When in 1972, Modupe Oduyoye, Language expert and exegete, unleashed his book “The Vocabulary of Yoruba Religious Discourse” on the public, it sent shockwaves throughout the linguistic community.
Exegetes are experts who undertake critical study of texts, especially the Bible. Oduyoye’s theories on the root meaning of Yoruba Words were bold, daring. He seemed to harbor no reverence for any fallowed folk etymology, but what his philological tools told him. He challenged and often discredited many conventional etymological conclusion of the time.
However, his arguments were difficult to fault. They were intellectually water-tight and many times air-tight
For one, they demolished once and for all, all notions that a “monolingual” approach is language for that matter, In many of his explanations of Yoruba words, Oduyoye drew from languages outside Yoruba.
Secondly, Oduyoye demonstrated most vividly, the relationship, already acknowledge by language experts, between Semitic language like Hebrew, Akkadian, Aramatic, Ugratic, and many African language like Hausa, TivEfik, Yourba, Ibiobio, Igbo, Fon, Twi etc.
Oduyoye’s book was actually in response to the publication in 1960 of the report of the first consultation of African theologians held in Ibadan in 1966 with the title “Biblical Revelations and African Beliefs.”
The report was subsequently recommended for the General Assembly of the All Nations Congress of Churches in September 1969. Oduyoye read and reviewed the publication.
Contributes to the conference included eminent scholars like the (now late) Professor BolajiIdowu, Rev. E.A.A. Adegbola and Monsignor Ezeanya. Oduyoye wasn’t very satisfied with many of the conclusions.
He joined the debate “armed to the teeth”
Oduyoye had studied Hebrew at Yale in 1964, Comparative Semitic Linguistics at the Linguistic Institute of the Linguistics Society of America on a grant form the American Council of Learned Societies in 1965.
Arabic at yale from 1965 to 1966 and Middle Egyptian in London form 1969 to 1970 Added to this was his intimate knowledge of the tradition of his people, the Yoruba, a considerable knowledge of many Nigerian and Africa languages and a passionate curiously about words and their origins.
So oduyoye undertook a review of the theological conference with the best tools.
Whil the scholars who contributed papers at the conference put up commendable efforts, Oduyoye could see that they were surely limited by their mostly monolingual tools.
Oduyoye tool was different. It was comparative philology at its keenest. With profuse sliced through hitherto impregnable words with the cold objectivity of an intellectual guillotine.
Who, for instance, could fault Oduyoye when he pointed out that Igbo dibia(medicine man) is cognate (has name origin) with Arabic tibbia Physician, doctor)? Or that Yoruba ajois cognate with Hebrew Haj and Arabic Hajj? And that Alhaji is cognate with Yoruba Alejo?
You see, in philology, (the scientific study of the nature and growth of words and language) consonant like k, l, s, t etc are the tell-tale that give away the relationships between words. These consonants are to words what bones are to fossils. Though vowels (the flesh) may decay or change as words travel over time and space, the consonants (bones) remain. It is these consonants (consonant roots) that philologists to track words to find their meaning or genealogy.
But then, some consonant are “liquid”, that is, change form from language to language. Thus, when the English word “guava” gets to Yoruba – speaking peoples, the consonant “v”, being absent in Yoruba pronounciation, becomes “b” or “f” so guava becomes goba or gofa.
Similarly “i” often becomes “r”, “s” becomes “sh” (e.g. among Ibadan indigenes) or “th” or even “z”.
Philologists look out for these consonant changes (liquidity) in the “detective work of tracking words.
Armed with these basic rules of comparative philology, Oduyoye tracked the irun-prefix in Yoruba Irunmale(divinities) hitherto thought to be “400” to the Arabic word harem and Hebrew herem both of which convey the idea of “sacred” or “holy”. The r-m- consonant roots are clear, but the “h” is missing in Yoruba, Oduyoye says, because “Yoruba nouns “generally do not begin with an /h/ or any h-tpe sound”
From IjebuLisa (chief of first rank) to Igbo Olise (“God” as in Olisemeka) to Lesa among the Ambo of Malawi, the Barotse, the Bamba, the Kaonde, Lala, Lamba, Oduyoye, tracks the “i-s” consonant root (which liquid forms are r-s” “l-z” “r-th” all conveying the idea of “head” “chief” first) to Hebrew rosh (first) to Arabic ras, Aramaic resh and Akkadian rishu.
