Radu Florescu died, I read

Radu Florescu, Scholar Who Linked Dracula and Vlad the Impaler, Dies at 88
By MARGALIT FOX MAY 27, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/books/radu-florescu-scholar-who-linked-dracula-and-vlad-the-impaler-dies-at-88.html

Quoting article:

In the late 1960s, Professor McNally, a colleague in the history department, grew intrigued by affinities between events in Stoker’s novel, published in 1897, and the actual history of the region. He enlisted Professor Florescu, and together they scoured archives throughout Eastern Europe in an attempt to trace Count Dracula to a flesh-and-blood source.

Vlad emerged as the prime suspect, for he and the count, it transpired, had much in common.

Both were noblemen from the same part of the world: Vlad was prince of Walachia, an area that with Transylvania, the count’s stamping grounds, would become part of Romania.

...

The thesis of “In Search of Dracula” has not been universally accepted by scholars, nor did all reviewers embrace it. But for the authors, who became the toast of the television talk-show circuit, that did not matter.

Wonder if he had time to read my identification of both Venus Mater and Amaterasu as ancestress of Tenno Jimmu with the Hittite Queen or Empress Puduhepa? That will also not be universally accepted by scholars; nor will all reviewers embrace it ...

As for Odin of Uppsala I have not even made up my own mind yet, whether he was granduncle of Simon Magus (who tried, without success to pull off the same stunt in Rome) or a Gaulish Druid whose Teutates was called Nodens who wanted to preserve the cult elsewhere after getting beaten by Caesar. These thesis might not be quite mutually exclusive.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St German of Autun
Abortion survivor and
Bishop of Paris
28 / V / 2014

Defendente Genolini se trompe sur le Diocèse de York? Non.

Pas vraiment. St Augustin de Cantorbéry était encore vivant quand le premier évêque de York, St Paulin, fut ordonné évêque avant d'aller vers le Nord de l'Île Britannique.

Par contre, c'était bien après le décès du Pape St Grégoire. Il n'avait donc pas vu les Déïrens convertis au Christianisme pendant sa vie, comme c'était son but primaire avec la mission. Tant mieux pour lui d'avoir pu regarder ce spectacle du Ciel.

Car Pape St Grégoire meurt en 604 (il envoie St Paulin vers Cantorbéry pour rejoindre St Augustin) mais ça sera pour 625 de fonder le Diocèse de York et ensuite St Augustin meurt en 635. À différence d'un certain homme de Mecque*, leurs conquêtes pour la vraie Foi ... bon, c'est déjà différent qu'en leur cas, c'est bien la vraie ... se font par persuasion et non pas par les faits des armes.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BU de Nanterre
St Augustin de Cantorbéry
28 / V / 2014

* Il me semble que la Hégire s'est faite en 620 et après avoir convaincu Iathrib, ensuite appelée Médina, les conquêtes se font là-bas surtout par des armes.

Misreading Colossians 2:8

[8] Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ: [9] For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally ...

When writing below I was considering from a conflated memory with some other passage, not having the text before the eyes. That is why I mentioned "myth" as well as other things.

Some people think that if I believe Hercules lived or Agamemnon failed to get a second Solar Miracle for routing of Trojans as told by Homer, I go by myths. [Not mentioned in the real passage, as opposed to my memory, but I think mentioned elsewhere.]

Some people think that if I consider Geocentrism as a valid both observation and observational proof for God and even for angels, I go by the false philosophy. [Or get me cheated by a man through philosophy.]

Some people think that if I think there are spirits of the elements, I believe according to spirits of the elements. [Or elements of this world.]

But if so, are they living according to human traditions, if they consider there are such things as human traditions?

["Traditions of men" here sounds very much like what Our Lord mentioned about Pharisees, making the Law empty "through traditions of men".]

The myths that St Paul would be referring to [elsewhere] was not the Heroic Legend like Iliad and Odyssey, nor for that matter primarily the main content of the Theogony (though that too if anyone believed it), but primarily the myths that were fashionable then - Mithras, Odin's bragging about being a Marduk figure (though he was probably already dead, and presuming the Odinist creation myth was not long after his death only associating Odin with such a cosmic role), above all Gnostic myths. And Manichaeic, if they were already around.

The philosophy that was in vogue when St Paul spoke [about getting cheated by philosophy] were more Epicurean and Stoic than Aristotelian and Platonic (these having a low ebb of popularity at that time) and so it is likely he was referring primarily to the popular ones. But there are errors in Plato and Aristotle too. So, accepting Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy can never by a Christian be done integrally. However, watch St Thomas Aquinas how he deals with the ancient authors in divers places. He is free from them for Christ, for Truth.

