A Week-end in narrative history

  ONWUKA Sampson....

The ancient name of Babylon is Byblos, which is Greek for a word that appear as Babilum, Babulim, supposedly meaning 'gate of the deities' 'land of Babylon' as so on, it is only with clear knowledge of the processes involved in the name can we see Babylon/Babulim as two words, mainly in Igbo as Land of Glory or Simply High Ground, where the later can be placed in context of the former as Elish, which may reflect the very older years of the Babylon as a mountainous site where the Rasin bearing Cedar trees for big Egyptian Ships were made, that is to say a ship building industry, leading to the colonizing of the place by Pharaohs and their Priesthood. In essence, Byblos is just the same Big, a term that does fail to chime with another English word 'glory', a place that was cornered by human beings and for human purpose, for its natural trees by Egyptian priest were used in Ship building, where the likes of Fenkhus as they called the wood cutters with their axes made their home. It is Babylon that holds the better understanding of even nature of Sumer writing, itself rich in mineral resources, relating to Babylonian writing.... nation of navigators essentially arose some 3, 100 years before Christ.

It is this history about the people and their origin can we find a form of explicating that favors the fact that Nebu may in fact mean Destiny or Glory, where Nabu may refer to something relatively same, relatively different with Nebu. In terms of the 'man who Nebu has chosen' or 'who Nabu has chosen', we may have little problems in bringing him to the 6th century. Such a man was either the nearly born son of the Artaxyges family of the Medes, who was later known as Cyrus, or the very Nebuchadnezzar who was also King of Kushan. First, we have to consider the man by name Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylonia from 605 - 562. Some has said that the Kushans like the Chaldeans were part of the same Ancient Babylonian tribes, suggesting that the names of the two places and their language are dialects of each other. There is no enough to deny such position given especially the fact that Ancient Babylon was supposed to have at least five separate tribes and five separate dialects. As such Emersal being on the dialects may also feature as one the major tribes of Babylon. Secondly, the Chaldeans as we have noted and we have seen are supposedly located somewhere in Asia, or at least at the Southern part of the Arabian Desert. The Kushans are located in about the same area, saving for the fact that through ancient time and currently, the ancestral home of the Kush are a few hundred miles away from what is now Ethiopia. That the Kushites (Cushites) are themselves Ethiopians is not disputed, that their older language was relative to Chaldean is not disputed, that Chaldeans however are related to Chad in West Africa and to some Libyan Inscription in West Africa, makes a very quick case that Chaldeans are not that far from either Ethiopia, Libya, Cyrene, parts of Sudan, Chad, and whatever lie in the path of the travel from the Southern end of the Red Sea through to the deeper end of the Central and West Africa. The main point being that the King of Kushan as Nebuchadnezzar was called was a King or a ruler of people or tribe that succeeded the hegemony over Babylon in the 6th century. Of course the incident of the quotation of Nebuchadnezzar as the King of Kushan has being disputed since it mainly appeared in the writings of Flavious Josephus. But no doubt exist that Nebuchadnezzar II was a Chaldean, no doubt exist that he was a kind of messiah set aside from birth for redeeming Babylon from the hands of Assyrians. The problem now comes to the fact that if Nebuchadnezzar II was called the King of Kushan and from the tribe of Chaldeans, was he therefore a Chaldean and a Kushan at the same time? Or is it a matter of confusion as has been the case with much Biblical translation on matters concerning Ancient History where the rest of the society is forced the errors of translation in such a way that now interpret such errors as they see fit. For here of language or system of speaking is of the highest importance.