And to Yoruba Orisa. In fact Hebrew Harison-iym is translated “Ancestors” in Psalm 79.8 of the Jerusalem Bible Oduyoye says, the –iym being a mere plural suffix in Hebrew.
Yoruba words for sin, forgiveness, time, thing, death and Yoruba words like oro, ifa, ijala ode Orisanla, opele, owe and odualso come under the exegete’s searchlight.
Oduyoye also laces Yoruba Religious Discourse, with interesting “linguistic gossips in the footnotes like generous crumbs of stock – fish in an already delicious Osiki soup.
However, Oduyoye’s glaring success did not get into his head. He acknowledge the pioneering efforts of eminent scholaras like Archdeacon OlumideLucas (who was teacher to his father) with whom he actually corresponded while writing the book:
“The thoughtful restudy of past scholarship is not criticism for the sake of criticism, but an attempt to elucidate the principles involved in the discovery of truth….. in doing this, however, it is right that we express our gratitude and respect to those whose work is being used and restudied, and, without whose pioneering zeal and daring, the present evaluation will not have been attempted “Oduyoye wrote, quoting yet another authority.
So when seven years later, in August 1979, the Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Ijebu in Odogbolu, (now in Ogun State) the Rt. Rev. I.B.O. Akintemi, invited Oduyoye to lead a series of Bible studies at the diocese’s clergy schools, it was an opportunity to take apart Genesis 1-11 with the scalpel of Hamito-semitic (Afro-Asiatic) philology Puzzles usually glossed over by other interpreters came under Oduyoye’s scrutiny “Why” Oduyoye asks, “does the Hebrew language have a word with a plural suffix (-iym) as its word for “God” when Hebrew religion is anti-polytheistic?”
“Who” Oduyoye asks “ are the sons of the Gods of Genesis 6:1?
Traditional interpretation will say “angels’ or “Isrealites”, but Oduyoye says “no” to both.
Hear Oduyoye “And thus I dug up the question, those obvious in the Engish version and those patent only to one who reads form the Hebrew text. The true nature of the literary corpus we were studying thus becomes clear, and the need for interpretation could not be questioned…”
The result, expectedly, was extraordinary. And for the clerics, it was fascinating. If a mite disturbing. What would these unusual interpretation do to the faith of Christian? One of them wondered aloud.
Oduyoye’s response was simple: “Christian preaching certainly needs a stronger pillar to lean upon than a basis of obscurantism.”
Oduyoye himself was and remains an eminent member of the Church having served in many capacities, including being the literature secretary of the Christian Council of Nigeria.
Oduyoye had first informed his cleric students that Hebrew, the original language of the Old Testament texts other Semitic language like Aramaic, Akkadian, middle Egyptian, Ugarithicetc all belong to the same Afro-Asiatic (Hamito Semitic) language.
Group as many Africa language like Hausa, Efik, Ibiobio, Yoruba, Igbo Fulfude, Twi, Fon etc.
Thus, in seeking explanation to passages of Genesis 1-11, Oduyoye drew form these language.
Having equipped himself with considerate acquaintance with many African languages, Oduyoye stood, as it were, at a vantage point where he has an unusually panoramic view of the innards of these languages.
The substance of this Bible studies, Oduyoye later complied in a book with the title:
“ The sons of the Gods and the Daughter of Men”
On the whole, the 132- page book, published in 1984 by Orbis Books, Maryknoll, New York, impresses upon the reader that Genesis 1-11 contains a lot of folk or popular etymology. He explains popular etymology as “tall stories for popular consumption” which are told not for their basis in fact but by way of the lay man’s attempt to explain things that are unclear to him.
