meaning, but would also evoke in the reader the spirit of meditative
reverence which is a distinguishing feature of response to the original.
The form of expression he selected, reminiscent of the style used by the
seventeenth-century translators of the Bible, captures the elevated mode
of Bahá’u’lláh’s Arabic, while remaining accessible to the contemporary
reader. His translations, moreover, are illumined by his uniquely inspired
understanding of the purport and implications of the originals.

Although both Arabic and English are languages with rich vocabularies and
varied modes of expression, their forms differ widely from one another.
The Arabic of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas is marked by intense concentration and
terseness of expression. It is a characteristic of this style that if a
connotation is obvious it should not be explicitly stated. This presents a
problem for a reader whose cultural, religious and literary background is
entirely different from that of Arabic. A literal translation of a passage
which is clear in the Arabic could be obscure in English. It therefore
becomes necessary to include in the English translation of such passages
that element of the Arabic sentence which is obviously implicit in the
original. At the same time, it is vital to avoid extrapolating this
process to the point where it would add unjustifiably to the original or
limit its meaning. Striking the right balance between beauty and clarity
of expression on the one hand, and literalness on the other, is one of the
major issues with which the translators have had to grapple and which has
caused repeated reconsideration of the rendering of certain passages.
Another major issue is the legal implication of certain Arabic terms which
have a range of meanings different from those of similar terms in English.

Sacred Scripture clearly requires especial care and faithfulness in
translation. This is supremely important in the case of a Book of Laws,
where it is vital that the reader not be misled or drawn into fruitless