Antiochus- Cumon versus Pingree

[Rumen_Kolev]

Pingree says Antiochus lived in around 100 AD-200 AD !~
A contemporary of Valens and Ptolemy !
Is this right ?

Also Pingree tells us which chapters from the treatises by Antiochus in the manuscripts are from him and which are not...
very good.
however Pingree seems to be very weak on the evidence !

Pitty that, as it seems to me, Schmidt (Robert) beleives him.
Because Pingree's interpretation of almost everything is totally wrong.
Not only wrong, but also un-ashamedly arrogant.

His editions of Greek and Latin and other texts are fine ! Great ! Bravo !
His interpretations however are idiotic, misleading, confusing and dark !

To cut all this short I will only say that another scholar: FRANZ CUMON who thrived 100 years ago, wrote an article on Antiochus where he absolutely adamantly prooved that Antiochus must have lived around 150 BC.
What has Pingree (and all who follow him) have to say on this ?
Nothing...
They just sit and hope that somehow the article by Cumon will be forgotten ( as indeed many valuable articles by the pan-Babylonians published in the 'Orientalische Literatur Zeitung' were taken out of the sight of the main body of researchers...)

Well, Cumon will not be forgotten because I am resurrecting his research and opinion on Antiochus now.
***
Cumon and other real good scholars also were of quite different mind (from Pingree) of what has survived from Antiochus.

Pingree just without any explanation rejects the authorship of Antiochus over many many chapters including the famous Calendar of Antiochus (heliacal calendar of the 12 months)- something that Boll wrote about.

***
It is hi time to put Pingree's interpretations where they should be- in the dustbin.
Only free from his confusion we can start doing good science.

[Therese_Hamilton]

Pingree says Antiochus lived in around 100 AD-200 AD !~
A contemporary of Valens and Ptolemy !
(...)
Pitty that, as it seems to me, Schmidt (Robert) beleives him.
Because Pingree's interpretation of almost everything is totally wrong.
(...)
To cut all this short I will only say that another scholar: FRANZ CUMON who thrived 100 years ago, wrote an article on Antiochus where he absolutely adamantly prooved that Antiochus must have lived around 150 BC...

Dear Mr. Kolev,

In DEFINITIONS AND FONDATIONS (p. 19) Robert Schmidt specifically mentions Cumont and his dating of Antiochus. Although Mr. Scmidt stated that Cumont's arguments weren't especially convincing, he does agree with Cumont's early dating for other reasons which he discusses on page 20. Mr. Schmidt is often critical of David Pingree's commentary.

Therese Hamilton

[Rumen_Kolev]

Yes, I know.
Schmidt does not agree quite with Pingree on the dating of Antiochus and thinks he is around 150 BC.
This is true.
However Schmidt translates ONLY those chapters by Antiochus that PINGREE says are by him !

This is not the problem.
The problem is that Schmidt does not EVEN mention about the other writings by Antiochus that were rejected by PINGREE... of course absolutely without any basis....
Pingree rejected several chapters by antiochus only on the basis that the word 'shabat' was used !!!!

Also neither Pingree nor anyone of his followers discuss the CUMON dating.
And believe me, CUMON's article is adamant (in French).

How could the view of PINGREE about Antiochus dated to 100-200 AD be imposed WITHOUT detailed analysis and rejection of Cumon's reasons ????
Well- not anymore...

What concerns the OTHER CHAPTERS and MANUSCRIPTS by Antiochus (that very few people know about), I will prepare a systematic research on this and publish it in the next volume of my 'History of Astrology Research Bulletin'

There I will enumerate and describe the writings by Antiochus that Schmidt did not even mention.
Some are published in CCAG, but many are ONLY in MANUSCRIPTS !
SOme of them are not even described in the CCAG (as usually is the case).

So, the only way to learn what are they about, is to open the manuscripts...

[Rumen_Kolev]

In CCAG 7 there are many chapters allegedly by Antiochus that are not mentioned by Schmidt.
Schmidt did a tremendous work translating all this vast material on Antiochus and others of course.

However the story on Antiochus is not full if we do not have a description at least of all chapters that are attributed to him- even if some to be found erroneously so....

Again, I believe that the manuscripts should be the next stage of our research- of all astrologers who can read Greek.

If we do this then we will be independent from the official 'temple-scholars' and their editions which we always should take with a grain of salt...
Not that they will falsify texts but rather that they will choose what to include and what not to ...
Even today W.Lilly is cut short of his last hudred pages of his Christian Astrology by well-meaning astrologers-editors-publishers. Then what do you think would the materialistic and positivistic astrology-critical scholars do ?!!

[Therese_Hamilton]

...What concerns the OTHER CHAPTERS and MANUSCRIPTS by Antiochus (that very few people know about), I will prepare a systematic research on this and publish it in the next volume of my 'History of Astrology Research Bulletin'

There I will enumerate and describe the writings by Antiochus that Schmidt did not even mention.
Some are published in CCAG, but many are ONLY in MANUSCRIPTS !
SOme of them are not even described in the CCAG (as usually is the case).

So, the only way to learn what are they about, is to open the manuscripts...

I hope the wait won't be too long for your published "systematic research" on further Antiochus writings. Please let us know when this work will be available...in English, hope. There are echoes of Antiochus in Benjamin Dykes' newly released PERSIAN NATIVITIES (Masha'allah, also Abu'ali).

Therese Hamilton

[Rumen_Kolev]

Hi everyone who happens to reads this !

I was informed by Dimityr Kojuharov about an article by Giuseppe Bezza available in the INTERNET.
The article is about ANTIOCHUS.

http://www.cieloeterra.it/autori/antioco.html

This article is written by probably the best modern translator of Astrology from Ancient Greek- Giuseppe Bezza.
He is an academic scholar and an astrologer at the same time as most of you probably know.

Bezza writes on the DATING of Antiochus and says that it was in fact NEUGEBAUER OTTO who thought Antiochus to have lived around 200 AD and not Pingree David as I wrote earlier here.

[ No wonder, though, as Pingree was a personal student and follower and admirer of Neugebauer.
Both of them made their best to make a big mess and to impose on the world their falsified picture of the History of Astrology ]

One of their 'achievements' was to convince the other scholars (and especially those who have short memory and do not read French) that Antiochus lived around 200 AD.
This is the more scandalous when we take in consideration that the great French scholar Cumont has written an excellent study on Antiochus several decades earlier !

Bezza writes in his article about Cumon, Neugebauer and Antiochus leaving no doubt of who's dating is the correct one.