posted
African religiosity acknowledges the reality of God but does not define God. If anything, it confesses that God is unknowable. The Maasai (Kenya and Tanzania) name for God, Engai means (among others) "the Unseen One, the Unknown One". Likewise, among the Tenda (Guinea), God is called Hounounga which means: "the Unknown". People affirm that God is invisible, which is another way of asserting that they do not know God in any would-be physical form. Subsequently, nowhere in Africa do we find physical images or representations of God, the Creator of the universe. This is remarkable
Spirit beings explain the ontological "space" between human beings and God. These may be acknowledged in different forms, of which the main ones are divinities and spirits. Divinities were created as such by God, and some are also personifications of major natural phenomena and objects such as mountains, lakes, rivers, earthquakes, thunder, etc. The spirits can be considered in two categories: heavenly (sky) and earthly. The "heavenly" spirits are those associated with "heavenly" phenomena and objects like the sun, the stars, comets, rain and storms. The "earthly" ones are partly those associated with earthly phenomena and objects, and partly those that are remnants of persons after death.
The belief in the existence of other spiritual beings besides God is widespread. They were created by God and are subject to God. They can be considered in two categories: those associated with nature and those that are remnants of human beings after death. Nature spirits are personifications of heavenly or earthly objects and phenomena: the stars, the sun, thunder, rain and storms, mountains, earthquakes, lakes, waterfalls, and caves. We have pointed out that death does not annihilate persons. After death, persons in form of spirits continue to live in the next world, and the living relate to them, especially to those of family members that are still remembered by name. Some spirits are involved in divination, and others may possess the living.
ABSTRACT The concept of God, divinities and spirits in African traditional religious ontology has been so misunderstood by many scholars to the point of seeing Africans as people who did not know the Supreme Being nor worship Him. This paper seeks to examine how Africans conceive of the Supreme Being, divinities and spirits. The paper shows that the concept of God is not strange to Africans but in traditional Africa there is no atheist. It sees the divinities as beings who receive authority from the Supreme Being to serve in the unitary theocratic system of government. The paper sees the spirits as strangers, foreigners and outsiders in the category of things that should be defeated using spiritual powers. Keywords: Religious Ontology, African tradition, Divinities, Spirits
INTRODUCTION The concept of God, divinities and spirits in African traditional religious ontology has been a controversial and misunderstood concept. Various factors led to this controversy and misunderstanding, such as prejudice by Western scholars who measured African traditional religious concept with Christianity. Other factors include lack of indebt study of African religion leading to hasty conclusion. Most of those who came to study the religions of Africa were armchair scholars who depended on data from missionaries who themselves concentrated in one community or tribe. They used the scanty information derived from one or two localities in Africa to draw conclusion about the ontology of God, divinities and spirits in Africa. These armchair scholars went as far as believing that the sub-Saharan Africa is one country with one religious belief and practice. This misunderstanding continued until indigenous African scholars like John S. Mbiti and E. Bolaji Idowu, in 1970s and 1980s, set out to refute some of the erroneous claims about African religions. They echoed the fact that “Africans had known God before the missionaries came” (Ray XI). This view gave Africans and their religion, which was battered and shattered by the missionaries who condemned and denigrated their religion, a new hope and integrity. In this paper, our attention is drawn to the fact that there are realities in African religion which has not been properly echoed by Africans themselves
especially those Eurocentric ones whose religious inclination has blinded them to the fact that Africans are not strangers to the worship of One True God – Supreme Being, who is called by different names in Africa. This paper also shows the position of the divinities and spirits in African religious metaphysics stressing that their belief in these other beings do not in any way contradict their belief in the Supreme Being as some opine. In most of the religions of the world, the concept of the Supreme Being is clearly spelt out just as it is in African religion with the divinities and spirits clearly set forth as messengers of the Supreme Being. This work is therefore focused on showing the place of God, divinities and spirits in African religious ontology. God in African Religious Ontology: When we refer to the word ‘God’, we are talking about the living eternal Being who is the source of all living and whose life existed from the dateless past. He is self existed and is the one whose power sustains the universe. He is an all-knowing Being who knows and sees all things at the same time without any modern instrument. He even knows the end from the beginning. This Great Being has revealed Himself in many different ways, “and human beings in particular have always felt His presence and responded to Him in worship” (Brown 1). This manifestation or revelation of God has brought about a living relationship between God and Man leading to what we now call religion. Some people who received this revelation have seen God as a personal Being such as the Jews and Muslims, while others like the Buddhists do not think of God as a personal Being at all. The greatness of this Being has been described by many scholars, religious people and many religious scriptures. In describing God, Al-Ghazzali wrote: He is the power and the kingdom and the glory and the majesty and to Him belongs creation and the rule over what He created: He alone is the Giver of life; He is omniscient, for His knowledge encompasseth all things, from the deepest depths of the earth to the highest heights of the heavens. The smallest atom in the earth or the heavens is known unto Him. He is aware of how the ants creep upon the hard rock in the darkness of the night. He perceives the movement of specks of dust in the air. He beholds the thoughts which pass through the minds of men, and the range of their fancies and the secrets of their hearts, by His knowledge, which was from aforetime (qtd in Brown 2). The Arjuma’s Hymn written in about 500 – 100 BC in ancient Hindu Gita, expresses the same belief in the greatness of this great God and his relationship with humanity and the universe: Why should they not revere You? … You are the first Creator, Infinite, Lord of the gods, home of the Universe. You are the Imperishable. You are the last Prop-and-resting Place of the universe. You are the Knower and what is to be Known … The whole universe was spun by You … Your strength is infinite, Your power is limitless. You bring all things to their fulfillment: hence You are All … You are the Father of the world of moving and unmoving things (qtd in Brown 3). These descriptions as given above shows the extent of the greatness of this Supreme Being by many religions. The greatness of this Supreme Being – God is also portrayed in African religions. The fact that there are no written scriptures by the votaries of African traditional religion, does not in any way mean that the concept of the Supreme Being does not exist in their ontology. John S. Mbiti explains that though the knowledge of God as the Supreme Being is not documented in any sacred book, yet it is “expressed in proverbs, short statements, songs, prayers, names, myths, stories and religious ceremonies” (African Religions and Philosophy 29). This means that for one to understand the concept of God – the Supreme Being in African, he has to study carefully the entirety of the culture of the people. This agrees with what Mbiti said, “One should not, therefore, expect long dissertations about God. But God is no stranger to African peoples, and in traditional life there are no atheists” (29). This is further supported by an Ashanti proverb which says ‘No one shows a child the Supreme Being. This proverb means that anyone born in Africa does not need to go to school to learn about the existence of the Supreme Being, but God’s existence is known by all including children. The Origin of Belief in God in Africa: There are divergent views of scholars as per the origin of religion. Some see religion as originating from fear. People saw the vastness of the universe and the rumblings of thunder and lightening and the vastness of the sea and so many other things that caused them fear and so developed faith in something that will shield them from what they feared. Others see religion as originating from magic while others see religion as the creation of the priestly class. As there are divergent views of scholars concerning the origin of religion, in the same way many scholars have various views as per the origin of belief in God in Africa. Three important views exist which are here explained. 1.Through reflections on the universe, Africans came to believe in God. This view has its bases on the fact that Africans believe in God as the Creator of the universe. This belief may have led them to reflect on the vastness of the universe. Their imagination led them to this conclusion that there must be a Supreme Being whose power not only created this vast and complex universe but also sustains it. They therefore began to give this being worship and adoration. Mbiti, writing in his work Introduction to African Religion, explains that the process of arriving at this conclusion of belief must have taken a long time “and there must have been many myths and ideas which tried to explain these mysteries of the world” (40). 2.Through realization of their own limitations Africans came to believe in God. This second view or explanation of the origin of belief in God in Africa has its root in man’s limitations and the insatiable nature of man’s needs. Africans saw that they were limited and weak in many respects, including knowledge and power, particularly in the face of death, calamity, thunderstorms, earthquakes, mighty rivers and great forests which are beyond man to control. These limitations and powerlessness rather led them to speculate that there must be a Supreme Being who is superior to these other powers that can be drawn to help them through appeasement and or sacrifice. Mbiti argues that “this idea made it logical and necessary for man to depend on the one who was more powerful than people”. (Introduction to African Religions, 41). This made Africans to feel that they needed the help of this Supreme Being in their experiences of limitations and powerlessness. This is the Great God that the Africans worship. It should be observed that the process of this formulation took a long period before it was actually conceptualized. 