And precisely as a warning against going according to human - that is non-Christian and non-Ecclesiastic - traditions implies that such exist, precisely so a warning against going by elemental spirits implies that such exist.

The Theogony is not reliable witness to Gaia being alive before the gods that rule the world. It is however reliable witness, more or less depending on how honest Hesiod was (he was not a Cretan), that an elemental spirit or rather nine of them insulted him because he was a shepherd. Plus lied to him (as we Christians are aware of) after even warning him that they were able to speak both truths and lies. Plus were first of all heard singing hymns to the gods they worshipped or pretended to worship, starting with Zeus and ending with Kronos of the crooked mind. The probably same false god that is also celebrated by Pagan Romans as Saturn until they convert to Christianity. And in all probability no one different than the Father of Lies.

An elemental spirit need not be bad. If water and air cannot function and move properly unless spirits guide them (when human machinery is at work, the human will and mind is guiding that), it does not follow that the spirits that take care of them are always evil. But those of them who reveal things like Theogony (I am sure other examples of false revelations come to mind as well) are not the better sort of elemental spirits. Nor of course those who exact human sacrifice before allowing bridges to be built. One Botolph cleansed an area called Iccanoe from evil spirits - it was later called Boston. It includes the river Witham and one Catholic Bishop during the time they were persecuted by Anglicans was surnamed Witham.

His comments - as cited in Haydock comments - have not convinced me there are no elemental spirits or no good ones who won't mislead men with false revelations. He does not contradict this theory at all. And Menochius (a Spaniard who preached apologetics against the Calvinist errors) is cited in Genesis 2:1, where ... can mean either stars or angels. In other words, he probably believed, as do I, that stars are moved by angelic movers.

Going by human traditions seems, as far as I can see, going by them in moral decisions. Going by them as to infirmation about facts about the past, with some exercise of circumspection (not believing there were several different floods, one for each flood myth, but rather that each non-Hebrew flood myth contaminated Noah's story about as much as Darenofsky (or whatever he's called) just did on the white screen, for instance), I consider, as long as not contradicting Bible or Church Tradition, to be licit.


Speaking of elemental spirits ... wonder how those of Rhone like the electric dynamo sluices there. Hope that good angels are giving electricity by good will ... but I am far from sure that is the real story.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
Apparition of St Michael at Gargano
8-V-2014

Haydock on 2 Thessalonians 2 : 3 - 4

Text:

3 *Let no man deceive you by any means: for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition,

4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God.

Link

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
2 THESSALONIANS - Chapter 2
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id224.html

