Ọlọ́dùmarè and Ọlọ́run: the Contested Supreme Being
What the sources actually attribute to Olodumare, the disputed etymologies, and the live scholarly argument over whether the supreme-being framing is indigenous Yoruba thought or a shape given to it by the missionary encounter.
Ọlọ́dùmarè na the name wey Yoruba tradition dey give the highest power for the whole universe, the source of àṣẹ and destiny, wey join hand with creation and how life take dey arranged, and wey people no dey worship directly with shrine, priesthood, festival or sacrifice wey belong to am alone. Ọlọ́run na the other common name, and for normal modern Yoruba language na just the word for God. Everything after that first sentence get serious argument on top am, and the argument no be small matter at all. E dey cut across the whole modern study of Yoruba thought, and any reader wey no know say this argument dey go just take one side as settled fact.
The argument roughly be like this. One group dey hold say Yoruba people already get clear understanding of one supreme being wey dey above everything long before any missionary arrive, say the òrìṣà na workers under that being, and say Yoruba religion na monotheism wey dey in a form wey E. Bọlaji Idowu call diffused monotheism . The other group dey argue say na Christianity make this description come out, or at least change am heavily, through scholars wey be Christians themselves and wey get argument wey dem wan win, and say the evidence from before missionary time dey support something wey no join body together or high reach the picture wey dem paint . Serious Yoruba scholars dey inside both sides. None of the two positions be colonial or anti-colonial, and na why person no fit settle the matter just by asking who dey which side.
Wetin the sources talk say e get
Make we start with wetin people no really dey argue on top. Across the Ifá corpus, the oríkì, proverbs, and ethnographic records, get some particular work wey dem dey always attach to Ọlọ́dùmarè.
Source of àṣẹ. Àṣẹ, the power wey dey make anything happen, dey come from Ọlọ́dùmarè and na from there e take dey spread. Na this attribute dem agree on pass, and na on top am different scholars almost agree completely .
Giver or sealer of destiny. For story of destiny, person dey kneel down for front of Ọlọ́dùmarè to receive or confirm the ìpín, wey be the portion. Ọlọ́dùmarè na the authority wey under am destiny take dey seal .
Giver of ẹ̀mí. For the creation story where Ọbàtálá dey mould the physical body, na Ọlọ́dùmarè dey give ẹ̀mí, the breath or wetin dey give life, and na only Ọlọ́dùmarè fit do am . This one na clear division of labour and dem dey talk am consistently.
Final authority. When argument dey among the òrìṣà, dem dey carry am go up. Na Ọlọ́dùmarè get the final say.
E no get gender the way English dey force am. Yoruba language no get grammatical gender and no get third-person pronoun wey dey specify sex. Ọlọ́dùmarè no be man for Yoruba language, and translating the name as "He" for English, as almost all literature wey dem publish including Idowu work dey do, dey add something wey the original language no talk . Na small point, but e get big effect on how people take dey imagine the figure.
Now wetin dem no attach to am, and the things wey no dey there dey give information just like the things wey dey there.
No shrine. Temple no dey for Ọlọ́dùmarè, image no dey, and special worship place no dey.
No priesthood. No group of priests dey serve Ọlọ́dùmarè the way babaláwo dey serve Ifá or as ọlọ́ya dey serve Ọya.
No festival. The Yoruba ritual calendar full of òrìṣà festivals. None of dem dey for Ọlọ́dùmarè.
No direct sacrifice. People dey give Ẹbọ to òrìṣà, to ancestors, to person own orí, to Èṣù as carrier. Dem no dey give am directly to Ọlọ́dùmarè.
No divination. Person no dey consult Ọlọ́dùmarè. Na Ifá person dey consult.
Na these things wey no dey na im be the main point of the argument. One side dey see am as proof say the being dey far above everything, too high for normal worship practice, wey dem dey reach through intermediaries by design, and dem dey point out say people dey call Ọlọ́dùmarè plenty for everyday Yoruba talk and prayer even without formal religious institution. The other side dey see am as evidence say Ọlọ́dùmarè no really be the centre of Yoruba religious life for practical terms, and say figure wey no get shrine, no priest, no festival, and no sacrifice no dey do the kind work wey "supreme being" mean for theological system wey follow Christian pattern.
The meaning and origin of the names
The name Ọlọ́run no get serious argument. E clear say na ọní + ọ̀run wey join together, wey mean owner or lord of ọ̀run . Since ọ̀run na the realm of things wey eye no dey see and no be heaven of reward, to translate am as "Lord of Heaven" for English dey carry the wrong meaning of the second part come inside. Owner of the realm wey eye no dey see dey closer to the meaning.