3.As Africans observed the forces of nature, they came to believe in God. This third view of the origin of belief in God in Africa is so important because it has to do with the various forces of nature. From time immemorial; man has been in the habit of looking at the forces of nature with awe and reverence. This made man to worship these forces as having one supernatural power or another. As Africans looked at the weather, storms, thunder and lightening, and other phenomena such as day and night, the firmament, the sun, moon and stars, seeing their enormous benefit to man yet unreachable, the Africans began to associate the sky with a great God who is very close to man, supplying man’s needs such as rain for his land to produce abundant fruit. Mbiti argues that this may be the reason “that God is so much associated with the sky and the heavens”. He argues further that: It is very likely that … [Africans] came to believe in God’s existence through such a link between heaven and earth. Man was at the centre of the universe. Standing on the earth but looking up to the heavens, and that belief began to make sense and fit into man’s continued attempts to understand and explain the visible and the invisible universe, the earthly and heavenly worlds of which man is the centre (Introduction to African Religions, 41, 42). African religion centres on belief and practices. This knowledge of God through belief; became the cardinal point of the religion of Africans. Attributes of God (Supreme Being) in Africa: Attributes of God refers to words or phrases ascribing traits, properties, qualities or characteristics to the Supreme Being. These attributes are anthropomorphic in nature. This is because any religion that stripes the Supreme Being of anthropomorphic phenomenon will eventually end up as an abstract religion that does not have human feelings and is not fully realizable in the world. Anthropomorphism is the ascribing of human character to God. J. Omosade Awolalu and P. Adelumo Dopamu explain that anthropomorphism has been found in all religions as a way of expressing ideas or concepts about the preternatural world of realities. For this reason, they argued that it cannot be accepted as a part of the structure of African religion (32). As we study these attributes of God in Africa, we must be conscious of this fact that there are no sacred scriptures of African religion for us to consult and know what these attributes are, as one who wishes to study the attributes of God in Christianity or Islam will do. Rather attributes of God in African religion can be found in the songs, proverbs, sayings, recitals and liturgies of so many African people. (a) God is real to Africans: Africans do not perceive of God as an abstract entity whose existence is in the mind. He is seen and perceived as a real personal entity whose help is sought in times of trouble and who is believed to be the protector of the people. The various names given to God in African attest to this. The fact that God is real to Africans is enshrined in the meaning of the name they call him. The Yoruba of Nigeria call God Olodumare or Edumere meaning “The King or Chief unique who holds the sceptre, wields authority and has the quality which is superlative in worth, and he is at the same time permanent, unchanging and reliable.” Another Yoruba name for God is Olorun meaning “the owner of heaven” or “the Lord of heaven” showing God as the author of all things both visible and invisible. The Igbo of Nigeria call God by these names Chukwu meaning “Source Being” which connotes “the Great One from whom being originates”. Chineke meaning, “The Source Being Who creates all things”. The Edo of Nigeria knows God as Osanobua or Osanobwa which means “the source of all beings who carries and sustains the world or universe”. Among the Nupe of Nigeria God is called Soko which means “the creator or supreme deity that resides in heaven”. The Ewe and Fon people of Dahomey call God Nana Buluku which means the great ancient Deity. Among the Akon and Ga people of Ghana, God is known by these names: Odamankoma, meaning “He who is uninterruptedly, infinitely and exclusively fully of grace” or “He who alone is full of abundance or completeness” or “He who in His grace has completed everything in heaven and on earth”. Nyame or Onyame meaning “if you possess or get him, you are satisfied” which expresses God as God of fullness or God of satisfaction. Among the Mende people of Sierra-Leone God is called Ngewo which means “the eternal one who rules from above”. (Awolalu and Dopamu 38-43). These names were not created by Africans after the colonial era but shows how real God is to Africans. If God were not real to Africans how did they manufacture these names and given to the Being they do not know? b)God is unique in African religious ontology When the word unique is used in reference to the attribute of God in Africa we are looking at God as having no equal or non like Him and being the only One of its sort. We earlier explained that the Yoruba people of Nigeria refer to God as Olodumare meaning “The king or chief unique, who holds the scepter, wields authority and has the quality which is superlative in worth, and he is at the same time permanent, unchanging and reliable”. This description shows the uniqueness of God in Africa. Not only is God seen as unique but He is also seen as permanent, unchanging and reliable. This is why in Africa there are no images attributed to the Supreme Being. In most cases there are no temples except in few places, dedicated to the Supreme Being. No body in Africa has produced any picture attributive to the Supreme Being because the concept of God is embedded deeply in their ontology that the Supreme Being is unique and nothing is comparable to Him. Idowu has this to say concerning the uniqueness of God: The uniqueness of Deity is one reason why there are no images – graven or in drawing or in painting of him in Africa. Symbols there are copiously, but no images. The African concept of God, in this regard is an emphatic ‘No one’ and ‘None’ to the question, ‘To whom then will you liken God or what likeness compare with Him? (African Traditional … 152). Alice Werner in describing Leza, the name used for the High God by the Baila, Botanga, and other tribes of Northern Zambia explains that Leza is described as “the One who does what no other can do” (51). In writing about the Ruanda people Werner described their Supreme Being (Imana) in a proverb thus: “There is none to equal Imana” (44). These descriptions show the uniqueness of the Supreme Being in African religious ontology. Evans – Pritchard in his definite view of God, known as Kwoth among Nuer people of Sudan says: The Nuer word we translate ‘God’ is Kwoth, Spirit … We may certainly say that the Nuer do not regard the sky or any celestial phenomena as God, and this is clearly known in the distinction made between God and the sky in the expression spirit of the ‘sky’ and spirit who is in the sky’. Moreover, it would even be a mistake to interpret ‘of the sky’ and ‘in the sky’ too literally… They may address the moon, but it is God to whom they speak through it, for the moon is not regarded, as such, as Spirit or as a person. Though God is not [sky, moon, rain, and others]… He reveals Himself through them. (12). Evans-Prichard has carefully explained that though the various natural phenomena are not God from the African concept of God, they are vehicles through which God reveals Himself to people. We still maintain that God is unique and that is how Africans see the Supreme Being. (c)God is Transcendent and Immanent These two words, transcendent and immanent could be seen as two sides of the same coin. Transcendent means that something is beyond what is natural and normal, and different from it. When Africans see God as transcendent, it means that (a) God is not limited to a particular place and time as human beings are. (b) It means that God lives outside the natural world in which human beings live. (c) It also means that human beings can never fully comprehend the will or thoughts of the Supreme Being. He is beyond their understanding. (d) It further means that God is always there first: He is the creator of all things and the initiator of all events. (e) Finally, it means that human beings feel awe when they remember the presence of God. He is good and trustworthy in a way that they are not (Brown 2). As an immanent God, Africans see Him as God whose presence is felt by people within the natural world. This means that they feel his presence around their surroundings, and through what happens to them and their families. Africans see God as very present within the natural world to help protect and deliver his creation, although at the same time, He transcends the natural realm. When we say that God is immanent in the world, we are presenting an attribute that shows God as dwelling among us or within us. So many writers especially the armchair scholars from the West argue that God in the African concept is far removed that they see Him as “Absentee Landlord”. They conclude that though Africans have a faint knowledge of God, but that God is far removed from them so that they rather go to the divinity for help. This is a big error. You cannot emphasize God’s remoteness to Africans to the exclusion of His nearness. Awolalu and Dopamu argue that to the Africans “the transcendence and immanence of God are two divine attributes that are paradoxically complementary” (50). This is revealed in the Nupe song: “God is far away. God is in front, He is in the back”. This Nupe song means that though God is not on earth yet He is very present, always, and everywhere. To show the immanence of God among the Yoruba of Nigeria they ask “What can you do in concealment that God’s eyes do not reach?” And they also add another statement “He who steals under concealment, even though the eyes of the earthly ruler do not see him, those of the King of Heaven are looking at him” (Awolalu and Dopamu 51). The above sayings reveal the immanence of God in African religious ontology. They show that Africans believe that though God is transcendent, yet He is immanent. d)In Africa God is Eternal and Immortal. The Africans do not see the Supreme Being as One who will one day cease to be or one who will eventually die. They rather see Him as the eternal and immortal One who lives forever to satisfy the human soul. This is why “they hold that the Supreme Deity is the Ever-living Reality Whose Being stretches to eternity” (Awolalu and Dopamu 52). A Yoruba epithet of praise describes this eternal and immortal attribute of the Supreme Being in Africa: Oyigiyi Ota Aiku – “The mighty, immovable, hard, ancient, durable Rock that never dies”. The Kono people of Sierra Leone call God by the name Yataa which means that “God is the One you meet everywhere”. They also call God by another name Meketa implying “the Everlasting One”, “The One who remains and does not die” showing that people of many generations experience God living (Awolalu and Dopamu 52). There are so many other great attributes of God in African religious ontology which we may not expatiate in this work such as: God is the absolute controller of the universe, God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient in Africa; the