What is the oldest reference to astrological ages of Aries / Pisces / etc?

Discuss the world of the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, and Egyptians.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5776
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: What is the oldest reference to astrological ages of Aries / Pisces / etc?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2018 12:56 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:18 am
Joseph D. L. wrote: Wed Jan 24, 2018 10:10 pm If you take Ulansey for granted, the Mithraic tauroctony would itself be evidence for the concept of astrological ages.
Why would I do that?
As a possible answer to your question. If Ulansey is correct and the Mithraists applied the phenomenon of precession to their cosmology (Mithras slaying Gavaevodata at the beginning of time; Mithras turning the wheel of the cosmos, etc), than Mithraism becomes an implicit reference to the assigning of the signs of the zodiac to "ages" or periods of creation and destruction.
The implicit part of the sentence was "why would I" "take Ulansey for granted"?

Is it evidence, or is it assumption? Evidence that relies on an assumption is worth no more than the assumption.

And the assumption isn't evidence of anything.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: What is the oldest reference to astrological ages of Aries / Pisces / etc?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Hence why I said "if" you take him for granted. And "if" so than it would be an answer to your question.

Sheesh.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5776
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: What is the oldest reference to astrological ages of Aries / Pisces / etc?

Post by Peter Kirby »

I replied because I do not agree that "if" you take something for granted, non-evidence becomes evidence.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: What is the oldest reference to astrological ages of Aries / Pisces / etc?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:17 am I replied because I do not agree that "if" you take something for granted, non-evidence becomes evidence.
That actually doesn't make any sense with the topic at hand, by which implicit interpretations DO constitute as possible evidence for something.

Example, what evidence do you have that Papias and Hegesippus are the same? Circumstantial at best. Yet it sounds good and looks good. Therefore, they are. (And forgive me if you no longer subscribe to this idea--I do--as it's the only blog of yours that I've read).

What, are you waiting for a manuscript to be found that explicitly states that the signs were thought of as ages? But the implied distinction proposed by Ulansey regarding Mithraism is somehow not good enough for you?

And, once again, my qualifier was as an anticipated scepticism. I don't even know how to feel about Ulansey. (I think he's right in some areas, but off in others). By taking him for granted, you are accepting his theory as possible.

Clearly your knowledge of Ulansey is wanting. Otherwise you would know the strengths and weaknesses of his theory and make a proper argument. I can't help but feel that you are being intentionally obtuse.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5776
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: What is the oldest reference to astrological ages of Aries / Pisces / etc?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:28 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:17 am I replied because I do not agree that "if" you take something for granted, non-evidence becomes evidence.
That actually doesn't make any sense with the topic at hand, by which implicit interpretations DO constitute as possible evidence for something.

Example, what evidence do you have that Papias and Hegesippus are the same? Circumstantial at best. Yet it sounds good and looks good. Therefore, they are. (And forgive me if you no longer subscribe to this idea--I do--as it's the only blog of yours that I've read).

What, are you waiting for a manuscript to be found that explicitly states that the signs were thought of as ages? But the implied distinction proposed by Ulansey regarding Mithraism is somehow not good enough for you?

And, once again, my qualifier was as an anticipated scepticism. I don't even know how to feel about Ulansey. (I think he's right in some areas, but off in others). By taking him for granted, you are accepting his theory as possible.

Clearly your knowledge of Ulansey is wanting. Otherwise you would know the strengths and weaknesses of his theory and make a proper argument. I can't help but feel that you are being intentionally obtuse.
You are reading a lot into my statement.

It isn't my intention to attack Ulansey.

It's certainly possible criticize what I'm saying for being pedantic, or overly literal, if you like. But it's not wrong.

It's never true that "if" you take something for granted, non-evidence becomes evidence.

Take note that it's easy to sound standoff-ish and hostile in online conversation. More often than not, the benefit of the doubt would leave people in the right about the intentions of others.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: What is the oldest reference to astrological ages of Aries / Pisces / etc?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Then what constitutes evidence for you?

Or would you have preferred I said if Ulansey is correct, rather than if you take him for granted? Does that meet your arbitrary rhetorical prerequisites? Are you so linear in your thinking that reading between the lines is beyond you?

If I sound angry, it's because I am. This has genuinely angered me, how you can project so much onto me, then smugly imply that you're too good to take things for granted. Let me clarify something for you, no matter how sure you are of your own ideas, you are only taking them for granted. Same as myself, Stuart, Huller, and anyone else who dabbles in this.

My suggestion was not meant to be taken seriously, hence, once again, I prefixed it with "if", as in "don't take this too seriously." But you have taken it seriously, and are showing yourself to be oblivious to this. That's not my problem.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5776
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: What is the oldest reference to astrological ages of Aries / Pisces / etc?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:53 am Then what constitutes evidence for you?

Or would you have preferred I said if Ulansey is correct, rather than if you take him for granted? Does that meet your arbitrary rhetorical prerequisites? Are you so linear in your thinking that reading between the lines is beyond you?

If I sound angry, it's because I am. This has genuinely angered me, how you can project so much onto me, then smugly imply that you're too good to take things for granted. Let me clarify something for you, no matter how sure you are of your own ideas, you are only taking them for granted. Same as myself, Stuart, Huller, and anyone else who dabbles in this.

My suggestion was not meant to be taken seriously, hence, once again, I prefixed it with "if", as in "don't take this too seriously." But you have taken it seriously, and are showing yourself to be oblivious to this. That's not my problem.
I recommend chilling out and thinking about how to deal with very mild criticism on the internet in the future.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5776
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: What is the oldest reference to astrological ages of Aries / Pisces / etc?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Peter Kirby wrote:Who first had the idea to take the thousands of years for the full precession of the equinoxes, divide into twelve segments and call them "astrological ages"? Does anyone know of an ancient reference? (Before AD 500 or so?) Medieval? Anything?

I can tell you it's not in book 3 of the Almagest by Ptolemy, which discusses the precession of equinoxes. I read that.
Joseph D. L. wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:28 amWhat, are you waiting for a manuscript to be found that explicitly states that the signs were thought of as ages?
You say that like it's an unreasonable thing, for the purpose of a discussion of "the oldest reference" here.

Someone might say that the Bible talks about the Soviet Union and the United States, but that doesn't make it so either. It would be very strange to say that the earliest references to the Soviet Union and the United States were in Revelation, from the viewpoint of historical research.

Not exactly "waiting" -- I have plenty of better things to do and work on -- but, at this point, you and others have made it very clear that we don't have any such ancient reference. That's what the thread was meant to clarify, and it's done so.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: What is the oldest reference to astrological ages of Aries / Pisces / etc?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

I recommend chilling out and thinking about how to deal with very mild criticism on the internet in the future.
This isn't mild criticism. You are being blatantly disingenuous.
User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 1349
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: What is the oldest reference to astrological ages of Aries / Pisces / etc?

Post by Joseph D. L. »

Not exactly "waiting" -- I have plenty of better things to do and work on -- but, at this point, you and others have made it very clear that we don't have any such ancient reference. That's what the thread was meant to clarify, and it's done so.
You really are coming off as a petulant child here.

If Ulansey's proposal is correct, than Mithraism is evidence of such an occurrence. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I was neither arguing for or against it, yet you have projected so much importance onto that you have effectively created a strawman.

But, as you yourself said, I have better things I can be doing. You've certainly not impressed me any and am glad I've never wasted my time on your scribblings.
Post Reply