Papua and New Guinea, 20 September 1973.
> ———. Letter written on its behalf to a National Spiritual Assembly, 7 October 1973.
> ———. Letter written to an individual believer, 29 October 1973 .
> ———. Letter written on its behalf to a translation and review committee of a National Spiritual Assembly, 14
> March 1977.
> ———. Letter written on its behalf to a National Translation and Revision Committee of a National Spiritual
> Assembly, 31 May 1981.
> ———. Letter written on its behalf in Persian, 7 August 1984.
> ———. Letter to an individual believer, 8 September 1985.
> ———. Letter written on its behalf to C. Volker, 30 July 1987.
> ———. Letter written on its behalf to an individual believer, 3 February 1988.
>
> — *Translating the Baha'i Writings (Used by permission of the curator)*