Supreme Being is one in Africa; God is good and merciful, and God is Holy. The attributes as enumerated above are not the product of missionary activities or colonial era. They are part and parcel of Africans. Every child born into African culture grows with these concepts of God and he does not need to learn them because they are imbued in their folklores, myths, short stories, short sayings, proverbs, ceremonies and everything around them. These attributes show the place of the Supreme Being in the African traditional religious ontology. No one under any guise should say that Africans did not know God before colonial era or before the coming of the missionaries. The knowledge of God as the Supreme Being in Africa has been part of our culture from time immemorial. Divinities in African Religious Ontology: The African religions partly recognize a group of being popularly known as divinities. These beings have been given various names by various writers such as ‘gods’, ‘demigods’, ‘nature spirits’, divinities, and the like. Mbiti explains that the term “covers personification of God’s activities and manifestations, the so-called ‘nature spirits’, deified heroes, and mythological figures” (Concept of God in Africa, 117). This belief in divinities is a common phenomenon especially in West Africa, while in other parts of Africa; the concept is not succinctly expressed. This is what Francis O. C. Njoku means when he said, “The phenomenon of belief in divinities is not everywhere prominent in Africa” (125). In West Africa where the concept is clearly expressed, there are so many of such divinities. In Yoruba pantheon, for example, Idowu explains that there are as much as 201, 401, 600, or 1700 divinities (Qtd in Njoku 127). In Edo of Nigeria, Mbiti narrates that there are as many divinities as there are human needs, activities and experiences, and the cults of these divinities are recognized as such. In his words “One [divinity] is connected with wealth, human fertility, and supply of children (Oluku); another is iron (Ogu), another of medicine (Osu), and another of death (Ogiuwu)” (Concepts of God in Africa, 119). Divinities have been grouped into two major groups namely: the Principal Divinities and Minor Divinities. Principal divinities are regarded as part of the original order of things. Njoku sees these as being “co-eval with the coming into being of the cosmos” (126). They include such divinities as Sango or Amadioha – thunder divinities for Yoruba and Igbo; Ani or Ala – earth divinity among the Igbo, Aje in Idoma land and other solar divinities. The Dinka people of Sudan recognize Deng divinity associated with rain, fertility and others, Abak with mother role, Garang – perfect picture of father/son relationship. They also recognize Macardt – a divinity associated with death (127). Nature of Divinities: There are two major schools of thought as regards the origin of divinities in African religious ontology. The first school of thought is led by John S. Mbiti. He argues that divinities were created by the Supreme Being. He explains that divinities “have been created by God in the ontological category of the spirits. They are associated with Him, and often stand for His activities or manifestation either as personifications or as the spiritual beings in charge of these major objects or phenomena of nature” (African Religions and Philosophy 75, 76). By this view of Mbiti and his group, divinities are under the Supreme Being in the order of things. They can also be seen as manifestations of the characteristics or attributes of the Supreme Being. The second school of thought, championed by E. Bolaji Idowu, argues that divinities were not created but were brought out into being. In his words, From the point of view of the theology of African traditional religion, it will not be correct to say that the divinities were created. It will be correct to say that they were brought into being, or that they came into being in the nature of things with regard to the divine ordering of the universe (169). This view of Idowu may correspond to the Christian theology about the divinity of Christ. Christians believe that Christ was not created but came out (brought forth) from the Father and so shares almost all the attributes of the Father. This is why he is called the Son of God. In the same way, Idowu applies the same theology to the divinities. He explains that Orisa-nla (the arch-divinity among the Yoruba) “is definitely a derivation partaking of the very nature and metaphysical attributes of Olodumare” (169). This is why the Yoruba people call him “Deity’s son and deputy, vested with the power and authority of royal sonship “(169). In Benin of Nigeria, Olokun the arch-divinity is regarded as the son of Osanobwa, which means a son vested with power and majesty by his father. Among the Akan people of Ghana, all their divinities are regarded as sons of Onyame. Idowu therefore argues that “it is in consequence of this derivative relationship that these divine “beings” are entitled to be called divinities or deities” (169). A careful look at these two schools will show that Idowu was applying the Christian theological principle to African traditional religion by declaring that the divinities were not created just as Christians believe that Jesus Christ was not created. Chike Ekeopara lays his weight behind Idowu by declaring that the divinities were not created and adds “Divinities are brought into being to serve the will of the Supreme Being” (19). There is an agreement among scholars that divinities are divided into two groups. One group being spirits and the other group being human beings of the distant past, who, by their heroic activities where deified. Our argument here is that if all divinities were not created, it means that those heroic human beings of the distant past who were deified were not created. This will run contrary to the general belief of Africans concerning the Supreme Being whom alone has no beginning and no ending in African religious theology. If the divinities are said to posses the same uncreated nature, then there must be equality between them in some sense. But we have submitted in this paper that in Yoruba of Nigeria, the name Olodumare, a name given to the Supreme Being, means a king or chief who wields authority and is “unique”. This uniqueness means one of his kinds. None is comparable to Him. He is unchangeable and reliable. It therefore follows that if God is unique then every other creature must be different from Him. They are regarded as divinities. Their being called divinities is because they are sometimes the personification of the natural forces or the manifestation of the Supreme Being. This researcher therefore, agrees with John S. Mbiti that divinities “have been created by God initially as spirits… [and] are largely the personifications of natural objects and forces… of the universe” (Introduction to African Religion, 66) Relationship between Divinities and Supreme Being 1.They are created “beings”. As created beings, they are subordinate to the Supreme Being. 2.They are derivations from Deity. The divinities do not have independent existence or absolute existence, but derive their being from the Supreme Being. This means that “since divinities derive their being from the Supreme Being, their powers and authorities are meaningless apart from Him (Ekeopara 19) 3.They are given functions to perform: Divinities do not perform duties against the will of the Supreme Being rather they are obedient to the command of the Supreme Being. Various communities of Africa who believe in divinities have their local names for each divinity depending on the function the divinity performs. In Yoruba Jakuta, the divinity responsible for Wrath-one who hurls or fights with stones”, is known in Nupe as Sokogba – God’s axe. Among the Igbo Ala or Ani – Earth, is the arch-divinity responsible for the fertility of the soil. 4.Another important relationship between the divinities and Supreme Being in Africa is that the divinities serve as “functionaries in the theocratic government of the universe” (Idowu 170). This means that the various divinities have been apportioned various duties to perform in accordance with the will of the Supreme Being. This is clearly shown by Idowu in his book Olodumare … where he explained that in Dahomey, Mawu-Lisa is regarded as an arch-divinity who apportioned the kingdoms of the sky, the sea, and the earth to six of his off-springs. He made his seventh child Legba, the divine messenger and inspector-general in African pantheon (80). This also means that the divinities are ministers with different definite portfolios in the monarchial government of the Supreme Being. They therefore serve as administrative heads of various departments (Idowu, African Traditional Religion, 170). 5.Divinities are Intermediaries between man and the Supreme Being. They have therefore become channels through which sacrifices, prayers and offerings are presented to the Supreme Being. In Africa, there are no images of the Supreme Being but the divinities are represented with images temples or shrines. Idowu explains that the divinities do not prevent Africans from knowing or worshiping the Supreme Being directly as some erroneously claim, but constitute only a half-way house which is not meant to be permanent resting place for man’s soul. While man may find the divinities ‘sufficient’ for certain needs, something continues to warn him that ‘sufficiency’ is only in Deity [Supreme Being] …. The divinities are only means to an end and not end in themselves. In African religious ontology, especially among the West African people, the concept of divinity is well established. Divinities are so many that their number seems not to be known. This concept has made so many scholars to believe that African religion is either pantheism or polytheism. Those who believe that African religion is pantheistic are of the view that Africans see spirit in everything including wood, tree, fire, and others. Though this may be true but Africans do not see these spirits as deserving worship. They still have a strong place for the Supreme Being whom they revere in a special way, and whom they believe is unique. On the other hand, those who see African religion as being pantheistic have failed to understand that “polytheism is a qualitative and not quantitative concept. It is not a belief in a plurality of gods but rather the lack of a unifying and transcending ultimate which determines its character” (Tillich 246). A careful study of this definition will reveal that in Africa, though there are many gods, yet there is One Supreme God who is worshipped above all-others. This means that the One Supreme God believed in Africa becomes the unifying and transcending ultimate who therefore determines the character of every other activity, showing that polytheism cannot be the right term to describe the type of religion practiced in Africa. Edward E. Evans Pritchard recognized that Nuer religion should not be seen as either monotheistic or polytheistic. He explains that it could be regarded as both depending upon the context. In his words, It is a question of level, or situation of thought rather than of exclusive types of thought. On one level, Nuer religion may be regarded