 Beginning with an easy by Donald J. Wiseman on Nebuchadnezzar (Nebuchadnezzar), which appeared in the Oxford University's Essential Guide to People and Places of the Bible, edited by Bruce M. Metzer and Michael D. Coogan, Wiseman attempted to translate a 'Biblical variant' form of the name Nebuchadnezzar. The names that he discovered to be very close to Nebuchadnezzar were 'Nabu-Kudurri-usur', which was translated as "the (god) Nabu has protected the succession". The author of the article went ahead to illustrate that Nebuchadnezzar by meaning and translation is probably closer to the above description. Wiseman confirmed that Nebuchadnezzar was of Chaldean descent, and that he inherited the office from his father by name Nabopolassar. We are not to certain what these names should mean in the context of the King of Babylon, but it is only with Igbo langauge can we see that both the name Nabu-Kudurri-Usur and the name Nabopolassar is probably the same name and refer to the same person. By that first name, Nabu-Kudurri-usur, we can also say that the interpretation in Igbo may be gainfully misleading. It will be unwise to force the reader into a language that he is not very sure of, but we can pretend that at least that the name Nabu-Kudurri-Usur, may mean something of the path, perhaps Nabu is the Path of Life, or Nabu is the path of Salvation, or Nabu is the path that leads (to life). But this interpretation should not occupy the time rather the name Nebuchadnezzar is where the puzzle to the very essence of the messiah and star of redemption essentially apply. In terms of the real meaning of the name of Nebuchadnezzar, we can say at least say with Igbo language that the accounts of Flavius Josephus and Babylonian Chronicles were right in calling him King of Kushan, for his name alone, Nebu-Chad-Nezzer, are three words that can demonstrated in Igbo, where Nebu (Ebube) is Igbo for Glory or Great, where the word Chad is no less Chaldean - no less Chad, and the word Nezzer (Eze) is Igbo word for King or Chief. In essence, if we read the three words together, we easily, very easily arrive at the meaning of Nebuchadnezzar, which is stem from three words and not one, and which is easily, Glorious Chaldean King. In some sense Nebuchadnezzar is a title and by his very title; the King of Chaldean, or King of Kushan, or the Chosen, Divine, Great, or best of all, Glorious King of Babylonians. It is also possible that the Nebuchadnezzar is not his real name, quite possible that he has a name just like his father Nabopolassar, which is a corruption of his actual name. In addition to this fact, we may it clearly that Nabopolassar was also called the King of Kushan - Nebuchadnezzar I, and his immortal son who raided Judah and what remains of it, was Nebuchadnezzar II. I must also indicate that the name of his father is such that the 'sight' 'guide' and 'path' may constitute part of the same meaning, which is cannot be that far from the star or imitations of the stars. Above all, Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar II was founding father of the Chaldean dynasty in Babylon. 

Nebuchadnezzar II may be a redeemer of some sort, and may be the force behind the demise of Assyrians, but he was perhaps not the so called Chosen one who Magi and eventually Isaiah may have preached about. We may indicate that the subject of the Chosen One, the suffering servant, was a theme quite familiar with Egyptians, as much it became from that the fall of Jerusalem to the hands of Nebuchadnezzar on 16th March of 597 BC. Not all Judah at this point fell, and after several wars with people mounting opposition to Assyrian yoke and then Babylon, he came back a decade later to personally supervise the final days of Judah in the years of Jeremiah. Of course the story of the captives in Babylon is well noted through history, immortalized in encomiastic as the Psalms 137. Jeremiah who was the last of the prophets was accused by the remnant of Israelites to be the reason why the hand of God was against them. Jeremiah as Jewish history indicates was led like a 'Sheep' outside the walls of Jerusalem where he was essentially stoned to death. His portion which was inherited from Nebuchadnezzar II as a prophet was taken away. But captives and priests sold into slavery gradually began to see the images of Jeremiah as the suffering servant, a theme that was personalized in another conqueror by name Cyrus. The fact remain too clear that Nebuchadnezzar was a redeemer or the star of redemption but he was not the anointed one, or as the case will be, the Messiah that will restore Babylon to its greatness. This theme of restoration on greatness was vigorously pursued by Nebuchadnezzar in his life time, including the famous 'hanging tree' such that he undertook powerful architectural work in his life that ended unfinished in his death. It was his son Evil Merodach who was left to complete some of the works of art and massive building project.

Need does not exist to point out that they were following the Behistun Inscription, where Darius described himself as Arian, a term which we will later recognized as badly spelt and completely misleading. As such we can speak of Sampson a Nazareth and not necessarily a messiah, but his name which Jews believe an umbrella for salvation may be incomplete, since the root of Samson or Sampson is Shemshu, which is modern Hebrew is Shimshi, whereas Shemshu Ho-rah is Egyptian, literally meaning 'of the party of Ra' or 'of party of Ho-Ra' or 'follower of Ra' 'son of Ra', which also means son of God. This meaning of Shemshu Ra may better be noted in a name that is quite familiar, the name of an Egyptian pharaoh, Ramses. The name Ramses is English form of the more Egyptian form, Ramesu, which is much the same as Sam-son or Shemshu, much the same as the very name of Jesus. In essence, the man we call Samson can only be compared to a messiah or Asih (Azir), on the account of his devotion from birth as a Nazerith or Nazirith nothing more, as opposed to his name which is closer to Egyptian if not Philistine, and since he was born in the border between Dan and Ashdol, he was not influenced by elements of Egypt. There was hardly anyone in Israel history that answered Samson before Samson, and after Samson, there were few people who answered the very name. The same may in fact be said of other names in the Bible that sound very Egyptian, names such as Moses is for instance for Egypt, and may in fact be close to the period of the Ka-Moses, Ahmose I, and a time when viziers to the Pharaohs answered Moses. Other names such as Isaiah, that is prophet Isaiah, was not even mentioned any other place in the Bible, saving the book of Isaiah and for some brief mention of the name in the now popular 2 Kings 19-20; 2 Chron. 29-32. We can also presume that the name is part human for this interplay on the man or the prophet, but we may also regard the name probably a theme on a savior who Christians faithfully testify as Jesus Christ. As shall also discover, the book of Isaiah covering over 66, are in fact several books with particular themes of Messiah or the Isaiah, whose will be chosen (Isa) or the Christ, for remission of the sins of Israel. Even the initial 14 chapters of Isaiah where 'Immanuel' as a theme manifest, may in fact be a testimonial to the promise of savior in the time of Hezekiah. The theme however of a 'son' that will born, will discussed as a promise to the dwindling light of the house of David, a promise that Baruch Spinoza, may have referred to Josiah. We may however compare the statement about the promise of Savior, wwanu-el, with the name of Christ who is also noted as Isa. Jesus or Jesu or Yesu (Yah-eshua), noted as Jesus of Nazareth is a name that means son of God, but it this lamb of God, that will be a fulfilling of a certain portion of the Isaiah, namely Isaiah 53. We will indicate the very presence of the place we called Nazareth in the Bible, but in terms of who Christ was, he was called 'Son of God', only one account that his name Y-esu. Further demonstration of this fact that our concern on this level is that the name Nazi or Nazareth, literally refers to those set aside for a certain period, to suffer the body in order to atone the sins of a certain people. But in matters affecting the much chosen one, he or she has no purpose but one, his destiny is already determined and he may or may not be aware of it. The issue of being the chosen one does not always lead to death of a tree and pouring of blood by a lamb in month of temple dedication. It is sometimes a theme that appears in form of an 'anointed one', who will be chosen to lead his people or their people. In a every bit of sense therefore, the theme of messiah in Isaiah 40-55, that deals with the Babylonians and not Assyrians, and deals with a certain anointed one, is a theme on the name Saris, or in Akkadian Sa-eris, which was taken eventually to mean Cyrus as if he is King of Babylon. The one who Nabu has 'chosen' was a man of affliction and suffering, a king who do the will of Nabu or God, and the fitting of the king and he will be an a Azir or Nazi, a man separated from others at least for a while. This man was the delivery and his reign will bring the restoration of all things. So was Christ in the Bible, so James the brother of Jesus, so was a certain John the Baptist, so was Elijah. In all probability the prophet we call Isaiah was at once a prophet dedicated to God.

The theme of the suffering servant and the servant of God is best illustrated by these terms. For one thing we may invoke the position of Igbo language to make the problem quite easy. In Igbo at least, while it is up not to us to seek a better knowledge as to why the remaining years of Babylon was spent relating the country and the culture to the people concerned, we are very clear about the fact that the man in question Nebuchadnezzar was the man the Magi was looking for. I shall need to indicate that Cyrus also fit into the picture of the Messiah that will redeem Babylon, the messiah was portion was also taken. The story concerning the persons of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus is of great importance, for both of them are quite attested in Ancient History and both of them feature permanently in very vivid matters of world history from around the sixth century. 

