history a.n.oghi II -- MESOPOTAMIA ATAGBUGHI

Sampson nyurur

Much of what is now Mesopotamia, or land of the two Rivers, offer the rest of us a cognizable insight into the history of the world and the languages. It is not co-incidence that is Mesopotamia and the Near East, especially Near East which is fancy term for Egypt or Africa, that hold the key to understanding our world from its ancient and humble beginnings to the present when we now see the totality of the world in part.

The area is riddled in flood and flood story, and at least, enough evidence exist to suggest that the flood incident that sink much of the older worlds occurred every so often, and then it gradually toned down to possibly every 2000 years or thereabout, and each time, the flood dislocate people from their roots, and from that demarcation they inbreed, reproductively isolate from others, become lighter with time or physically different, survive or perish with time, but essentially disconnected from others. It appears that the process led to various departures from Africa or Nearby indigenes such that the people with a new language may only remember what their ancestors said about them, that they came from lands far away and where only separated from the from the main source of their language tree because of the flood. Now they speak a new dialect or even newer dialect which led to a language and newer versions of spoken world. As such the stories that become popular among these people are usually stories about their triumph over the bellows of waters, usually achieved by some divine means, through series of natural occurrences personified as gods of thunder and lightning, Baal and mut, of light and darkness. But the main event of these floods was called the Great Flood, which took place 2010-1990 Bce, which was also alluded to by Egyptians most popular of whom was a certain Manetho.

The Great flood was the flood of Noah of the Bible and possibly (Gilgamesh) Gilgameshu who was saved from the flood. But at this time, the world was essentially aged and the rest of world history was based on the impressions from the flood. Fore we see the stories concerning Gilgamesh in Epic of Gilgamesh as part of the tradition that is essentially Babylonian, and this practice was eventually recorded in what would yield the Babylonian Epic of Creation 'Enuma Elise', Epic of and other Epic as Artrahas and Epic of Appada. But these stories evolved gradually but owes a great deal to the incidents of flood around the Mesopotamia and it was almost always about the survivors of the flood and the intervention of natural or unnatural forces. Yet these stories of people far and away become muddled up and so do the people who gradually become a different and go on to invent their own stories about the flood and the past. In time these places are forgotten and perhaps perish from memory and it was only a matter of time that the record of the places where people lived or live became essential, so essential that new forms of indication and recording were needed. We go the higher distance in noting that they may have the need to protect these hard discovered areas largely due to the impressions from years ago, where new and dislocated people.

"The Babylonians were the best benefactors in that assert concentric, since much of them were easily traveling around the so called Great Trail. But the argument that Columbus used East Africa, it is only true that to a certain degree, since we have to be questioning the successes of the successes of Portuguese and how do we begin with the history concerning Africa and the rest of the world? Perhaps we have to refer to the themes of civilization and what Archeology tells about Ancient History. We have the Ubaid, Uruk, and Jamdat Nasr, as comparative rate of successive history of Ancient Civilization. This group of civilization is ultimately based on what was perhaps evident from the years from the arrangement of works of art, ceramics, funerary architecture, house types, building architecture, bones and other human remains, palaces, and evidence of the writing in these places and in the culture. While on the surface these cultures are mainly different and essentially derived from each other, the Ubaid, Uruk, Jamdat Nasr, are said to be precursors to what happened to the Egypt, essentially in the generation leading to Saqqara burial grounds. In many sense therefore, there is enough to suggest that the culture that can be referred to Egypt, especially pre-monarch Egypt is more or less inherited from Asia and parts of Europe. Egypt is the cradle of civilization, but the people who began the modern day civilization of Egypt came from elsewhere, from parts of Badarian I and II which is not that far from the First Cataract at Aswan.

 

But these places are not that far from what and where you can Africa that in fact, these places were part of Africa as the very continent. It is only late have we noted significant departure of the Cambridge Ancient History Part 1 Volume 1, early pottery of Mesopotamia and Syria, Ubaid and the beginning of the early dynastic period, 3500-3000 B.C, in the alluvial plain of Sumer, first lower Mesopotamia. Ubaid – Uruk – Jamdat Nasr, based on the ‘discoveries of Seton Lloyd and Fuad Safar’, and it is the issue concerning the incident that we note concerning the Ubaid where ancient Sumer was supposed to have been located in the lower Mesopotamia. .... “One of the Principal reasons against the adoption of this terminology was that the Polychrome pottery so distinctive of Jamdat Nasr was found only at a few sites in Babylonia” but a comparison between evolutionary societies of the Hajj Mohammed and Eridu, that the shift from Uruk-Ubaid-Jamdat Nasr, in illustrating a weaver’s is Uruk, “the more sensitive prehistory excavations which have been undertaken since the conclusion of the dig at the comparatively small site of Al-‘Ubaid, 4 miles West of Ur, have diminished its importance as a point of reference” “But the early Dynastic temple is likely to have been the last of a much earlier series – there was certainly a predecessor in the Uruk-Jamdat Nasr period” How to begin to Navigate between what Egypt is supposed to be and what Egypt may have been. To help our understanding of why the much of the world seem in various ways affected by the work of the Egyptian and so on". This could not have been right....