as monotheistic, at another level polytheistic; and it can also be regard as totemistic (52). Francis Deng has also seen the religion of the Dinka people as monotheistic. He explains that to Dinka people, their Supreme God, Nhiali “is One” and that all other deities and spirits are identified with this “Over-All God” (51). We therefore agree with Idowu and Deng that African traditional religion is “Unitary Monotheism”. This is a kind of unitary theocratic government (Idowu, African Traditional Religion … 168). A government where powers are delegated to various deities or divinities for the governance of the universe, and they bring report to the Supreme Being at intervals. Spirits in African Religious Ontology: In African traditional religion, the concept of spirits is well defined. This is because Africans believe in, recognize and accept the fact of the existence of spirits, who may use material objects as temporary residences and manifestations of their presence and actions through natural objects and phenomena (Idowu, African Tradition Religion … 173). This does not mean that traditional religion in Africa was an alienation in which “man felt himself unable to dominate his environment, in the grip of ghosts and demons, under the spell of the awe-inspiring phenomena of nature, a prey to imaginary magical forces or cruel and capricious spirits” (Shorter 49). What we are stressing here is the fact that Africans, though they believe in the existence of spirits, are not being taken captive by this belief so that they do not consider other materialistic elements in the universe. When we refer to spirits in African religious ontology, we are not referring to divinities or to ancestors, but to “those apparitional entities which form separate category of beings from those described as divinities” (Idowu, African … 173). They are considered as “powers which are almost abstract, as shades or vapours which take on human shape; they are immaterial and incorporeal beings” (173, 174). As immaterial and incorporeal, it is possible for them to assume various dimensions whenever they wish to be seen. These spirits are created by God but differ from God and man. Man has in various occasions addressed these spirits anthropomorphically by attributing human characteristics such as thinking, speaking, intelligence and the possession of power which they use whenever they wish. Spirits that we are looking at in this part of the work are the “’common’ spiritual beings beneath the status of divinities, and above the status of men. They are the ‘common populace’ of spiritual beings”, (Mbiti, African Religions … 78). Origin of Spirits: In African religions, there are three main sources of spirits. 1.Some believe that spirits are created by the Supreme Being as a special “race” of their own. As a race of their own, they continue to reproduce their kind and increase in number until they have become myriads in number. 2.Others in Africa are different in their thinking as per the origin of spirits. This second group “believe that the spirits are what remain of human beings when they die physically” (Mbiti, Africa Religion… 79). To this group, this “becomes the ultimate status of men, the point of change or development beyond which men cannot go apart from a few national heroes who might become deified” (79). This then means that the ultimate hope of man is to become a spirit when he dies. 3.The third source of spirit is animals that died. In Africa, some societies believe that animals have souls and spirits which continue to live with the spirits of dead men after they died. In this way, the world of the spirit is a picture of the material world where humans and animals live. Nature of Spirits: Spirits are nondescript, immortal and invisible entities. This is because they do not posses material body through which they could be seen but they may incarnate into any material thing in order to make themselves seen for any reason or purpose. People have however experienced their activities and many folk stories in Africa tell of spirits described in human form, activities and personalities, though sometimes, these descriptions are exaggeration created by the elders to teach special lessons. Since they are invisible, these spirits are thought to be ubiquitous, so that a person is never sure where they are or are not (Mbiti, African… 79). Spirits do not have any family or personal ties with human beings, and so cannot be regarded as the living dead. This is why people fear them, although intrinsically speaking spirits are strangers, foreigners, and outsiders in the category of things. Ontologically, spirits are a depersonalized and not a completion or maturation mode of existence. The spirit mode of existence according to Mbiti “is the withering of the individual, so that this personality evaporates, his name disappears and he becomes less and not more of a person: a thing, a spirit and not a man any more” (Africa Religion…79). Majority of people in Africa believe that spirits dwell in the woods, bush, forest, and rivers. Others hold that spirits dwell in mountains, hills, valleys or just around the village and at road junctions. Spirits are in the same environment with men. This means that man has to try in one way or the other to protect himself from the activities of the spirits knowing that the spirits are stronger than him. He uses the various means available to him such as magical powers, sacrifices, and offerings to appease, control and change the course of their action. Man’s Relationship with Spirits: A further study of the activities of the spirits shows that they may cause terrible harm on men. This they do through causing madness or epilepsy and other terrible sickness. In some cases they may possess people causing them to prophesy. Mbiti explains that “During the height of spirit possession, the individual in effect loses his own personality and acts in the content of the ‘personality’ of the spirit possessing him (African Religions… 82). The spirits may chose to drive the person away making him to live in the forest. It may give the person information for the larger society in the case of a prophet or soothsayer. When spirits possession is noticed, the traditional doctors and diviners may be called to exorcise that spirit from the person thereby setting him free from his captor. Among the disastrous spirits that rule in African society is the spirit of witches. To Africans this spirit is real, active and powerful yet very dangerous and disastrous in its actions and activities. Elsewhere, Idowu explains, concerning the concept of witchcraft thus: African concept about witchcraft consist in the believe that the spirits of living human beings can be sent out of the body on errands of doing havoc to other persons in body, mind or estate; that witches have guilds or operate singly, and that the spirits sent out of the human body in this way can act either invisibly or through a lower creature an animal or a bird (African Traditional Religion… 175,176). This concept does not require laboratory test for scientist to believe. This is because the realm of spirits is a realm that transcends scientific scrutiny. It is believed among Africans and that is all that matters. The guild of witches meets regularly for their ceremonies in forests, on trees or under trees, in open places or at the junction of the roads in the middle of the night. This meeting is done at the soul or spirit level meaning that the spirits leave the body of the witches in form of a particular bird or animal. Idowu reiterates the purpose of this meeting as To work havoc on other human beings; and the operation is the operation of spirits upon spirits, that is, it is the ethereal bodies of the victims that are attacked, extracted, and devoured; and this is what is meant when it is said that witches have sucked the entire blood of the victim. Thus, in the case of witches or their victims, spirits meet spirits, spirits operate upon spirits, while the actual human bodies lie ‘asleep’ in their homes (African Traditional Religion 176). Another concept of spirit that is prevalent in Africa is that of the guardian – spirit or man’s double. The belief here according to Idowu is either that the essence of man’s personality becomes a sort of split entity which acts as man’s spiritual counterpart or double; or that the guardian-spirit is a separate entity. The Africans believe that man has a guardian spirit which if it is good, works to bring prosperity and good luck to its double but if the guardian spirit is not in good state, it will rather bring obstacle to the ways of its double. This spirit is known by many names in Africa. Yoruba people call it ori, Igbo people call it chi, while the Edo people call it ehi. It guards one’s steps leading the one to his/her destiny in life. In most cases, it is this spirit that helps to wade off evil spirits that may want to derail the individual from achieving his ultimate in life. This is why most Africans will make sure they sacrifice and appease their guardian – spirit whenever they want to take any important decision or they want to go on a journey. What we are saying here is that in African traditional religion, the place of spirits is very prominent. This does not mean that Africans are Pantheist but it only means that they recognize the role spirits are playing in human life either positively or negatively and they try to keep them at bay using tools available to them such as magic, divination, exorcism, prayers, sacrifice and others. CONCLUSION: We have submitted in this work that the Supreme Being has a strong place in the African ontology. He is regarded as an uncreated, self existent, unchanging, and reliable Being whose power transcends all powers. He is seen as the Creator, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent Being who is immortal and directs human affairs. In Africa, He is worshiped in most places without a temple and without an image attributed to Him because He is beyond human understanding and is unique showing that there is none like Him. This Supreme Being according to African ontology has so many deputies who work with Him in the unitary theocratic governance of the universe. These deputies are regarded as divinities. They are functionaries and ministers whose duties are to carry out the full instructions of the Supreme Being. They do not have absolute power or existence. This is because their lives and existence is derived from the Supreme Being. They are created beings and so are subordinate to the Supreme Being in all matters. They can also be regarded as manifestations of the attributes of the Supreme Being. Africans have temples and shrines dedicated to these divinities even though they are seen as intermediaries between men and the Supreme Being. There are also the spirits who are either created as a race of their own or as the ultimate end of men who died on earth. Some of these spirits cause havoc on humans and so man uses many methods or tools to wade them off. The belief in guardian-spirit is also prominent in Africa. We are therefore of the view that in African traditional religious ontology, God-Supreme Being, divinities and spirits exist and play crucial role in that mode of existence which they belong and on humans on earth.