There are no errors about the connecting tissue between Chaldeans and their Dynasty in Babylon and the Babylonians themselves who were also called Kushans. The Kushans are in fact Chaldeans, and it is the name Nebuchadnezzar that confirms for it. The impact of the brief revolt of the Magi revolt after the death of Smerdi by Cambyses may be exaggerated, but in reality the reasons are quite revealing. For we are to understand the rest.. As we have noted earlier, the Magi were experts in Astrology and in map making. These Magi were also called the Arai, which is not related to the Aram, which has little to offer in terms of the language. These traveling Magi were indeed Syrian merchants, may be related to the Arai of older dynastic of India, and may have composed the Sanskrit around this turbulent period. However, we must quickly note that the error in correlating much of the disfranchised group of people in West Asia bearing the name Arai, which is today's Iran, with those of them found elsewhere in the world may be confusing to the point of accepting that anything such as Indo-European actually existed. I shall hint here that the place and time of Chaldeans, who in the 6th - 8th century transition years of Babylonian dynastic, who were attacked and oppressed by the Assyrians, are by their name and their persons, essentially related to Africans. So many a times, we read of Ramnes, which for instance a certain George Dumezil in his earlier work regarded as strata of Roman society for priest, are no different from the Ras around the temples of Karnak and Amoq in North Africa and in much of Iran. According to Dumezil, there were people also regarded as Tities in Rome, which he incorrectly identified as producers. In as much Rome is unheard off beyond the 3rd century, we have reason to believe that the people may have somewhat existed in the century or so preceding their final overthrown of Etruscans. Much denials about the origins of Rome has been in the context of Indo -Europeanism, whereas Rome in terms of its history, is not that from Phoenicians, not that from Mycenaean, not that far from Etruscans, but ultimately Egyptians or slave thereabout. In some sense or another, the view of Rome as a people from Romulus has not fully challenged, for enough exist to cite the coalition of wealthy land owners, a kind of social strata unlike what we find in many parts of the Phoenicia, societies arranged by common welfare as with Spartans. This effort of involving the Spartan society in comparative relationship with Rome may muddle the water, for we know that at least, a frieze from of the Egyptian Pharaoh Bocchoris, standing in between Egyptian deities Neith and Horus, as conducted by Thot, was discovered in 1979 at Tarquinii in the grave of female from 7th century, demonstrate the caste society of Lucere, under the guild and ownership of the Pharaoh of Egypt. The mistake has been that the priestly classes were all one nation so to speak, were part of the Indo-European continent so to speak, out of whom much of mysterious outcomes of Europe and their tribes essentially if not misleadingly relate. The incidents of Ahura Mazda and the religion called the Zoroastrians, may have also added to this view. We can make the argument that we can throw more light of the Chaldeans and their Magi, we can perhaps see that Babylonians and their Nebuchadnezzar, were not far from the people who managed in the 6th and 7th century, to establish the Napata of Egypt. These people were not different from their kind in major areas of Africa, for instance among the Libyans of the further South was a dynasty coming to an end, and that dynasty deserves a lengthier treatment, and that Dynasty was those of Shoshenq of Omoeshaw tribe of Libu, a tribe that will survive in several incarnation in India and in Iran as Meshaw, Preshaw, and Omo, and that tribe will extend from Africa into Indus valley. It is this group that will noted as Kushan relative, for only in terms of Kushans as same Chaldeans, who are simply Chad in history and language, can anything be said of the later years of Egyptian Ramesside Dynasty which ended with the appointment of Shoshenq as pharaoh, approved by the state God of the Thebes by title Amun Ra. For if we understand the relationship between the Upper and Lower Egypt, between Tanis and Thebes in the years after Pharaoh Psussenen II of Egypt, may we see that the incident of Kashta of Napata in the lower Egypt as a recovery of lower Egypt, as opposed outright conquest by Nubian forces. We may also note that in the reign of Painky or Py as Pharaoh of lower and Upper Egypt may have also added to the luster of the evolution of the new years of Egypt. Above all there is the evident understanding that this age of Napata may start all kinds of disaster where the images of Bophoris, Pharaoh of Egypt, came to signify a departure if not an end of 25th dynasty. This popular Pharaoh The main point of the 7th century before Christ is that Py (Pianky) of Napata, who was Pharaoh of Egypt of the lower and Upper Egypt, was the son of the Magnanimous Kashta, who began the Twenty fifth (25th) dynasty of Egypt.