Oduyoye had dealt at length with the problem of folk etymology in Yoruba Religious Discourse. In it, he cited the drum signal used then to reproduce the intonation pattern of the English statement: “This is the Nigerian Broadcasting Service.” Which some Yoruba folk erroneously interprete as:
“NinuIkokodudu la ti n se’ be. It’s inside a black pot that we cook stew”
He then cites such popular etymology in the Book of Genesis:
“that Eve was so named because she was the mother of all life; that Isaac was so named because he grabbed his twin brother by the heels while they were still in the womb; that Cain was so named because the mother said at birth” I have acquired a man with the help of God” … that Marah was so named because there Israelites found the water bitter”
“Babel” for instance, which according to the Bible, was derived from the fact that it is where God confused the tongue of men…
First, Oduyoye dismissed the claim that the whole world had one language reminding us that earlier in Gen 10 we had been told that the son of Yafet, Ham and Shem had been classified according to their different tongues.
Confused in Hebrew is balal. But the Genesis writers are saying that “Babel” (b-b-l) is derived from Balal (b-l-l)…
Oduyoye says “no”
“The (writer of Genesis) is basing etymology on a single leg of sound similarity without any consideration for the other leg of ‘meaning similarity’ Hebrew balal means “mingle” mix, confuse, confound cognate therefore with Chichewa ideophonebalala-balala scatter, disperse
“Here, etymology has two legs to stand upon. Phonology and semanties. But what does Babel mean?
“Babel is Hebrew. It is the name of the Babylonian capital whose only gate was memorably designed with religious motifs. It came to be known by the Babylonians as baabilu the gate of God.’ Babel could therefore not be so called because Yahweh balal the speech of all the earth.’
Oduyoye then goes blunt: ‘ The etymology of Genesis 1-11 are based on fancy, not fact.
They serve the purpose of mythology, not that of linguistics or philology. As far as the Genesis writers were concerned, a word in a strange language must connote something similar in a similar – sounding word in Hebrew. The semantic tour de force produces a good story is the end. The etymology is simply the means to that end.”
Oduyoye also drew attention to how the Genesis writers borrowed generously form polytheistic mythology, but then super-imposed their own brand of “monotheistic theology” on it.
Genesis 2:4 for instance talks of the towledot(genealogy) of the heavens and the earth. A genealogy gives a list of children just like in the genealogy Shem.
But the Genesis writers, Oduyoye says, don’t want to talk of “sons and daughter” born of heaven and earth, which inevitably implies procreation. Instead, they introduced YHWH (Yahweh/Jehovah) as a solo creator.
“ To introduce YHWH.’ Eloh-iym into an ancient mythology in which the male heaven and the female earth were procreative agents —- persons or spirit or gods — is to turn mythology into (Hebrew) theology,” Oduyoye comments.
Other glimpse of mythology shows in statements like that in Gen. 6: that “the sons of the gods (heaven) married the daughters of men (earth) and gave birth to “gibbor-iy,” (powerful ones).
In essence, what the Genesis writers did is to rewrite mythology to suit their own religious (theological) purpose —- which is to push Yahweh as the sole creator who moulds (forms).
Another major record in the Bible which gives away this doctoring of ancient mythology is the very first sentence in the Bible. In the original Hebrew Bible, it reads:
“ In the beginning eloh-iym(the gods) created the heavens and the earth.’
“Why.’ Oduyoye asks “does the Hebrew language have a word with a plural suffix (-iym) as its word for ‘God’ When Hebrew religion is anti-polytheistic?”
In repainting the existing picture of the polytheistic mythology of the time, the Genesis writers left many patches of the old paint. And in several cases, the old paint shows from underneath the new.
Later translators of the Hebrew into Greek had to grapple with this tell-tale ambiguities.
And in their efforts, they messed up many translations.
For instance, through Hebrew/Judaists insist that Yahweh is the only God, they left words like “ben-ey ha-eloh-iym” (sons of the gods) in places like genesis6.
Where do these fit in Hebrew theology? Who are the gods and who are their sons? Oduyoye however tell us that such “sons of the gods” are not unknown in African tradition. He quotes Joshua N. Kudajie. Aspects of religion and morality in Ghanaian traditional society with particular reference to the Ga Adangme.
“the sons and daughters of NaaNyoma (ga “father god”) are known usjemawoji ‘the gods of the world’. They are powerful and intelligent beings who walk about the world, but they have their own abodes in the seas, lagoons, mountains and other natural objects. Having been delegated by naanyomo to be his vicegerents, they are in active contact with the world of nature in man.”