People dey argue on top Ọlọ́dùmarè and no agreed derivation dey.
The explanation wey Idowu bring, wey people quote pass, divide am as ọní + odù + màrè. Ọní mean owner or lord, as e dey for Ọlọ́run. Odù na wetin he take as sceptre, authority, chief head, or as adjective wey mean big, full, wide. He explain màrè or mà rè as wetin no dey finish, no dey go, or no dey exhaust. The whole word come mean something like the person wey hold the staff of authority, or the owner of fullness wey no dey ever finish .
Sophie Bọ́sẹ̀dé Oluwole explain am in a similar way, as the person wey get pot wey no dey ever finish, keeping the meaning say e no dey finish but rejecting the heavy theological meaning wey Idowu put on top the result .
Other explanations don dey wey connect odù to the odù of Ifá, or connect the middle part to rainbow, or treat the name like word wey dem borrow from neighbouring language. The plain truth be say the origin of the word never get final answer. The way Yoruba compound names dey take form make sense reach say person fit easily construct breakdown wey sound reasonable but hard to confirm, and the tone pattern dey allow more than one way to divide the word. Reader wey see source wey give one confident explanation of the origin suppose take that confidence as the author own, no be the evidence own.
Di point about method matter pass di particular answer. Dem dey use etymology for inside dis literature to do theological work. If Ọlọ́dùmarè mean di pesin wey hold di sceptre of ultimate authority, dat one support di interpretation say na supreme being. To find di meaning of name and to understand di nature of religious system na two different work, and dem don continuously dey force di first one make e do di work of di second one.
Di position of Idowu and wetin shape am
E. Bọlaji Idowu book Olodumare: God in Yoruba Belief, wey comot for 1962, na di foundation text for modern discussion and na im people still dey quote pass . Im main point na say Yoruba religion no be polytheism. Ọlọ́dùmarè na di one God, and di òrìṣà no be independent gods but ministers, servants, or like how Idowu put am, na different ways wey di attributes of Ọlọ́dùmarè dey show. E call dis one "diffused monotheism" .
Idowu na ordained Methodist minister and later Patriarch of Methodist Church Nigeria, plus professor of religious studies. Dis no be say pesin dey accuse am; na context wey reader need to know, and Idowu sef no hide am. E write im book after one whole century wey missionaries dey call Yoruba tradition heathenism, idol worship, fetishism, and devil worship. E dey argue say im people tradition no be useless superstition, but na proper theology wey get supreme God for head, wey deserve respect. Base on wetin e set out to do, di argument succeed. E change how universities dey look African religion, e give African Christians way to hold dia tradition without shame, and plenty descriptive information inside di book still get value today.
Di problem na di framing. To fit make di argument, Idowu gats show say Yoruba religion get di same things wey Christianity get: one supreme God wey dey transcendent, moral, sovereign, and wey pesin fit separate from smaller spirits wey no be real gods. Dem come begin interpret di evidence to match dat idea. Wetin J. D. Y. Peel write about di missionary encounter show how most of di categories wey dem use describe Yoruba religion na inside dat encounter dem form dem, no be say dem just meet dem like dat before, and how di first generation of educated Yoruba scholars, wey go mission school, collect those categories together with di education . Di critical literature on di invention of African traditional religion talk di same thing for di whole continent: African theologians wey dey describe primal religion use dia own position inside Christian tradition take choose categories wey fit make dia pre-Christian tradition make sense with dia Christian faith .
John Mbiti book African Religions and Philosophy, wey come out for 1969, do di same work for di continent wey Idowu do for Yoruba, and pesin must read am with di same careful eye . Mbiti na ordained Anglican priest and theologian. Im popular claim say Africans dey notoriously religious, and how e present one single God behind all African religions, na theological ideas wey dey defend religion just as dem be ethnographic findings. Mbiti specific idea about African time, where e argue say African languages no get deep future tense and say African thought no really get concept of far future, na wetin linguists don criticize well-well and pesin no suppose rely on am . Dis work dey cite Mbiti where e report fact, and e dey flag am where e dey argue theology.
Di case against am
Di argument say di supreme-being framing na partly product of di encounter rest on different points.
Di silence from religious institutions. As dem don explain above. Supreme being wey no get shrine or dedicated worship, inside religious system wey full of shrines and rituals, na strange thing if pesin follow monotheistic view, but e dey normal under di alternative view.
Di direction of theological pressure. Everybody wey write di classic descriptions get reason to find monotheism. Di missionaries need word for God and dem need connection point, so dem take Ọlọ́run and Ọlọ́dùmarè call di biblical God and preach from there. Di African theologians wey come after dem need to defend di respect of dia tradition, and di only way to show respect for religion around middle of twentieth century na through monotheism. Di two sides push towards di same direction.
Di objection from philosophers. Sophie Oluwole project na to read Yoruba tradition as philosophy, with Ọ̀rúnmìlà as thinker wey get philosophical arguments, instead of to treat am as religion wey need God on top before e fit get respect . Barry Hallen argue say Anglophone reading of African thought don always find whatever di reading frame dey look for, and im own method, to go meet onísègùn and ask wetin words mean when dem dey use dem, na deliberate refusal of di theological shortcut . Kwasi Wiredu, from Ghana wey write on Akan instead of Yoruba, give di programme di name "conceptual decolonisation", wey mean to identify and remove imported concepts wey dem take dey describe African thought .
Horton alternative explanation. Robin Horton suggest say African cosmologies normally get two levels: level of smaller spirits wey concern local community and dia immediate environment, and supreme being wey concern di bigger world outside. E say as social life expand from local level go wider level, people begin put more importance on di supreme being pass di smaller spirits . Base on dis explanation, supreme being na original indigenous concept (so Horton no just dey doubt everything), but how prominent e be na something wey dey increase as society dey expand. Dis explain why di concept dey available for missionaries to use and why e come dey more central after di encounter pass before. People don criticize Horton theory, especially Terence Ranger, wey argue say pre-colonial African religion bin already dey fluid and dey operate for large scale, so di isolated small world wey di theory depend on never close up like dat as Horton assume .
Di case for am
The argument say the concept really come from the land no weak at all, and make pesin no just treat am say na ordinary apologetics.
The name no be borrowed word. Ọlọ́dùmarè no be word wey dem borrow from Arabic, Portuguese or English, and no be missionary create am. Anything wey e mean, na Yoruba word, and e dey appear inside Ifá verse and inside oríkì wey ethnographic record no show say dem compose am after 1842.
The Ifá corpus position am. Ọlọ́dùmarè dey appear for inside ese Ifá as the authority wey dey above the òrìṣà, for story contexts wey no show say dem change or rework am. Wande Abimbola and others collect and publish the corpus from the 1960s from traditional practitioners wey their training happen before the collection, and the material show Ọlọ́dùmarè for role wey match the supreme description .
Everyday speech full of am. Ọlọ́run enter deep inside daily Yoruba language well well, sotey e hard to say na one century of missionary preaching cause am: inside greetings, inside names of pipo wey dem form with the element Olú- and Oló-, inside exclamations, inside normal answers to good and bad news. Evidence from names of pipo dey particularly useful because names no dey easily change and because the collection of Yoruba theophoric names wey dem form on top Ọlọ́run big and old well well.
The things wey no dey get internal explanation. The tradition itself explain why cult no dey: na through the òrìṣà dem dey reach Ọlọ́dùmarè, and na how dem design the system, no be say something dey lack. This one no be circular argument. Systems wey get high god wey pesin fit only reach through middle-men dey common and dem well describe am across West Africa, and no be say dem be incomplete versions of another thing.
Where this thing leave reader
Pesin fit hold three points together without any contradiction, and to hold all three together dey more accurate pass to choose one side.
First, Yoruba tradition get indigenous understanding of one highest power, wey get name for their own language, wey dey inside their oldest oral art, wey dem credit with àṣẹ, ẹ̀mí and the sealing of destiny, and wey cult no dey directly serve.
Second, the specific description of that power say na transcendent, moral, sovereign, singular God based on Christian model, wey dem bring down the òrìṣà to ministers or attributes, na scholarly construction from mid-twentieth century wey Christian scholars produce for apologetic reason, and e match some of the evidence while e dey force other parts of am.
Third, the question of which parts of the second description dey hidden inside the first one before 1842 no get clear answer, because written records start with the missionaries. Na this be the main evidence problem for the whole field, and better argument no fit solve am.
For reader wey dem teach say this heritage na demonic thing, one specific trap dey here wey good make pesin mention. The easiest response based on emotion to that teaching na to run go meet Idowu, because Idowu talk say the tradition already get the one true God and therefore e never be devil worship. That response dey use the Christian frame take rescue the tradition, and through that way e agree say na Christian frame be the standard of value. Wetin Oluwole and Hallen do na the harder and better move: the tradition no need supreme being before e go get intellectual weight, because wetin make am serious na the way e explain persons, destiny, character, knowledge and action, and all those things still stand strong no matter wetin come out to be true about Ọlọ́dùmarè.