It was after him that the several problems and civil war between the Theban priest of Upper Egypt and the successors of the lower Pharaohs of Tanis was essentially start cots of the calligraphy of the Medieval ages, Calligraphy, that evolved into several forms by way of the uncials, and shortened use of the drawing of what was only very clearly ABCEDE-rian. In essence, we can entertain the possibility of one language stem of the world, only on the count of the departures of given forms of writing rather than speaking, where speaking (writings main function) would in the end decide the forms of a given language; its future, its life. However, we may say that a possibility exist that the world in the way we understand it today, may be carefully documented in terms of language and evolution of language, by merely the use of the intonations and dialects which the point of say the world map may indicate to use. In many ways than one, enough exist for the claim to have some life that old Alphabets were mere intonation of larger map of the world evolutionary languages, which Egypt and their Africans, were ultimately the source and fulcrum. 

My speculations include the very fact that the so called Alphabets Cities which the Phoenicians founded, where perhaps part and parcel of the Cities and their priestly functions and chief minerals, which either the old Egyptians discovered and knew, or the Phoenicians themselves marked as languages or intonations based on other tables of symbols from the 2000 pieces. If the Phoenicians, who hardly went to war with Egypt, are more or less considered Egyptians, and the Babylonians too, then there is enough to indicate that the table of nations, are summarized by the Alphabets of the Ugaritic and Canaan. Canaan or what the Africans called Kanunu or Kaninu, is so forced out of their own Keme and Africa, that the error with world languages has become that significant. It is not without tribute to this departure of Canaan from Africa that the false and engrossing claims about Semitic language or dialectal, may earned the ranks of world confusion. Based on this 'new facility' of African language, we can suggest that it is up to the world to look at the Palermo stone and Rosetta, as last copy of what would have been an African practice preceding Rome and Greek, or that Pilate's attempt to write in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, 'I am the King of the Jews', in respect to Christ was a very late imitation of a writing career of an the empire and Pseudo empire was already in decay from very Old age. It is however not impossible to indicate that the even the careers of Pontus Pilate as appointed regnal over Judah may even receive more attention than any Africa. Why any language such as English will sound different from its origin is not without reason or explication, for we know that writing and its use exceed the titular of three lines inscriptions of the ascension of Ptolemy V in 196 BC, and the writings in Hieroglyphics, Demotic, Greek, and on the Rosetta, granted to him and his ancestors by the votive Theban (Thebian) priests, indicate that a hint of independence of the part of Thebes, may explain the evolution of Hieratic career of the priest of Thebes, whose form of writing may have yielded the calligraphy in later times. It is only in context of the Calligraphy and the Hieratic forms of writings that reasons arise as to why the cultures of the world gradually broke free from a concise understanding on its roots and origins to other derivative of the same structure and the same writing whose time was already.

No one who will look at the Sanskrit and Arabic will not fail to see the comparative responsiveness to the two forms of language and writing forms for they are supposedly Calligraphic, which is a form of writing that descended from a form that is neither Hieroglyphics, nor Demotic but something in between. A form of writing more like a version of the Egyptian Hieratic whose language is everything Aramaic. In essence therefore, we can say that the initial confusion over the relationship between Sanskrit any other European language, was due to the writing form, where one was retention from standard version of the Latin and Greek, which may developed out of the need to be precise, whereas languages in Sinai in Syria, and in some measure, parts of South Arabic and disfranchised North African dialectal - around the Coast and the Central Africa - used the writing forms that was closer to the Hieratic than the Hieroglyphics, than the broken up version of the Hieratic; the Latin, the Greek, the Phoenician Alphabets. Where were versions of the old in terms of the New? All things considered, the new realized comparison between European languages and Sanskrit was only possible in terms of the IPA format, through which much of the Sanskrit isolated in the 'calligraphic' version of writing, was made accessible and readable in Latin, and when in English form, the meanings of the words of Sanskrit gradually appear.