Oduyoye now compares this extract with job 1:6
“now there was a day when (ben-ey ha elo-iym (sons of the gods) came to present themselves before YHWH and satan also came among them….”
Oduyoye then draws the inference that nem-ey-ha-eloh-iym are” divine beings like satan (ngas go sot ‘the people of knowledge and power’)
“wecan not escape the answer that ben-ey ha-eloh-iym in gen. 6 refers to the same divine beings whom the ga of Ghana know as jemawoji, who the akan of Ghana know as a-bosom…..”
Then he adds: “ the two examples of divine beings named in genesis and job (nimrod and satan) are reflected in west Africa.
As Yoruba (lamurudu), a legendary hero and
As ngas go sot” persons of knowledge and power.” In yoruba, these would be the orisa.
So, how do translators of Hebrew genesis to greek cope with these mythological
beings?
Badly: they gave different translation to the same words
Hear oduyoye “the Septuagint (bible) renders ben-ey ha-eloh-iym into greek as hoi angeloitoutheou “messengers of god” in job 1:6, but as hoi huioitoutheou
“the sons of god” in gen. 6:2……”
A freak word which never existed in English was also introduced: “angel”.
Hear oduyoye:” those who know the ordinary meaning of greekangeloi know that it menas only messengers” just as Hebrew male’ak-iym means “messenger” ordinary.
“but when mythical thinking enters into it, greekangeloi and Hebrew male’alk0iym are rendered into english as angels … the jews who translated the Hebrew bible (old testament) into greek in Alexandra avoided the mythology of ben-ey ha eloh-iym in gen. 6:1 and job 1:6 but gave us another myth — that of angels.”
Perhaps some of oduyoye’s most sensitive remarks are on what he calls “anti-hamitism” – hatred for the descendants of ham and cannanites displayed in the genesis accounts.
Why rain curses on canaan when ham, by accident, saw his drunken father’s (noah) nakedness? Oduyoyeasks.
Many bibles readers will gloss over this anomaly or rationalise it. But not oduyoye. It is a ploy to justify the annihilation of the canaanites, he says:
“the truth is that the story is one of many told by the Hebrews to ridicule nations against whom they harbor a grudge.”
Four of such nation, he says are:
*Egypt because of what one of its pharaohs did to the ancestors of the jews.
- Canaan who the jews considered “idolaters” and therefore could be annihilated in the name of Yahweh
- Moab whom the Hebrew say were born from an incestuous relationship between lot and his two daughters.
- Babel whom the jews considered too ambitious and therefore sees the ruins of its imposing ziggurats as punishments from heaven
Earlier, oduyoye had also dealt with another personality whom he said the Hebrew writes tried to run down because of his greatness: nimrod, a blackman (kushite). Quoting genesis, oduyoye described nimrod as one of the gibbor-iym (Yoruba al-agbara”) cited in genesis as the “first on earth to be a mighty man.”
Nimrod, according to oduyoye’ is actually Yoruba lamurudu (n-m-d/ i-m-d) and he was the first empire builder whose kingdom spread from Babylon ot Nineveh.
“given this anterior greatness of the kushite nimrod, the first gibbor, the writers of genesis did with nimrod what they did with Nebuchadnezzar: for no reason other than his greatness, they stated that nimrod’s greatness was offensive to god (Yahweh).”
Then he adds: “the facts is that the jewshad never been great (except during the empire of david and Solomon). On the contrary, they had suffered from great nations many of these here included in the kingdom/empire of nimrod—Babylonians …. Assyrians
Oduyoye returns again and again to this issue of racism shown by the jews in their records. On page 100, he declares: “ it is the business of blacks to expose the inherent anti-hamitism, which resulted in the paradigmatic extermination of the canaanites by those who, when the tide is turned, have been complaining about anti-semitism.”
Then oduyoye zero in on the Nigerian situation: we are asked not to believe that the abore have any relationship with the ‘iber-iym, and yet what the iber-iym did to the canaanites in the name of Yahweh the abore have done to the sons of kush from sokoto to Ilorin in the name of Allah.”
Citing the –b-r consonantal root among other evidence, oduyoye had told us in the opening of chapter 7
(page 63) that the Hebrew and the Fulani (bororo) have a common origin:
“ eber is the name of the ancestor of the ben-eyeber “sons of eber.” These were, in the bible, the ‘iber-iym “the Hebrews.
“ eber, the name of their ancestor is comparable to the name by which the wandering Fulani of west Africa are know: abore in Nigeria (borno) and in chad, bororo in nigeria (adamawa… their language is called ful-ful-de in Nigeria.”
The ‘-b-r root in the name Eber and in the ‘iber-iym (Hebrews), oduyoye says, occur in Hebrew ‘abar’ (cross over, trespass, pass on, past by); twiboro (to trespass); yorubaafara (bridge); ibara (ford); ibara-mu (across the nose); eburu [shortcut (across an area)].
Oduyoyethen declares: “the ‘ibere-iym, (Hebrews) go that name because being nomads, they were always passing by the cities of the canaanites and never settling among them.
The sons of the gods and the daughters of men is a many-layered work which value continues to be uncovered with reapted reading.
Many more fascinating information are enclosed in its pages: like the link between adamuOrisa (of the aworieyo masquerade in lagos state) and Hebrew r’ison Adam; the link between qayin (cain) and ogun the Yoruba patron saint of smiths.
The latter link is particularly interesting in its detective nature. Oduyoye notes that Hebrew qayin is cognate wqith Arabic word for smith(s) qayn/quyun. Reminding us of the q/g/k consonantal liquidity,oduyoye says the words are cognate with Yoruba ogun and fon gun both meaning “patron saint of smiths.” Other cognate include hamnkuno (inventor of iron smelting) and ebiraegene (the caste of smiths)
He remind us too that the name “akin” (valiant man) is most prevalent in ondo which shares the n-d consonantal root with the land of Nod to which qayn headed after leaving eden.
And is there a link between the city of hanok (enoch) and the nok culture of jos plateau in Nigeria? And can Yoruba be a distant relation of “Europa?
While the book’s appendix gives further details on some words already tackled in the-proper and summaries the main pillars of oduyoye’s arguments, the index is a mini afro-anglo-semitic dictionary.
Oduyoye was 70 last march 18, but he remains as passionately curious about words and language as ever. His ears and brain cells remain permanently cocked to catch phonological and semantic similarities in words.
A few years ago, a circus group chanced upon oduyoye. The star attraction was a hairy human giant. About 9 feet and huge. Five-foot-five oduyoye stared up at the hulk. On enquiry, oduyoye was told the man hailed from somewhere in the south-south of Nigeria. But it was the name — Anak — that struck the linguist in oduyoye. That sounds— phonologically and semantically — like Yoruba inaki, an equally hairy man-like ape… and … and… Hebrew Anakiym, the family of giants to which biblical goliaths belonged!
That’s how oduyoye mind’s works.
One of the last of a fast disappearing breed of thoroughbred scholars, oduyoye has forsaken virtually all luxury for the kingdom of the mind.
His sparely furnished, self-designed residence at awosika street, old bodija, ibadan, is stock-full of texts of bewildering variety — from ifa, the baghavadgita to ancient Egyptians to only God-knows… there’s no the radio, no television.
They distract him, he says. A workaholic, oduyoye is always scribbling away at something. Or reading. Or travelling.
I have never caught oduyoyeasleep(though he ahd dozed off in the thick of some of our discussions). If he’s at home, he will always answer at the first or second knock with his trademark “hallo”
He’s still going strong.
On one of my visits about three years ago, I happened to have asked of his latest researches. And promptly came his reply with uncustomary excitement: “I’m now turning my attention to indo-european, a language group that stretches from…”
“what’s the Yoruba word for that rabbit-like-animal “with long ears?”
“ehoro” I replied
“what’s the English word for it?
“hare”
“good, note the h-r consonantal root, he said and asked again, what’s the animal particularly noted for
“Speed”
“Good! Good!! What’s the English word for ‘speed up’, ‘act with speed’”
This time, I goofed and goofed again. So, oduyoye supplied the word: “Hurry.”
“And of what measurement of time does that remind yo?”
“Hour” I said.
Oduyoye grinned. “there you see how the mind of man works in the formation of words and languages….
