What's in a brief?

First let us be clear: Translation briefs are essential, and are an implicit and (hopefully) explicit part of every translation. But sometimes we want to trust them more than we do ourselves or each other. Let us look at how.

The good: translation briefs should make transparent (and explicit whenever possible) what the agreements are between the interested parties (stakeholders) on such matters as the base text, intended audience for and purpose of the translation, as well as the commitments on the part of the various parties involved. Much can be found here on MAP and elsewhere on the subject.

But of course not everything should go into a brief. For example, it may not be necessary to stipulate that a certain orthography will be used, if there is essentially no disagreement about the matter. But if there are different opinions among the stakeholders, or any reasonable likelihood of the issue coming up again, then it certainly should go into the brief. This is probably the single major reason for the brief: to avoid misunderstanding and conflict at a (later) stage in the translation process where it might have great costs, financial as well as social.

The brief is also a living document, subject to revision based on a re-negotiation between the stakeholders. In the orthography example above, the local community always has the right to re-negotiate such matters with those other stakeholders affected (e.g. publishers).

Still, the brief should not tie our hands completely, nor force us to do things we do not believe in, no matter who "we" are. Again, the negotiation of the brief is exactly the place to air our differences as stakeholders and is precisely one of the major reasons for the creation of the brief in the first place.

Neither should we be be able to hide behind the brief ("the brief made me do it"). If we have certain commitments or loyalties (as exegetes or communicators, for example), the brief is the place to make them known. Yet again, it might be difficult to know how much detail to include. Thus an exegete may want to negotiate (in a brief) using the twin (and at times competing) principles of "community acceptability" and "current consensus of scholarship" when suggesting any given interpretation. But the devil is always in the details.

Let us take as an example of one of these details the use of uppercase for the term "spirit" (Spirit) when referring to God's spirit (or power, or sometimes even wind) in the Old Testament. Many local communities would prefer "Spirit" everywhere the term in the biblical text refers to God (even in the OT), while many exegetes would prefer to leave the implicit Trinity to the New Testament alone. An example at this level of detail is not likely to come up when drawing up a brief, but many such examples will confront the translation team in the course of the project. And it will not be the brief which will come to the rescue, but something at once less visible or explicit but more enduring and strong: trust.

As important as a brief is to a translation project, trust is even more important. And just as a brief can change and grow, or be ignored, so too can trust and good will. A well-formed brief should lay out a means for resolving conflicts (e.g. "the community has the last word"), but even so trust can be lost such that we may even at times come to a point where not all the stakeholders can agree to continue a project together.

So let us all be diligent about creating our briefs, but be even more diligent in nurturing enduring honest, open relationships of trust with our fellow stakeholders.