REFERENCES Awolalu, J. Omosade and Dopamu, P. Adelumo. West African Traditional Religion. Ibadan: Onibonoje, 1979. Brown, David A. A Guide to Religions. London: SPCK, 1975. Deng, Francis Mading. Africans of Two Worlds. New Haven: Yale UP, 1978. Ekeopara, Chike Augustine. African Traditional Religion: An Introduction. Calabar: NATOS Affair, 2005. Evans – Pritchard, Edward E. Nuer Religion. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1956. Idowu, E. Bolaji. African Traditional Religion: A Definition. London: SCM, 1973. Oludumare: God in Yoruba Belief. London: Longmans, 1962. Mbiti, John S. African Religions and Philosophy. London: Heinemann, 1969. Concepts of God in Africa. London: SPCK, 1975. Introduction to African Religion. London: Heinemann, 1975. Njoku, Francis O. C. Essays in African Philosophy, Thought &Theology. Owerri: Claretian Institute of Philosophy &Clacom Communication, 2002. p’Bitek, Okot. African Religions in Western Scholarship. Kampala: East African Literature Bureau, 1970. Ray, Benjamin C. African Religions. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2000. Shorter, Aylward W. F. African Culture and the Christian Church. London: Geoffery Champman, 1978. Tillich, Paul. Systematic Theology, Vol. One. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1951. Werner, Alice. Myths and Legends of the Bantu. London: Harrap, 1933.
Posts: 42929 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by typeZeiss: African traditional religions are considered as "animistic" and no scholar would even begin to call them "monotheistic".
That's wrong. You haven't studied the scholarship on African religion.
There is debate amoungst African scholars on this point. And some question the term "anamist"
A very strong aspect of African religiosity is its monotheism....
--John Mbiti - General Manifestations of African Religiousity
________________________________
John Samuel Mbiti (born 30 November 1931) is a Kenyan-born Christian religious philosopher and writer. He is an ordained Anglican priest, and as of 2005 a canon.
Born in Kenya, Mbiti studied in Uganda and the United States, taking his doctorate in 1963 at the University of Cambridge, UK. He taught religion and theology in Makerere University, Uganda from 1964 to 1974 and was subsequently director of the World Council of Churches' Ecumenical Institute in Bogis-Bossey, Switzerland. He has held visiting professorships at universities across the world and published extensively on philosophy, theology and African oral traditions.[1] Mbiti's seminal book, African Religions and Philosophy (1969), was the first work to significantly challenge Christian assumptions that traditional African religious ideas were "demonic and anti-Christian".[2] His sympathetic treatment of traditional religions was based on massive field work. Mbiti is clear that his interpretation of these religions is from a firmly Christian perspective, and this aspect of his work has sometimes been severely criticized
____________________________________
^^^^ nevertheless John Mbiti is one of the most important African writers on ATR and is quoted in many works on the subject because the book documents a wide scope of African ethnic groups' beliefs
__________________________
The text that brought the professional African philosophical tradition to attention was John Mbiti's African Religions and Philosophy (1969), which brought ethnophilosophical examinations of east African conceptions of time under philosophical scrutiny. The text received severe criticism by many scholars, but the result was a body of literature ranging from Paulin Hountondji's Sur la "philosophie africaine" (1976) [available in English as African Philosophy: Myth and Reality (1983)] and Kwame Gyekye's An Essay on African Philosophical Thought (1987) to D. A. Masolo's
African Philosophy in Search of Identity (1994), where problematics in African philosophy ranging from studies of sage or traditional thought to analytical treatments of philosophical contemporary philosophical problems in the African context are explored.
______________________________
Molefi Asante is one of the most prominent afrocentric writers today. here is what he has to say on monotheism in Africa in his 2009 book Encyclopedia of African Religion, Volume 1 (price $342 )
During the last eighty years the gods of Egypt and the religion of the Ancient Egyptians have been carefully studied by many Egyptologists, but the difficulties which surround these subjects have not yet been cleared away. The respon- sibility for the existence of these difficulties rests upon the Egyptians themselves, because they did not write books on their religion or explanations of what they believed. But a great many hymns to their gods and legends of their gods and goddesses have come down to us, and from these, thanks to the publication of Egyptian texts during the last thirty years, it is now possible to arrive at a number of important conclusions about the Egyptian religion and its general character. The older Egyptologists debated the question whether it was monotheistic, polytheistic, or pantheistic, and the differences in the opinions which they formed about it will illustrate its difficulty. Champollion believed it to have been " a pure monotheism, which manifested itself externally by a symbolic polytheism."^ Tiele thought that in the beginning it was polytheistic, but that it developed in two opposite directions ; in the one direction gods were multiplied, and in the other it drew nearer and nearer to mono- theism.^ Naville treated it as a " religion of nature, inclining to pantheism."^ Maspero admitted that the Eg5^tians appHed the epithets, "one God " and " only God " to several gods, even when the god was associated with a goddess and a son, but he adds " ce dieu Un n'etait jamais DiEU tout court " f the " only god " is the only god Amen, or the only god Ptah, or the only god Osiris, that is to say, a being determinate possessing a personality, name, attributes, apparel, members, a family, a man infinitely more perfect than men. He is a likeness of the kings of this earth, and his power, like that of all kings, is limited by the power of neighbouring kings. The conception of his unity is geographical and political at least as much as it is religious. Ra, only god of Heliopolis, is not the same as Amen, only god of Thebes. The Egyptian of Thebes proclaimed the unity of Amen to the exclusion of Ra, the Egyptian of Heliopolis proclaimed the unity of Ra to the exclusion of Amen. Each one god, conceived of in this manner, is only the one god of the nome or of the town, and not the one god of the nation recognized as such through- out the country.
On the other hand, de Rouge wrote in i860, "The unity of a supreme and self -existent being, his eternity, his almightiness, and eternal repro- duction as God ; the attribution of the creation of the world and of aU living beings to this supreme God ; the immortality of the soul, completed by the dogma of punishments and rewards ; such is the sublime and persistent base which, notwithstanding all deviations and all mythological embellishments, must secure for the beliefs of the Ancient Egyptians a most honourable place among the religions of antiquity."^ And in his work on the Religion and Mythology of the Ancient Egyptians" Brugsch expressed his conviction that, from the earliest times, a nameless, incomprehensible and eternal God was worshipped by the inhabitants of the Valley of the Nile. This conviction he based on many passages in the religious and moral texts of the Egyptians, in which reference is made to a self-existent almighty Being who seems to be none other than the God of modem nations. From these documents we learn that the Egyptian theologians believed that at one time, which was even to them infinitely remote, nothing existed except a boundless primeval mass of water which was shrouded in darkness, but which contained the ultimate sources of everything that now exists in the universe. In late times this watery mass, which was called Nunu, Wcis regarded as the " Father of the Gods." A something in this water, which formed an essential part of it, felt the desire to create and, having imagined in itself the forms of the beings and things that it intended to create, became operative, and the first creature produced was the god Tem or Khepera, who was the personification of the creative power in the primeval water. This god sent forth from his body Shu {i.e., Heat] and Tefnut [Moisture], and these produced Geb [Earth] and Nut [Sky]. Tem or Khepera fashioned the form of everything in his mind and made known his desires to create to his heart, which was personified as Thoth. This god received the creative impulse and invented in his mind a name for the object that was to be created, and when he uttered that name the object came into being. In the texts of the early Dynastic Period Ptah and Khnemu were associated with the god of the primeval water, Nunu or Nu, and they were said to fashion the creatures and things the names of which were pronounced by Thoth. Moreover, they associated the goddess Maat with Thoth, and the part she played at the creation was very much like that which is attributed to Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs.