 

The forward nature of the progress of language or languages dislocated from their origins and then onwards to different languages but part of the same phonology and syntax. In terms of Sargon II of Assyria, we must note quickly that his rise to power is to be taken seriously and at no point for granted. It is not that Sargon is the most important synod of the Assyrian kings but how he features in the events of that 7th century before Christ. Between his rise to power sometime in 722 and his death possible in Egypt in 705 Bce, we must not that he eventually conquered the Northern part of Israel at the time of Isaiah, the Hebrew prophet who inveighed against the wayward Ahaz and eventually Hezekiah and his attempt to form a league against Sargon II. Ahab himself joined forces with renowned coalition against Sargon II, including the Arab Chiefs who were regarded as the 'Chiefs of Arab' headed by a man who some historians claimed to be Hadad and some called him Hazael. But Israel at this point was already divided, between the sons of Rehoboam of the South - eventually Judah, and sons of those who left the House of David in the North. The move by Israelites to fight Sargon was an error that the prophet Isaiah essentially indicated, and after the colossal defeat of North Israel, we heard very little of Isaiah. Enough importance to this era in world history is quite serious since it notes the beginning of the breakdown of other histories of the Israelites on one hand and then the world in general.

 A century later, much of the attention of the Middle East will come down to perhaps the last of the independent nations of old Palestine by name Southern Israel, where the tribes of Judah essentially dwelt. The reign of the Sargon II of Assyrian is also noted in the Annals of the Egypt, since the news of the warring king reached the lord of West Asia and Africa, by Osorkon IV, Pharaoh of the Lower and Upper house of Egypt, from the tribe of Omoeshwa in Libya. We know also that in the 7th and 8th century before Christ, Babylonians were in their transition period and the hegemony of the Khazars was gradually coming to an end. As we noted in time past, the images of Agum I, Agum II, and Agum III of Elam, loom large in the destruction of Khazars as the dynastic over Babylon. It is perhaps the reign of the Ashur-Banipal of Assyria a century later, that may or may not have started the final years of Babylonian independence, since the next arrivals from Uruatu and Medes, became part of the Hegemony that later became Persia. But in the middle 7th century, much of what was Babylon, was almost in the hands of Assyria, much of what was left was held by Urarta. It is also the beginning of the 6th century that History gradually began to indicate the rise of Babylon from the grips of Assyria. Whether or not Essarhaddon contributed to the resettlement of the officials of Babylon in the 7th century seem in many ways irrelevant given the rise of the tribes of Urarta - part loyal to Assyrian - seeing new life in the return to power of the Khazars (Kassite) began their own aspirations against a common enemy.

 We may land out the fact that the rise of the new Dynastic in Babylon, and the rise of Assyria in 7th century under Sargon II, was led and enjoined by a bunch of priestly class who call themselves 'Magi'. The Magis were experts on Astrology and wrote their books mainly about Astrology and use of shapes and figures. There were at the end of 6th oppressed by several forces making their way back to Assyrian domination, and from within Babylon, the Magi were also under attack. The Magi followed the Star of Redemption, and where at time of their struggle waiting for a Messiah who Nebu or Nabu has chosen. What we have said in the past may be confirmed that Nebuchadnezzar is in that 6th century the man by name that Nebu has chosen. His name refers to his position as the chosen one by Nebu, - the Babylonian God of destiny - a name that some believe to be different from Nabu, a supposed God of writing. But the name and the title, Nebu and Nabu, may be a matter of dialectic than anything, for sure these names Nebu or Nabu, refer to the one above. In many ways than one, it is the incident of the Nebu as merely a reference to the 'Stars Above' or 'God of the Heavens', whose star patterns are said to be revealed to the Magi, who in turn reveal the deep meaning of the stars to the world, that the very close meaning of the name of Nebu essentially appeal. But in reflection to the world 'exulted' or the word 'glorious', which we have noted in Igbo as ebube, as in Hebrew Zerubube for Zerubbabel, meaning King of Glory or King of Babylon, can additional reason inspire about the two types of Babylonian god in terms of names.

If in the previous writings we have noted that in Igbo, the statement 'King of Glory' literarily means 'Eze Ebube', a statement that is closer to Ze-bube as in Zeru-bube (Zerubabel) in Hebrew, we can be firm in saying that it has nothing to do with stars, for as much as we can still say that Onye-Ebube (N - ebube), which is Igbo for Glorious One, may also be used as a high one, Onye-Elu as in the word 'Elu' for Babylonian 'High One' and 'El' in English, the Igbo word ebube (glory) and Babylonian Nebu, may in fact result from some similar which has to do with origins of the Babylon. 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.