Bible translation was one of the very fundamental missionaries‟ conversion strategies in effecting conversion among the Haya. The method has its roots from a famous missiologist, Gustav Warneck, who had earlier advised the missionaries to learn the languages of the natives so that they could use the native language to confront them with the Gospel. Warneck wanted missionaries to differentiate themselves from the colonialists who were forcing the natives to learn the language of their masters. Missionary Christianity had to learn the vernacular language to be able to translate the Gospel so that many Haya people would be reached in their own language. The missionaries like Bethel Missionary Society saw the translation of the biblical literature as not only necessary, but an agent in reaching the Haya people as quickly as possible before the Roman Catholics who had no tradition of translating the Bible had made much impact among the Haya (Niwagila 1991: 139).
Father Bodelschwingh‟s appeal to his missionaries in East African (in Niwagila 1991:139) reads:
…Do not waste your energy for minor affairs, but keep the most important task in mind; to preach the Gospel to the pagans as soon as possible. While the Catholics do not pay much attention to the Gospel and all these pagans are languishing for it, Roehl will soon have the special gift to preach the Gospel to them in their mother tongue. I have repeatedly asked him; “Brother, Roehl, please make available to us a small Gospel, for instance Luke or at least the most important parts of the scripture to have a first reading for the pagans.”
For this reason, missionaries like Doring in cooperation with the indigenous converts like Andrea Kajerero and using the available Haya literature including the Haya dictionary, quickly learned the Haya language so as to have some parts of the Gospel, songs and prayers, psalms and liturgical books translated into the Haya language for the Haya to read (Niwagila 1991:140).
Translation led both new converts and non-converts to access the word of God in their indigenous languages. Haya people were able to access the word of God and other
159
catechetical literature like Martin Luther‟s small catechism entitled Ekilagilila abakristo (Guideline for Christians) and the baptismal lessons with the title, omuhanda gw’okulokoka (the way of salvation) in their own vernacular, a method that became one of the important western missionary conversion approaches (Niwagila 1991:234).
However, Niwagila reports the protest from the Haya Christians when the German missionaries came back for the second time after the Second World War. This time translation went on without the involvement of indigenous people apart from a few of them who were just used as their tool, probably because they were not considered important. This suggests the paternalistic attitude of the missionaries towards the Haya.
Because of this approach the indigenous Haya Christians protested as they felt they were being ignored and as if they were there to receive everything from the west. They also did not like to buy pieces of translations, but wanted the whole Bible translated so that instead of buying several separate books they could buy only one book, which would be cheaper and affordable for most Haya Christians (1991:234-237). Sundkler (1980:88), one of the missionaries in the Haya first generation Christianity, writes:
The new Christian religion was a religion of the Book, it is important to realize that one refers, not to the Bible as a whole but to certain select parts of it which were translated into Luhaya in the first generation, and which also happened to be available in the villages.
It is important to note that the protest of the Haya against the translation of the Bible and other important Christian literature was not based on the nature of translation itself, but rather the motive, imposition and paternalistic attitude the missionaries had towards their fellow Haya Christians. The Haya wanted to be recognized as equal partners in the mission of God and that the model and nature of translation should be determined by the two sides.
Nevertheless, translation of the Bible did contribute significantly to the indigenization of Christianity among the Haya and Africans in general. According to Sanneh (1993:86), one of the activities of missionaries that have contributed significantly to the diffusion of
160
religions has been the translation of scriptures. Sanneh (1990:88) has given considerable attention to the significance of translation of the scripture as one of the important missionary conversion strategies. He describes the history of the translation of the Bible in association with the missions from the beginning of what he calls diffusion of Christianity to the modern day, giving special attention to translation work in Africa. Sanneh (1990:93) compares the Christian strategy of translation to the Islamic strategy of non-translation, relating these strategies to different views in the two religions (Montgomery 1999:58).
Contradictory messages may have been conveyed by the association of missionaries with colonial powers on the one hand, and by the translation of the scriptures into the vernacular on the other hand. The first message conveyed a sense of inferiority to the hearer, but the second message conveyed a sense of dignity and self-worth – God‟s word would be carried in local language. This affirmation of local language resulted in the affirmation of cultural and social identities of the receiving groups and, with that, the right to independent political or at least organizational identities of numerous groups (Montgomery 1999:59).
Sanneh (1993:86) believes that translation of the Bible was fundamental in indigenization of Christianity although that might have not been the primary goal of the missionaries. He makes his case: “what is illuminating in the indigenous cultural process then, is how the Christian scriptures, cast as a vernacular oracle, gave the native idiom and the aspirations it enshrined a historic cause, allowing Africans to fashion fresh terms for their own advancement and possibility.”
As Sanneh observes, translation of the Bible and other Christian essential literature into the Haya language, to some extent, indigenized missionary Christianity. It led Christianity to be expressed in the Haya idiomatic expressions, proverbs, riddles, stories, metaphors and symbols for articulating and describing Christianity in their own socio-cultural contextual worldview (Kahakwa 2010:238). Sundkler (1980:89) observes that for the first generation Haya Christians, the Bible in a written form was a treasure to be cared for
161
reverently, “as a living word which in the temptation and crisis of life showed the way and gave strength and consolation.” It appears that Sundkler sees translation of the Bible as a contribution towards the indigenization of Christianity among the Haya.
Sanneh (1990) links the tremendous growth of Christianity in Africa with the translatability of the Gospel into the African vernacular languages. For him the success of Christianity in Africa did not depend on the western missionary Christianity, but rather on the translation of the Gospel into African idioms. Bediako (1995) also shares the same sentiments as Sanneh regarding the translation of the Bible into African languages.
Bediako (1995) maintains that since the Gospel is essentially translatable into African languages, it is illogical to speak of African Christianity as a foreign religion; hence he calls African Christianity a non-western religion.
Whilst we cannot ignore completely the point that Sanneh and Bediako make with regard to the Bible and other Christian writings contributing to the Africanization of missionary Christianity in African soil, a lot is left to be desired. Probably, as it seems to me, their view is exaggerated. If the Bible translatability has indigenized African Christianity as they put it, how can we then try to address, for example, the question of the dualistic tendency among Africans who maintain both Christianity and African religion at the same time, especially during existential crisis? Is it not the case that missionary Christianity has not yet been adequately presented in such a way that it addresses fundamental African ontological and existential life crises despite these translations?
Maluleke (1997:20), however, does not seem to buy wholesale the idea of linking Bible and Gospel translatability with the indigenization of Christianity in Africa. He puts it that
“the translatability of the Gospel does not eliminate the significance of the role of the missionary enterprise or colonialism.” Maluleke observes that even if the Gospel can be
“eminently translatable, human intervention can affect the pace and the quality of such translation to the extent of arresting it into all sorts of orthodoxies.” In addition, I argue in this dissertation, that African Christianity will not be truly African only by translatability of the Gospel into African languages, but also when the forms, structure, theology,
162
missionary strategies including inherited conversion from western missionary Christianity, will be revisited and indeed be indigenized to suit the African cultural and contextual worldview.