What the earliest pictorial forms of Tem, Ptah and Khnemu were is not known, but the first and second appear as men at an early period, and the third is represented by a special form of ram or kudu. Ra, who usurped the attributes of Tem, also appears as a man. But of the original creative power which existed of and by itself in the watery mass of Nunu no form is known. The mind of man was incapable of imagining him, and the hand of man was incapable of making a figure that could be considered to be an image or likeness of him. Under the XVIIIth dynasty an Egyptian scribe composed a hymn to Hep [or Hap or Hapi], the Nile-god, in which he traced his origin back to the great watery mass of Nunu. He says of him, " He cannot be sculptured in stone in figures whereon is placed the White Crown. He cannot be seen. Service cannot be rendered to him. Gifts cannot be presented to him. He is not to be approached in the sanctuaries. Where he is is not known. He is not to be found in inscribed shrines. No habitation can contain him. There is none who acteth as guide to his heart." ^ The
Nile-god is thus described only because he was the direct emanation from the great unseen, imknown and incomprehensible creative power, which had existed for ever and was the source of all created things. Statues of the Nile-god were made under the last dynasties of the New Empire, but the hymn quoted above was written many centuries earlier.
The religious literature of Ancient Egypt of all periods is abundant, yet in no class of it do we find any prayer or petition addressed to this unseen and imknown god. But in the Collec- tions of Moral Aphorisms, or " Teachings," composed by ancient sages, we find several allusions to a divine power to which no personal name is given. The word used to indicate
this power is Neter^ ^ T or "1, or |Jj,
AAAAAA Q
or NETHER ^=* |- Many have tried to assign
a meaning to this word and to find its etymology, but the original meaning of it is at present unknown. The contexts of the passages in which it occurs suggest that it means something like " eternal God." The same word is often used to describe an object, animate or inanimate, which possesses some unusually remarkable power
or quality, and in the plural neteru, 1 1 , | fS | >
K^^' m^'' ^* represents the beings
and things to which adoration in one form or another is paid. The great God referred to in the Moral Aphorisms is also spoken of as pa neter,
^^ IsS' "*^^ ^°^'' ^^^^ ^^ *^^ ^^^^^ speak of Al-AUah, i.e., " the Allah." The follow- ing examples drawn from the Precepts of Kagemna [IVth dynasty] and the Precepts of Ptah-hetep [Vth d5^asty] will illustrate this use of Neter.^
1. The things which God, |i, doeth cannot be
known.
2. Terrify not men. God, |i, is opposed thereto.
3. The daily bread is under the dispensation of
God, ^1.
4. When thou ploughest, labour [?] in the field God, p, hath given thee.
5. If thou wouldst be a perfect man make thy
son pleasing to God, 1 1 .
6. God, "1 1 , loveth obedience ; disobedience
is hateful to God, 1 1 .
7. Verily a good [or, beautiful] son is the gift of
God, "^1.
These extracts suggest that the writers of the Precepts believed in a God whose plans were inscrutable, who was the feeder of men, who assigned to each a share of the goods of this world, and who expected men to obey his behests and to bring up their children in a way pleasing to him. As time went on the ideas of the Egj^p- tians about God changed, and imder the XVIIIth dynasty he lost something of the aloofness with
^ They arc taken from the Prisse Pap5nnis which was written under the Xlth or Xllth djmasty. See Virey, Atudes sur le Papyrus Prisse, Paris, 1877, where a transcript of the hieratic text and a French translation will be found.
which they regarded him, and a fuller idea of his personality existed in their minds. This is clear from the following extracts taken from the Precepts, or Teaching, of Khensu-hetep,^ more generally known as the " Maxims of Ani."
1. The God, J^"^ Tr^» magnifies his name.
2. The house of God abominates overmuch
speaking. Pray with a loving heart, the words of which are hidden. He will do what is needful for thee, he will hear thy petitions and will accept thine oblations.
3. It is thy God, 1 3 , who gives thee existence.
4. The God, ^^1|> is the judge of
the truth.
5. When thou makest an offering to thy God
beware of offering what he abominates.
The unknown God of the early dynasties has now become a Being who gives men their lives and means of subsistence, who can be approached in a temple, or house, who is pleased with offerings, and with prayers offered up silently to him, and who wishes his name to be magnified. Another extract reads : —
6. " Observe with thine eye his plans [or dis-
pensation]. Devote thyself to singing praises to his name. He gives souls to hundreds of thousands of forms. He magnifies him that magnifies him."
The text continues : " Now the god of this
earth is Shu, C^^O^I, who is the President
of the Horizons. His similitudes are upon the earth, and to them incense and offerings are made daily." Shu in mythological language was the light and heat that emanated from the self- created, self-subsistent and self-existent primeval god, Horus, or Tem, or Khepera. The being who is referred to in the first part of extract No. 6 seems to me to be different from Shu, the god of this earth. And it will be remembered that Amen- hetep IV, the " Disk- worshipper," adored " Horus of the Two Horizons in his name of Shu {i.e.. Heat] who is in the Aten [Disk]."
The Teaching of Amenemapt, the son of Kanekht, a work that was probably written under the XVIIIth dynasty, proves quite plainly that the writer distinguished very clearly between God and the gods Ra, the Moon-god, Thoth, Khnem- Ra, Aten, etc. In the following extracts he clearly refers to God.
1. Leave the angry man in the hands of God
. . . God knows how to requite him [Col. V].
2. Carry not away the servant of the God for the
benefit of another [Col. VI].
3. Take good heed to Nebertcher, ^^^ B« <S\
[Lord of the Universe] [Col. VIII]. "^
4. Though a man's tongue steers the boat, it
is Nebertcher who is the pilot [Col. XIX].
5. Truth is the great porter [or bearer] of
God [Col. XXI].
6. Seat thyself in the hands of God [Col.
XXIII].
K 2 7. A man prepares the straw for his building,
but God is his architect.
It is he who throws down, it is he who builds up daily.
It is he who makes a man to arrive in Amentt [the Other World] [where] he is safe in the hand of God [Col. XXIV].
8. The love of God, praised and adored be he !
is more than the respect of the Chief [Col. XXVI]. 1
It will be noted that in none of these extracts is any attempt made to describe God, Neter, and that he is never called " One," or " Only One." The truth is that the Egyptians felt that they could not describe him and that they knew nothing about him, except that he existed. This great nameless, unseen and unknown God handed over to a number of inferior beings the direction and management of heaven and earth and everything which was in them. Those that were kind and considerate to the human race men caUed gods, and those that were malevolent and inimical they called devils. Each community or village, however small, possessed its own " god," whose power and importance depended upon the wealth and social position of his wor- shippers. But the Egyptian, whilst adoring the " god," Neter, of his native city, was ready to admit the existence of another Neter, who was probably the Being whom we call God. Thus, in Chapter CXXV of the Book of the Dead, the deceased says in his declaration before the Forty- two gods, " I have not cursed God," -WWX yg^Sf^ i^' ^"^ "^ hsLve not contemned
the god of my city, P "^"^^^ 1 ^ ^
® ^\ The distinction between " God " and
" god of the city " was quite clear in the mind of the Egyptian.
It has been claimed by some that Amenhetep IV was the first monotheist in Egypt, but the acceptance of this statement depends upon what meaning is given to the word monotheism, i.e., the doctrine of there being only one god. The passages from the Moral Papyri quoted above show that the Egyptian priests and learned men were monotheistic, even though they do not proclaim the oneness of the god to whom they refer. The idea of oneness was well understood under the Ancient Empire, but in the Pyramid Texts the attribute is ascribed to the " gods " and to kings as well as to God. Thus in Teta
[1. 237] the "lord one" ^^^^^ o-^^, is
mentioned ; in Merenra I the king is called
*' great god alone," | A -c=5- J [1. 127],^ and is
said to be stronger than every god ; and in Pepi II [1. 952] the king is called the " one of
heaven," '^ ^^vwx ^. Now the monotheism
of Amenhetep IV was different from that of the writers of the Moral Papyri, and the oneness of Aten which he proclaimed resembled the oneness of several other Egyptian solar gods and also
^ From the Papyrus of Nebseni. Early XVIIIth d3masty.