Haydock comment

Ver. 3-4. First, &c.[2] What is meant by this falling away, (in the Greek this apostacy) is uncertain, and differently expounded. St. Jerome and others understand it of a falling off of other kingdoms, which before were subject to the Roman empire; as if St. Paul said to them: you need not fear that the day of judgment is at hand, for it will not come till other kingdoms, by a general revolt, shall have fallen off, so that the Roman empire be destroyed. The same interpreters expound the sixth and seventh verses in like manner, as if when it is said, now you know[3] what withholdeth, &c. That is, you see the Roman empire subsisteth yet, which must be first destroyed. And when it is added, only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way; the sense, say these authors, is, let Nero and his successors hold that empire till it be destroyed, for not till then will the day of judgment come. Cornelius a Lapide makes this exposition so certain, that he calls it a tradition of the fathers, which to him seems apostolical. But we must not take the opinion of some fathers, in the exposition of obscure prophecies, where they advance conjectures (which others at the same time reject, or doubt of) to be apostolical traditions, and articles of faith, as the learned bishop of Meaux, Bossuet, takes notice on this very subject, in his preface and treatise on the Apocalypse, against Jurieux. St. Jerome indeed, and others, thought that the Roman empire was to subsist till the antichrist's coming, which by the event most interpreters conclude to be a mistake, and that it cannot be said the Roman empire continues to this time. See Lyranus on this place, St. Thomas Aquinas, Salmeron, Estius, and many others; though Cornelius a Lapide, with some few, pretend the Roman empire still subsists in the emperors of Germany. We also find that divers of the ancient fathers thought that the day of judgment was just at hand in their time. See Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Gregory the Great, &c. And as to this place, it cannot be said the fathers unanimously agree in their exposition. St. Chrysostom[4], Theodoret, St. Augustine in one of his expositions, by this falling off, and apostacy, understand antichrist himself, apostatizing from the Catholic faith. And they who expound it of Nero, did not reflect that this letter of St. Paul was written under Claudius, before Nero's reign. According to a third and common exposition, by this revolt or apostacy, others understand a great falling off of great numbers from the Catholic Church and faith, in those nations where it was professed before; not but that, as St. Augustine expressly takes notice, the Church will remain always visible, and Catholic in its belief, till the end of the world. This interpretation we find in St. Cyril[5] of Jerusalem. (Catech. 15.) See also St. Anselm on this place, St. Thomas Aquinas, Salmeron, Estius, &c. In fine, that there is no apostolical tradition, as to any of the interpretations of these words, we may be fully convinced from the words of St. Augustine[6], lib. xx. de Civ. Dei. chap. 19. t. 7. p. 597. Nov. edit., where he says: For my part, I own myself altogether ignorant what the apostle means by these words; but I shall mention the suspicions of others, which I have read, or heard. Then he sets down the exposition concerning the Roman empire. He there calls that a suspicion and conjecture, which others say is an apostolical tradition. In like manner the ancient fathers are divided, as to the exposition of the words of the sixth and seventh verse, when it is said you know what hindereth; some understand that antichrist must come first. Others, that the beforementioned apostacy, or falling off from the Church, must happen before. And when St. Paul says, (ver. 7.) that he who now holdeth, do hold; some expound it, let him take care at the time of such trials, to hold, and preserve the true faith to the end. When the expositions are so different, as in this place, whosoever pretends to give a literal translation ought never to add words to the text, which determine the sense to such a particular exposition, and especially in the same print, as Mr. N. hath done on the seventh verse, where he translates, only let him that now holdeth the faith, keep it until he be taken out of the way. --- And the man of sin[7] revealed, the son of perdition, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. He is called again, (ver. 8.) that wicked one....whom the Lord Jesus Christ shall kill with the spirit of his mouth. By all these words is described to us the great antichrist, about the end of the world, according to the unexceptionable authority and consent of the ancient fathers. It is as ridiculous as malicious to pretend, with divers later reformers, that the pope, and all the popes since the destruction of the Roman empire, are the great antichrist, the man of sin, &c. Grotius, Dr. Hammond, and divers learned Protestants, have confuted and ridiculed this groundless fable, of which more on the Apocalypse. It may suffice to observe here that antichrist, the man of sin, the son of perdition, the wicked one, according to all the ancients, is to be one particular man, not so many different men. That he is to come a little while before the day of judgment. That he will make himself be adored, and pretend to be God. What pope did so? That he will pretend to be Christ, &c. (Witham)

St. Augustine (de Civ. Dei. book xx. chap. 19.) says, that an attack would be made at one and the same time against the Roman empire and the Church. The Roman empire subsists as yet, in Germany, though much weakened and reduced. The Roman Catholic Church, notwithstanding all its losses, and the apostacy of many of its children, has always remained the same. (Calmet) — The two special signs of the last day will be a general revolt, and the manifestation of antichrist, both of which are so dependent on each other, that St. Augustine makes but one of both. What presumptive folly in Calvin and other modern reformers, to oppose the universal sentiments of the fathers both of the Latin and Greek Church! What inconsistency, to give such forced interpretations, not only widely different from the expositions of sound antiquity, but also widely different from each other! The Church of God, with her head, strong in the promises of Jesus Christ, will persevere to the end, frustra circumlatrantibus hæreticis. (St. Augustine, de util. cred. chap. xvii.)

In the temple. Either that of Jerusalem, which some think he will rebuild; or in some Christian Church, which he will pervert to his own worship; as Mahomet has done with the churches of the east. (Challoner)

Footnotes:

[1] Ver. 1. Et nostræ congregationis in ipsum, kai emon episunagoges ep auton.

[2] Ver. 3-4. Nisi venerit discessio primum, e apostasia. St. Jerome (Ep. ad Algasiam. q. 11. t. 4. p. 209) Apostasia, inquit [] ut omnes Gentes, quæ Rom. Imperio subjacent, recedant ab eis.

[3] Ver. 3-4. St. Chrysostom (log. d. p. 235) says that by these words, you know what hindereth, is probably understood the Roman empire, &c. and Tertullian (lib. de Resur. Carnis. chap. xxiv. p. 340) on those words, till taken out of the way, donec de medio fiat, Quis nisi Romanorum status?

[4] Ver. 3-4. St. Chrysostom (log. g. p. 232) ti estin e apostasia autoi kalei ton Antichriston. See Theodoret on this place.

[5] Ver. 3-4. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Cat. xv) says, this apostacy is from the true faith and good works: aute estin e apostasia. St. Anselm and others mention both expositions, i.e. from the Roman empire, or from the faith.

[6] Ver. 3-4. St. Augustine: Ego prorsus quid dixerit, me fateor ignorare....suspiciones tamen hominum, quas vel audire, vel legere potui, non tacebo, &c. Quidam putant hoc de Imperio dictum esse Romano, &c.

[7] Ver. 3-4. O anthropos tes amartias, o uios tes apoleias, o antikeimenos, &c. ille homo peccati, ille filius perditionis: the Greek articles sufficiently denote a particular man.

[8] Ver. 7. Mysterium jam operatur iniquitatis, to musterion ede energeitai.

[9] Ver. 10. Mittet illis Deus operationem erroris, pempsei, &c. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. 5. sunchorei ginesthai. See also St. Chrysostom, log. d. p. 236.

[10] Ver. 14. St. Chrysostom, 237. enteuthen deilon, &c.

One comment thereon:

Quoting relevant passage and passing onto comment:

St. Jerome indeed, and others, thought that the Roman empire was to subsist till the antichrist's coming, which by the event most interpreters conclude to be a mistake, and that it cannot be said the Roman empire continues to this time. See Lyranus on this place, St. Thomas Aquinas, Salmeron, Estius, and many others; though Cornelius a Lapide, with some few, pretend the Roman empire still subsists in the emperors of Germany.

Note that in 1859, the word "Emperors of Germany" was a bit anachronistic, since 1806 had seen the dissolution and secularisation of Holy Roman Empire of Germanic Nation - but it had also seen the erection of Empire of Austria, later remodelled once again as Austrian and Hungarian Empire and Kingdom. It lasted till 1918 at least, when Charles I left the Hofburg.

Note that Eastern Orthodox in a similar vein have probably considered that the Empire of Byzantium (which at least began as a fully legitimate continuation of Rome) had to fall and then that the Czars of All Russia as they are called have continued this - up to 1917, when Czar Nicholas II was martyred with his family.

Note also that Roman Empire continued Christianly in the Papal States, lasting de facto till 1870 and the beastly occupation by "Kingdom of Italy" (as yet illegitimate and excommunicated in its royal head), and de jure till at least 1929, when Pope Pius XI made a deal with the King of Italy, lifting the excommunication, and accepting a payment for the loss of territory, that payment being the first monetary foundation of the Vatican Bank and apart from the payment he also got what is now the Vatican State.

The late Cardinal Stickler was born under Francis Joseph II or Charles I - thus still under Roman rule if my reading of this, which agrees with St Jerome, is correct - and he was a canonist who said that among the things even a Pope had no authority to change was the "Status Ecclesiae" - meaning presumably Church State which in English is called Papal States.

As to the man of sin, I think he revealed himself and is called Bergoglio. But I admit that if he already committed that supreme sacrilege last weeks, we should also be having Henoch and Elijah around. So I could be wrong. I would like to be. Does not mean I am.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
5-V-2014

Venus Mater = Puduhepa?

St Augustine of Hippo, De Docrina Christiana

And this is not to be wondered at, when we consider that even in times more recent and nearer our own, the Romans made an attempt to dedicate the star which we call Lucifer to the name and honour of Caesar. And this would, perhaps, have been done, and the name handed down to distant ages, only that his ancestress Venus had given her name to this star before him, and could not by any law transfer to her heirs what she had never possessed, nor sought to possess, in life. For where a place was vacant, or not held in honour of any of the dead of former times, the usual proceeding in such cases was carried out. For example, we have changed the names of the months Quintilis and Sextilis to July and August, naming them in honour of the men Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar; and from this instance any one who cares can easily see that the stars spoken of above formerly wandered in the heavens without the names they now bear.

English Wiki, Puduhepa

Puduhepa was born at the beginning of the 13th century BC in the city of Lawazantiya in Kizzuwatna (i.e. Cilicia, a region south of the Hittite kingdom). Her father Bentepsharri was the head priest of the tutelary divinity of the city, Ishtar, and Puduhepa grew up to exercise the function of priestess of this same goddess.

On his return from the Battle of Kadesh, the Hittite general Hattusili met Puduhepa and, it was said, Ishtar instructed him to take her as his wife. She went with him then to the kingdom of Hapissa. When her spouse successfully rose to the Hittite throne by defeating his nephew Mursili III, Puduhepa became a queen.

Deutsche Wiki, Puduhepa

Puduḫepa war die Gattin des Hattušilis III., eines hethitischen Großkönigs des 13. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Es ist nur wenig über sie bekannt, ihre erste Erwähnung stammt von Hattušili, der in seiner Apologie über die Heirat mit ihr berichtet. Ihr Vater, Bentip-šar aus Lawazantija (Elbistan oder Sirkeli Höyük) in Kizzuwatna war Priester der IŠTAR/Šaušga von Lawazantija, einer Göttin also, die eine enge Verbindung mit der Lieblingsgöttin des Hattusili, der IŠTAR/Šaušga von Šamuḫa besaß.

Die Namen von Puduḫepa und ihrem Vater sind hurritisch. Puduḫepa bezeichnet sich als Dienerin der hurritischen Göttin Hepat, gleichzeitig nennt sie sich aber auch „geliebt von der Sonnengöttin von Arinna“. Daher wurde oft davon ausgegangen, dass Puduḫepa in ihrer Jugend im Dienst der Hepat stand. Als sie Königin geworden war, habe sie die Gunst der Sonnengöttin von Arinna, die ja nun für sie die wichtigste Göttin war, dadurch gewinnen wollen, dass sie die beiden Gottheiten gleichsetzte, so, als hätte sie schon immer im Dienst der Sonnengöttin von Arinna gestanden. Inwiefern diese Identifikation aber nur Puduḫepa anzurechnen ist, oder ob sie auch sonst bestand, ist nicht zu entscheiden.

Deutsche Wiki, Sonnengöttin von Arinna

Die Sonnengöttin von Arinna ist in der hethitischen Mythologie die Hauptgöttin und Frau des Wettergottes Tarḫunna. Sie leitete das Königtum und galt als „Königin aller Länder“. Ihr Kultzentrum befand sich in der heiligen Stadt Arinna.

Neben der Sonnengöttin von Arinna verehrten die Hethiter auch eine Sonnengöttin der Erde und den Sonnengott des Himmels, während die verwandten Luwier ursprünglich nur den altererbten indogermanischen Sonnengott Tiwaz kannten. Es scheint, dass in den nördlichen Glaubensvorstellungen der althethitischen Zeit kein männlicher Sonnengott verehrt wurde.

Die Unterscheidung der verschiedenen Sonnengottheiten in den Texten bereitet Mühe, da die Namen meist bloß mit dem Sumerogramm dUTU „Sonnengottheit” geschrieben wurde. Dies führte dazu, dass die Deutung der Sonnengottheiten bis heute nicht ohne Widersprüche bleibt.

Die Sonnengöttin von Arinna bildete mit dem Wettergott Tarḫunna ein Paar und beide nahmen zusammen die höchste Stelle im hethitischen Staatspantheon ein. Die Tochter des Paares ist Mezulla. Zudem nennen die Quellen noch die Enkelin Zintuḫi. Zudem können die beiden Wettergötter von Nerik und Ziplanda sowie der Korngott Telipinu als ihre Söhne genannt werden. Der Adler war ihr Bote.

Conclusion

Puduhepa was very probably the most beloved queen of the Hittites by her royal husband. She was to Hattushilis III what Madame de Maintenon was to King Louis XIV. Thus, she was clearly likely to be remembered not only in exact record, but also in vaguer legend.

Her functions before marriage include priestess of Ishtar (which in Roman Mythology is Venus, just as in Greek it is Aphrodite) and priestess of the Sun-Godess of Arinna.

She identified the Sun-Goddess of Arinna with Ishtar, but this identification was probably rejected by others.

The bird of the Sun-Goddess of Arinna is the Eagle.

Julius Caesar's and his foster-son's Octavian's, later Caesar Augustus' bird was also the Eagle.

Just as the Julian gens and therefore the Roman Emperors descend from an Aeneas, son of Venus Mater, so also the Japanese Emperors descend from a Sun-Goddess and her son Emperor Jimmu.

Quoting wikipedia about Emperor Jimmu

Modern scholars question the existence of at least the first nine emperors. Jimmu's descendant Emperor Sujin is the first that many agree may have existed, in first century BC. Most contemporary historians still agree that it is unlikely that any of the recorded emperors existed until about five hundred years after Suijin's reign and about a millennium after Jimmu's recorded reign. The name Jimmu-tennō was posthumously assigned by later generations.

According to the legendary account in the Kojiki, Emperor Jimmu would have been born on 13 February 711 BC (the first day of the first month of the Chinese calendar), and died, again according to legend, on 11 March 585 BC (both dates according to the lunisolar traditional Japanese calendar).

According to Shinto belief, Jimmu is regarded as a direct descendant of the sun goddess, Amaterasu. Amaterasu had a son called Ame no Oshihomimi no Mikoto and through him a grandson named Ninigi-no-Mikoto. She sent her grandson to the Japanese islands where he eventually married Konohana-Sakuya-hime. Among their three sons was Hikohohodemi no Mikoto, also called Yamasachi-hiko, who married Toyotama-hime. She was the daughter of Ryūjin, the Japanese sea god. They had a single son called Hikonagisa Takeugaya Fukiaezu no Mikoto. The boy was abandoned by his parents at birth and consequently raised by Tamayori-hime, his mother's younger sister. They eventually married and had a total of four sons. The last of these sons, Kan'yamato Iwarebiko, became Emperor Jimmu.

Returning to my conclusion

For my part I think the dating so early may be correct. Or even too young.

If he was ....

• Sun-Goddess Amaterasu (?=Puduhepa, priestess of Sun-Goddess of Arinna?)
• Ame no Oshihomimi no Mikoto
• Ninigi-no-Mikoto
• Hikohohodemi no Mikoto
• Hikonagisa Takeugaya Fukiaezu no Mikoto
• Kan'yamato Iwarebiko, became Emperor Jimmu

... only great-great-great-grandson of Amaterasu, I think he would be too early to be roughly younger contemporary with Romulus and Remus (and a long lived one at that). It seems that Pagan dynasties sometimes do skip generations.

Quoting wikipedia about History of Nepal

According to the Gopalavamsavali chronicle, the Kiratas ruled for about 1225 years (800 BCE–300 CE), their reign had a total of 29 kings during that time. Their first king was Elam; also known as Yalambar, who is referenced in the epic Mahabharata.

Returning to my conclusion

But the fifteenth of the twentynine Kirati Kings (and the first one being referenced in Mahabharata which I consider to be about pre-Flood Nodian wars to me indicates that Mahabharata was written or re-redacted after his lifetime, he was included as flattery, just as Corinth in the Ship Catalogue, though in Homer's case this may have been ironic), as said the fifteenth was contemporary with one disciple of the founder of Jainism, and so is only (believably enough) less than 300 years after the first, but the remaining ones, 29-14 = 15, 560?+300=860? ... when I checked about this I saw a medium time of rule being 55 years of rule for each from Jinghri to the last ... so, I think there may have been a few generations skipped either between Amaterasu (Puduhepa, if I am right) and Jimmu, or between Jimmu and Suijin, or both lengths of the Tenno genealogy. Just as in Kirati dynasty - unless that one was spread out to cover up the existence of a voluntarily forgotten one.

And of course saying Aeneas was directly the son of Venus mater, rather than descending from her through the Hittite Nobility, would (if Puduhepa was Venus mater) be a rather rough skipping of generations too. But in the case of the Hittite Empire, I think we may be dealing with voluntary oblivion. It is interesting that there are - if I recall correctly - twelve generations between Venus mater and Romulus and five steps Amaterasu and Jimmu. If I am right, both dynasties start out with truncated genealogies and even truncated at about the same time.

It is possible too - but not necessary - that the earliest generations between Puduhepa and Jimmu or even after Jimmu onto Suijin were not really on Japanese soil. That they were transferred in memory to Japanese soil because of a want to forget some other Empire in some other place. Like the Hittite Empire in Hattusha. Remembered only through the Bible, until the archives of Hattusha were rediscovered.

Nevertheless, I cannot be certain that Aeneas and especially his father Anchises and his mother Venus go back to the times of Hattushila III and Puduhepa. Because another very happy marriage, with another wife and mother being - not officially at that time, but privately and remembered so later - identified with the goddess of love. Which also could be the origin of the Japanese Tennos.

In no way does this contradict Christian theology, since I consider it a Pagan error to identify people with Pagan divinities or to elevate them to the status of such (as happened to Julius Caesar and to Odin among others), nor does this conflict with the Biblical Chronology, since it is too late for that. Unlike Chinese, Sumerian, Indian or Egyptian theories of Earth being some 40.000 years old - or modern Darwinist ones cubing the thousands and dividing 40 by ten.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Athanasius of Alexandria
2-V-2014