' And " Lord of the earth to its Umit " _ <ci> Bs ^^ [1. 128]. "^"^
gods to whom solar attributes had not been originally ascribed. Tern, Horus of the Two Horizons, and Ra, each of these is called "One," and " only one," whether mentioned singly or together as a triad, smd the same title was given to Amen after his fusion with Ra. And whilst Amenhetep IV was proclaiming the oneness of Aten in the city of Aten, the worshipper of Amen was proclaiming the oneness of Amen in Thebes, the worshipper of Ra or Tem was proclaiming the oneness of his god in Heliopolis, and so on throughout the country. And it is interesting to note that votaries of Neith of Sais proclaimed
that their goddess was "One," '^^' that she first created herself and then produced Ra from her own body. The second portion of a fine Hymn to the solar triad, which is preserved in the Papyrus of Ani [sheet 19], and is addressed to Ra-Tem-Heraakhuti the " only one," adds Osiris to this " only one " thus : " Praise be to thee, O Osiris, eternal Lord, Un-nefer, Heraakhuti, whose forms are manifold and whose attributes are majestic, Ptah-Seker-Tem in Anu, lord of the hidden shrine and creator of Hetkaptah [Memphis] . . . thou turnest thy face to the Other World, thou makest the earth to shine like tchdm [gilded copper ?]. The dead rise up to look at thee, they breathe the air and they see thy face like that of the Aten [Disk] when he rises on his horizon. Since they see thee their hearts are content, O thou who art Eternity and Everlastingness."
It is impossible for Amenhetep IV to have indxilged in the philosophical speculations as to the unity of God, with which he is sometimes credited, but which were only evolved by the Greek philosophers a thousand years later. It is, how- ever, very probable that he wished At en, as the god of absolute truth and justice, to become the national god of Egypt and divine ruler of all the countries of the Sudan and Western Asia that formed his dominions. If that be so, he was bom too late to bring this about, even supposing that he was physically and mentally fit to under- take such a task. When he ascended the throne. Amen, or Amen-Ra, the King of the Gods, the Lord of the world, was actually what Amenhetep wished At en to be. Amen had expelled the Hyksos and set the first king of the XVIIIth dynasty upon his throne, and he had given victory to the successors of Aahmes I and filled Egypt with the wealth of the Sudan and Western Asia. Amen had become the overlord of the gods, and his fame filled the greater part of the world that was known to the Egyptians. It was impossible to overthrow the great and wealthy priesthood of Amen, to say nothing of the social institutions of which Amen was the head. The monotheism of Amen- hetep tcom ajneligious jppint . ol v.iew^was_notjiew, Jbuj;, from a politica l poiatjOJ-view it was. It con- sisted chiefly of the dogma that~Amen was unfit to be the national god of Egypt, the Sudan and Syria, and that Aten was more just, more righteous, and more merciful than the upstart god of Thebes, and that Aten alone was fitted to be the national god of Eg3^t and her dominions. When Amenhetep tried to give a practical form to his views, his attempt was accompanied, as has frequently been the case with religious " re- formers," by the confiscation of sacrosanct property, and by social confusion and misery. It was fortunate for Egypt that she only produced one I king who was an individuahst and idealist, a i pacifist and a religious " reformer " all in one. Amenhetep IV attempted to estabUsh a positive religion, and as a religious innovator he spoke and acted as if he were divinely inspired and had a divine revelation to give to men, and in every way he tried to depart from the traditions of the past. He never realised that if his religion was to take root and flourish it must be in contact all along the line with the older ideas and practices which he found among his people. Religion did not begin with him in Egypt. He failed in his self- appointed task because his religion did not appeal to the tradition and religious instincts and suscep- tibilities that already existed among the Egyptians, and because he would not tolerate the traditional forms in which their spiritual feelings were em- bodied.
None of that has ANYTHING to do with nature worship. Africans worship ONE God just as the so called "major" religious do.
What s the name of God in ancient Egyptian religon?
They didn't give Him a name. They said He was omnipotent, without partner, without equal, he always was, He was unknowable etc. etc. Wallace Budge wrote about that in his book "The Gods of the Egyptians" if I remember right. He also gives references to about 5 other Egyptologist of his time that talk about the monotheistic nature of Egyptian beliefs. Martin Barnal also had a VERY small section on the monotheism of Ancient Egypt, though I don't remember if he mentions any sources. There are other books that mention this aspect of their beliefs, but the names escape me right now. I also remember a story that Isis tried to get God to tell her his name and he wouldn't. You might be able to find that story in Budge's writing.
Nun, Amon, Atum, Ra, Shu, Tephnet etc are just aspects of the Creator.
was the ancient Greek religion polytheist?
Posts: 42929 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
None of that has ANYTHING to do with nature worship. Africans worship ONE God just as the so called "major" religious do.
What s the name of God in ancient Egyptian religon?
They didn't give Him a name. They said He was omnipotent, without partner, without equal, he always was, He was unknowable etc. etc. Wallace Budge wrote about that in his book "The Gods of the Egyptians" if I remember right. He also gives references to about 5 other Egyptologist of his time that talk about the monotheistic nature of Egyptian beliefs. Martin Barnal also had a VERY small section on the monotheism of Ancient Egypt, though I don't remember if he mentions any sources. There are other books that mention this aspect of their beliefs, but the names escape me right now. I also remember a story that Isis tried to get God to tell her his name and he wouldn't. You might be able to find that story in Budge's writing.
Nun, Amon, Atum, Ra, Shu, Tephnet etc are just aspects of the Creator.
was the ancient Greek religion polytheist?
I don't know much about Greek beliefs so I can not intelligently answer the question of whether or not they were polytheist. Greek beliefs did seem to differ within Greece itself though. For example Plato was definitely a monotheist it seems, as was Pythagoras. But one could argue they came to that understanding after studying in Egypt.
To address your stuff on African beliefs. It is believed that God's essence is unknowable, it is believed that man can only "know" God by his emanations/attributes/names or whatever you want to call them, but to know him in his entirety, in his very essence is impossible.
Posts: 1296 | From: the planet | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mena say: Great thread Lioness. I agree with John Mbiti the majority if not all African people believe in one invisible God that they never represent in pictures and statues. Africans believe in spirits also call small Gods. They create statues and paintings to represent those spirits. The Hebrew, Persian and Shinto concept of not showing their God came from Africa.
The Egyptians who were composed of many African tribes also believe in one creator God call Paneter and Neberdjer that they have never represented in statues and pictures. The Egyptian Neteru were not Gods but spirits or force of nature. The Egyptians only made statues and pictures to represented the Neteru not the one God. The Neteru are Ra, Ausar, Isis, Heru etc.
The Haitian Vodou worshipers represent the Loa with pictures of Saints and Veves symbols. they do not represent the Vodu God call Bon Dieu (Good god in French). They don't have a name for that Good God.
Lioness post:African religiosity acknowledges the reality of God but does not define God. If anything, it confesses that God is unknowable. The Maasai (Kenya and Tanzania) name for God, Engai means (among others) "the Unseen One, the Unknown One". Likewise, among the Tenda (Guinea), God is called Hounounga which means: "the Unknown". People affirm that God is invisible, which is another way of asserting that they do not know God in any would-be physical form. Subsequently, nowhere in Africa do we find physical images or representations of God, the Creator of the universe. This is remarkable
Spirit beings explain the ontological "space" between human beings and God. These may be acknowledged in different forms, of which the main ones are divinities and spirits. Divinities were created as such by God, and some are also personifications of major natural phenomena and objects such as mountains, lakes, rivers, earthquakes, thunder, etc. The spirits can be considered in two categories: heavenly (sky) and earthly. The "heavenly" spirits are those associated with "heavenly" phenomena and objects like the sun, the stars, comets, rain and storms. The "earthly" ones are partly those associated with earthly phenomena and objects, and partly those that are remnants of persons after death.
The belief in the existence of other spiritual beings besides God is widespread. They were created by God and are subject to God. They can be considered in two categories: those associated with nature and those that are remnants of human beings after death. Nature spirits are personifications of heavenly or earthly objects and phenomena: the stars, the sun, thunder, rain and storms, mountains, earthquakes, lakes, waterfalls, and caves. We have pointed out that death does not annihilate persons. After death, persons in form of spirits continue to live in the next world, and the living relate to them, especially to those of family members that are still remembered by name. Some spirits are involved in divination, and others may possess the living.
Egyptian Monotheism (The ONE) and Polytheism (The ALL)
The ONE Is ALL
The Ancient Egyptians believed in One God who was self-produced, self-existent, immortal, invisible, eternal, omniscient, almighty, etc. This One God was never represented. It is the functions and attributes of his domain that were represented. These attributes were called the neteru (pronounced net-er-u, singular: neter in the masculine form and netert in the feminine form). The term, gods, is a misrepresentation of the Egyptian term, neteru.
When we ask, "Who is God?", we are really asking, "What is God?". The mere name or noun does not tell us anything. One can only define “God” through the multitude of “his” attributes / qualities / powers / actions. This is the only logical way, because if we refer to, say, a person as Mr. X, it means nothing to us. However, once we describe his attributes and qualities, we then begin to know him. A person who is an engineer, a father, a husband, ... etc. does not have poly-personalities, but rather a mono-personality with multiple functions/attributes. For the Ancient and Baladi Egyptians, the concept of God is similar.
To know "God" is to know the numerous qualities of "God". The more we learn of these qualities (known as neteru), the closer we are getting to our divine origin. Far from being a primitive, polytheistic form, this is the highest expression of monotheistic mysticism.
The One Joined Together
In Ancient Egyptian traditions, Ra represents the primeval, cosmic, creative force. The Litany describes Ra as The One Joined Together, Who Comes Out of His Own Members. The Ancient Egyptian definition of Ra is the perfect representation of the Unity that comprises the putting together of the many diverse entities, i.e. The One Who is the All. The Litany of Ra describes the aspects of the creative principle: being recognized as the neteru (gods) whose actions and interactions in turn created the universe. As such, all the Egyptian neteru who took part in the creation process are aspects of Ra. There are 75 forms or aspects of Ra. As such, Ra is often incorporated into the names of other neteru (gods) such as in Amen-Ra of Ta-Apet (Thebes), Ra-Atum of Onnu/Annu (Heliopolis), Ra-Harakhte, ...etc. The solar energy of the sun is only one of numerous manifestations of Ra. That Ra is not just the sun (only a singular form), was also confirmed in the following verse from the Story of Ra and Auset (Isis), in which Ra states,
I have multitude of names, and multitude of forms.
The Image of God
So many phrases are being used throughout the world, which consistently state that the human being is made in the image of God, i.e. a miniature universe; and that to understand the universe is to understand oneself, and vice versa.
Yet no culture has ever practiced the above principle like the Ancient Egyptians. Central to their complete understanding of the universe was the knowledge that man was made in the image of God, and as such, man represented the image of all creation. Accordingly, Egyptian symbolism and all measures were therefore simultaneously scaled to man, to the earth, to the solar system, and ultimately to the universe.
The logical (and only) way to explain anything to human beings is on human terms and in human form. As such, the complicated scientific and philosophical information was reduced in Ancient Egypt to events-in human images and terms.
Picturing the Divine Powers
In order to simplify and convey the scientific and philosophical meanings of the neteru (gods/goddesses), some fixed representations were utilized. As a result, the figures of Auset (Isis), Ausar (Osiris), Amen, Heru (Horus), Mut, etc., became the symbols of such attributes/functions/forces/energies.
These pictorial symbols were intended merely to fix the attention or represent abstract ideas, and were not intended to be looked upon as real personages. As the saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words."
Egyptian symbolism could be compared in some sense to modern day caricature. Caricature uses symbols (such as Uncle Sam, Russian bear, British bulldog, etc.) to represent concepts, ideas, nations, ...etc. A symbol reveals to the mind a reality other than itself. For the informed, the cartoon can reveal, in legitimate symbolic form, the totality of a given situation, in the eyes of the individual cartoonist. For those unfamiliar with the cartoonist and his/her choice of symbols, the cartoon will be total nonsense. Practically all figures on the walls of Egyptian monuments are in profile form, indicative of action and interaction between the various symbolic figures. A wide variety of actions in the figures are evident in the numerous Ancient Egyptian buildings.
A chosen symbol represents that function or principle, on all levels simultaneously-from the simplest, most obvious physical manifestation of that function to the most abstract and metaphysical. Without recognizing the simple fact about the intent of symbolism, we will continue to be ignorant of the wealth of Egyptian knowledge and wisdom.
In Egyptian symbolism, the precise role of the neteru (gods/goddesses) are revealed in many ways: by dress, headdress, crown, feather, animal, plant, color, position, size, gesture, sacred object (e.g., flail, scepter, staff, ankh), etc. This symbolic language represents a wealth of physical, physiological, psychological and spiritual data in the presented symbols.
Animal Symbolism
Egyptians' careful observation and profound knowledge of the natural world enabled them to identify certain animals with specific qualities that could symbolize certain divine functions and principles, in a particularly pure and striking fashion. As such, certain animals were chosen as symbols for that particular aspect of divinity.
This effective mode of expression is consistent with all cultures. For example, in the West they use expressions such as: quiet as a mouse, sly like a fox, ...etc. The animal or animal-headed neteru (gods/goddesses) are symbolic expressions of a deep spiritual understanding. When a total animal is depicted in Ancient Egypt, it represents a particular function/attribute in its purest form. When an animal-headed figure is depicted, it conveys that particular function/attribute in the human being. The two forms of Anbu (Anubis), in the two illustrations shown here, clearly distinguish these two aspects. Another example is the depiction of soul in Ancient Egypt, which is known as the Ba. The Ba is represented as a human-headed bird, which is the opposite of the normal depiction of neteru (gods/goddesses) as human bodies with animal heads-in other words, as the divine aspect of the terrestrial. The Ba is depicted as a stork. The stork is known for its migrating and homing instinct, and is also known worldwide as the bird who carries newborn babies to their new families. The stork returns to its own nest with consistent precision-hence a migratory bird is the perfect choice to represent the soul.
Common Misrepresentations of the Divinities in Egypt
• Egyptians had a confused religious system with an indefinite number of neteru (gods/goddesses).
ü There are an indefinite number of divinities (neteru), because the Divine has an endless number of aspects/attributes.
• There were "minor and major neteru (gods/goddesses)".
ü A neter/netert (god/goddess) may have a minor role under certain conditions, however that does not make the neter/netert (god/goddess) minor. Neteru (gods/goddesses) are the forces of nature, and no one force is superior to others. A certain natural force can be more prominent, depending on the time and place of its action. For example, the heat of the sun has a major role on a midsummer day, and a minor role on a cloudy/rainy/snowy midwinter day.
• A neter/netert (god/goddess) may have contradictory aspects.
ü "Contradictory aspects" can be interrelated. Take for example the aspect of motherhood, as represented by a netert (goddess). A mother can be tender and can be ferocious, depending on the circumstances. These are not contradictory qualities. Normally, a mother will be tender to her child, but if her child is threatened, she becomes ferocious and will attack the outside threat.
• A neter (god) may be represented in different forms or shapes.
ü The nature of neter/netert (god/goddess) may vary under changing conditions. In human terms, the nature of water is present in different forms:
as a vapor-in humid air. as a liquid-in rain. as a solid-in an ice cube.
• There were always power struggles between the different "cult centers."
ü There were neither "political/religious struggles" nor "cult centers" in Ancient Egypt. Western academic Egyptologists, who claim such nonsense, are projecting the history of the church onto the Ancient Egyptian history. The neteru (gods/goddesses) have complementary functions to each other. Since each neter/netert (god/goddess) represents a function, s/he can be found in any temple/tomb/text. A neter/netert may have a prominent (but never exclusive) role at any temple. All temples were of equal importance, and the Egyptian Pharaohs performed the ritual services throughout Egypt at all the temples.
• The Egyptians gave a neter/netert (god/goddess) different names.
ü Names in Ancient Egypt were not just labels. A name was like a short resume or synopsis of the principle. For example, the neter (god) Ra (Re) is described in the Unas Funerary (Pyramid) Texts: "They cause thee to come into being as Ra, in his name of Khepri." Khepri is not just another label/name for Ra (Re). Khepri means coming into being.
• There was a shift in power among the neteru (gods/goddesses), associated with "historical events".
ü The neteru (gods/goddesses) are the forces of nature. There are cyclical variations in nature. Therefore, some neteru (gods/goddesses) were more prominent than others in certain times, not because of "political shift", but because of a shift in the zodiac ages.
• Egyptians categorized these neteru (gods/goddesses) into popular and sacred, local and regional, cosmic, universal, major, minor, ...etc.
ü This is totally unfounded. Neteru (gods/goddesses) represent the different energies/powers that act and interact in the creation and maintenance of the universe. Each situation determines which neter/netert (god/goddess) has a major or minor role.
• Egypt went through an "evolution" of religious beliefs, where the nature of the neteru (gods/goddesses) changed over the centuries; they intermingled with outsiders' beliefs, assimilating some divinities (gods/goddesses), but also creating new ones.
ü This is sheer nonsense, fabricated by western academic Egyptologists, who ignore the facts of the time. ALL early historians of the Greek and Roman times confirmed that the Egyptians are remarkably traditionalist to a fault. For example, Herodotus (5th century BCE) stated in The Histories-Book Two, Section 79, "The Egyptians keep to their native customs and never adopt any from abroad." In Book Two, Section 91, Herodotus states, "The Egyptians are unwilling to adopt Greek customs, or, to speak generally, those of any other country."
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic