1844 is Obsolete 19th Century Historicism

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:29 pm Post subject: The Karaite evidence

In a previous message written by Derrick Gillespie, he had announced that, whenever he came around to addressing “the matter of the Karaite calendar” on his thread, I would be “surprised” by “his view.” He has now published his “thoughts” on this subject. Sadly, I cannot say that his “view” surprises me in the least. He maintains that he does “not have very much to say about this matter [...] because” he has “learnt that it is prudent to determine at all times which battles are worth fighting; considering the perceived outcome, and what purpose will be served in the first place. I have felt strongly that I do not need to prove which calendar was better to fix the dating of Yom Kippur in 1844,” a date he merely takes for granted!

Not that his refusal to discuss the funny issue of the Karaite calendar is particularly crucial, considering the date of Yom Kippur in any particular year in the relatively recent past or in the remotest era has no relevance whatever for the exegesis of Dan.8:14. But it does show how conscious he is of the frailty of the whole 1844 edifice. Not only is 1844 the wrong year, and 22 October the wrong date, but Miller and our pioneers were pervasively mistaken about the event predicted in Dan.8:14. That is perhaps forgivable for a novice Bible student, but it is inexcusable for anyone who knows their Bible with some cogency.

Mr Gillespie contents himself with quoting a certain 2003 publication by a Mr Vance Ferrell entitled A Biblical Defense Defending our Historic Beliefs about the Sanctuary in Daniel and Hebrews, a book that can be downloaded from the Internet and which has apparently been endorsed by William Shea himself. Perhaps it is only natural that a defence should defend something. A biblical defence, however, should strive for fairness when analysing even those things that are not liable to be verified by biblical evidence itself.

Let us briefly analyse the validity of Ferrell’s arguments:

It is claimed that “certain critics” doubting the 22 October date admit the validity of 1844 being “the right terminal year.” It would be good if Ferrell had mentioned a critic who admitted such a thing. Nobody outside the circle of Seventh-day Adventism has ever believed the year 1844 has any theological significance. As far as I know, critics within the church, such as myself, do not admit the validity of that year at all. Perhaps Ferrell could be referring to Ballenger, who, early in his research, still admitted that something had transpired in Heaven in 1844, even though he rejected the concept of Christ’s entering the Holy of Holies at that time. He seems to have believed for at least some time in some kind of “investigative judgment.” Later on, he was among the first to bring to light the fact that Karaite communities had celebrated Yom Kippur in September 1844.
“The Millerite believers unanimously found that the Jewish day of atonement (Yom Kippur) in 1844 would occur on October 22.” The question could be asked, How many made up that unanimity? Millerite believers were counted by thousands. Perhaps Mr Ferrell would like us to believe that those believers were all calendrical experts and had a symposium to discuss the accuracy of the Karaite calendar! Or perhaps they all secured a copy of the current Karaite almanac in order to make certain when that Jewish sect would be celebrating the next Yom Kippur! What is the truth? The truth is that the 22 October date was concocted by Samuel S. Snow and very few others, so Ferrell is entirely mistaken when he says that the millerites “unanimously found” the date. At best, perhaps most of them, unanimously, gullibly accepted, in the frenzy of the movement, the trash that some of their leaders were feeding them with. But, quite certainly, none of them ever saw a Karaite almanac showing the date 22 October 1844 for Yom Kippur. Such almanacs, I’m quite confident, never existed. Karaites themselves affirm that in 1844 Yom Kippur was 23 September! If I’m mistaken, let someone show a copy of a Karaite almanac for 1844 with Yom Kippur on 22 October and I’ll recant what I’m saying. In any case, this whole business of the Karaites is quite ridiculous. Mrs White’s explanations in Great Controversy or elsewhere never mention the Karaites, but, very specifically, the Mosaic or rabbinical calendar. In any case, by 1844 the Karaite calendar had been identical to the rabbinical calendar for several decades, just as it is today.
“None of their opponents at the time disagreed with this view-and they had many opponents back then!” So? I haven’t been able to assemble the whole range of scholarly opposition to Millerite folly and it’s true I’ve never seen a 19th-century discussion on the validity of the 22 October date, so perhaps such a presentation never occurred. It wasn’t necessary. Several New England scholars of the time successfully refuted Mr Miller’s major points, so discussing the minor points served no practical purpose. If, as Mr Ferrell claims, nobody attacked the 22 October date as such from the moment it was first presented at a camp meeting until the arrival of the date, a few months later, it doesn’t mean they accepted the validity of the date as such. It only means that they didn’t notice that even that was false in the latest stages of the Millerite movement. Now we know better.
Ferrell maintains that, despite all the wonderful scholarly 19th-century consensus about the Karaite calculations, “today, there are those among us who question the date for one or the other of two reasons”. Either Ferrell is hiding information or he is ignorant of what is at stake. There are more than two reasons, even without considering my lethal astronomical observation on the arrival of spring in 1844.
The first of Mr Ferrell’s “two” objections is that, according to “quotations from modern Jewish rabbis”, Yom Kippur cannot “fall on a Friday, Sunday, Monday, or Wednesday.” The year 1844, however, passes this test with flying colors, since, according to Mr Ferrell, “October 22 fell on a Tuesday that year.” Now, this is most confusing to me. Since Yom Kippur must necessarily fall on the tenth day of the Jewish seventh month, what are the “modern Jewish rabbis” (ever heard of a non-Jewish rabbi?!) supposed to do when that date should fall on one of those days? Add one or two days to the calendar? Skip a month? Add an intercalary month and see if that is enough? The whole concept is preposterous! Please, provide some bibliography on the subject. I’ve looked on the Internet in order to ascertain the dates of Yom Kippur in recent years. In 2002, Yom Kippur fell on 15 September, a Sunday. In 2003, it fell on 5 October, Sunday also. In 2004, it will fall on 24 September, a Friday. Sorry, Mr Ferrell. You’ve just received three strikes. You are out! The objection that you so “successfully” “refute” is made out of air. How easy it is to refute imaginary objections, isn’t it?
I’ll take that the statement “the spring new moon might have occurred on two different dates” to mean something like “some doubts exist about which new moon should be considered as the first of the spring season.” The spring new moon itself cannot occur on two or more dates but only on one. It’s very simple, really. If a new moon occurs before the spring equinox, it isn’t a spring new moon. If it occurs on the spring equinox or less than 30 days after it, it is the spring new moon. Well, there are no doubts whatever as to which one was the spring new moon in 1844 as reckoned by observation of its crescent. It was that of late March, since it could be observed one or two days after the beginning of the spring equinox. Naturally, Mr Ferrell may well argue that the astronomical (different from observational) new moon took place a few hours before the onset of spring, but he should be conscious that the biblical specifications for the beginning of lunar months are observational, never astronomical.
Mr Ferrell claims that critics “ are questioning whether God correctly guided His people back then to select the right date.” Not exactly. Frankly, critics are not “questioning” anything of the kind. We are merely stating, with overwhelming evidence, that God had absolutely nothing to do with the whole lying business!
Next, Mr Ferrell repeats the old story that, although Jews following the rabbinic calendar were mistaken, the Karaites knew the right date for Yom Kippur, which supposedly was 22 October. I am going to assume that Mr Ferrell hasn’t studied the matter for himself so that his statement is mere hearsay. If it weren’t hearsay, we would need to consider moral issues with Mr Ferrell, since Karaite authorities themselves have attested repeatedly to two significant facts:
1. For several decades before 1844, there hadn’t been any differences between the Karaite calendar and the rabbinic calendar.
2. Yom Kippur in 1844 fell on 23 September.
In any case, the basic difference between the “Rabbinite” and Karaite calendars in previous eras was not related to liberalism, but to the usage of pre-calculated cycles (the Metonic 19-year cycle) by official Judaism, as opposed to a calendar based on the actual observation of the crescent and agricultural conditions in the land of Israel. And, by the way, the attested differences (in previous eras) are consistent with the Karaites occasionally beginning Yom Kippur one month earlier than official Judaism. I’m not aware of the Karaites ever celebrating Yom Kippur one month later than orthodox Jews. If anyone had thought of holding Yom Kippur in late October in 1844, it would have been the orthodox Jews, misguided by their pre-calculated cycles, never the Karaites!
Mr Ferrell states that “some today question whether the Karaites may have been correct that year.” This is entirely misleading. We don’t question the Karaite calendar. We simply state, with sufficient evidence, that Samuel S. Snow’s “calculations,” later incorporated into SDA folklore, are a complete fraud and do not have the backing of the Karaites, who always had the right date for Yom Kippur in 1844 — 23 September.
Mr Ferrell now comes with an apparently scholarly solution to this conundrum. He wants to turn Babylonian chronology into the deciding factor to determine the “real” spring new moon in 1844. He tells us that “the Babylonian system of intercalation [...] was the same system the Jews anciently used”. It would appear that Mr Ferrell is not familiar with Parker and Dubberstein’s work because, if he were, he would be aware that Babylonians had two intercalary months, not just one like the Hebrews. The Jews added an extra thirteenth month, called Veadar, or “Second Adar” every three or four years, as necessary to keep the luni-solar year in alignment with the spring equinox. Babylonians, however, could either intercalate a second “sixth” month, or “Second Ululu” between the sixth and seventh months, or a thirteenth month, or “Second Addaru,” just before their spring New Year. This consideration alone turns Ferrell’s argument to dust. But let us give Mr Ferrell every opportunity to prove his case. Perhaps it just so happened that the joint effect of the Babylonian insertion of two intercalary months across the centuries was the same as the intercalation of the single month of Veadar by the Jews. What is the evidence then?
Very well, since Mr Ferrell wants to go to the whereabouts of 457 BC, the purported date for the famous nonexistent decree to restore Jerusalem, we’ll just jump 2,299 years backward, 121 Metonic full cycles. That would take us to the year 456 BC. When did 1 Tishri commence in that year? Spring began at 13:00, Jerusalem time, on 26 March 456 BC. The previous astronomical new moon, an invisible phenomenon by its very nature (unless there is a sun eclipse), had taken place on 14 March at 13:16 UT, so it cannot possibly have been the first new moon of the spring. The true astronomical spring new moon took place on 13 April. The crescent must have been observed no more than two days later, which means that 1 Nisan cannot have taken place later than 15 April. This means that the beginning of the seventh month took place six months later, which takes us to about 9 October. Since Yom Kippur, 10 Tishri, was 9 days later, the Day of Atonement in 456 BC fell on 18 October. Apparently, this involves just a four-day difference when compared with the purported date for Yom Kippur in 1844, 22 October. Remarkable? Hardly. Why? All these dates are historical dates, based on the Julian calendar, whereas by 1844 the calendar prevailing across the world was the Gregorian calendar. Remember the 11 days “skipped” in 1582? (Doh!!!!!!!)
The end of Mr Ferrell’s considerations erroneously sums up all the utterly wrong “evidence” he’s been presenting. Therefore, the following comments are pervasively false:
1. “The Millerites [...] chose the late [Tishri] [...] recommended by the Karaites — and that was the correct one.” The truth is that the Millerites didn’t choose anything. They just picked the date “revealed” to Samuel S. Snow. The Karaites didn’t recommend anything. The date of the Karaites, 23 September, was, indeed, correct. The one adopted by the Millerites, 22 October, was wrong.
2. “It is true that the Karaites could have made a mistake. But we now know from the reckoning of the tables that they were correct.” The Karaites were indeed correct in holding Yom Kippur on 23 September 1844, but we don’t need any tables to prove it. A little knowledge of astronomy is enough, together with good eyesight to observe the spring new moon on 21 or 22 March, 1844.
3. “So the Millerites did have the right date.” No, most emphatically, they did not.
4. “This has now been established as definitively as it can be through the study of ancient mathematics and astronomy.” Indeed, the study of ancient mathematics and astronomy has established, as definitively as it can be, that the Millerites were misled by a false prophet, Samuel S. Snow, to adopt a false date as the fulfilment of an ancient prophecy that had been wrongly interpreted by gullible students of the Bible in all of its aspects.

Need I say more? Perhaps not, but I want to. Some of you may think that bringing this out in the open is evil on my part. I’m sorry if you think that, but I cannot place my love for the SDA church above my love for truth. Believe it or not, I continue to be a regular church member and have no intention of leaving, since I cannot think of a valid reason to do so. I seek no confrontation with the leading brethren, but I cannot stand lies, and I’ll do everything within my power to keep present or future generations of SDAs from being taken for a ride by people who want the truth about these matters to remain hidden. We must all be aware that it is impossible to hide the truth forever. So, it is unavoidable that the leadership should take steps to put things right. But let there be no mistake. Disciplining critics within the church, such as myself, or trying to silence those outside, will only delay the inevitable consequence of increased knowledge among church members. So, the sooner you address the real issues by throwing absurd mistakes overboard, the better it will be for all of us. So, as humble seekers for truth and without splitting the Body, demand an explanation from your leaders. Demanding it from me would serve no purpose, as I cannot either reject what I’ve learnt from the Bible, or keep silent about it, or cause the hierarchy to do what they alone can and must do.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Sun May 30, 2004 9:56 am Post subject:

A small portion of this thread was split and moved because it didn't meet the reasonable standards of The Plain of Megiddo forums. If you dare, click here to read the fragment deemed worthy of the bottomless pit.

Eugene Shubert · Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 3:17 am Post subject:

Dear Eduardo,

I wish to thank you for Assessing the Foundation of the SDA 2300-day Structure. You have presented excellent proof that Ellen White once thought that the decree of Artaxerxes was given near the close of the year 457 B.C. and that she later learned that it was issued earlier. As I see it, the statement that "the decree of Artaxerxes went into effect in the autumn of 457 B.C." is a clear acknowledgment that the decree was issued earlier according to Ellen White's later understanding.

I for one am very happy to accept your chronology that Ezra left Babylon on the first day of the first month on the Jewish calendar (Ezra 7:9) in the year 457 B.C. That would mean that William Miller was exactly correct. Miller taught that 2300 years after the decree of Artaxerxes would be in the span of March 21, 1843 to March 21, 1844—the beginning and end of the Hebrew year.

That being said, I believe that you are wrong in presupposing that Ellen G. White regarded herself as infallible. She said that she never claimed it and that "we have many things to learn, and many many to unlearn."

It's no great mystery to me that Ellen White never explained what event happened in the autumn of 457 B.C. that made the decree of Artaxerxes go into effect. She didn't know! From my perspective, I can easily believe that Ellen White's statement is a guess or a gloss to cover what she didn't understand so she could quickly move on to what she really wanted to write about in great detail. I see no dishonesty there. God gave Ellen White a vision that established the validity of the 7th month movement. I know she felt the power of God in the Millerite Movement. I'm moved that way just reading about the history. By definition, the true Adventists at that time were those in the Movement that couldn't deny their experience. And there is more to it than just the 457BC date. Christ's ministry began in the autumn of 27A.D. It could not have been earlier. Counting backward from there 69 weeks of years (Daniel 9:25) really does give weight to the autumn of 457BC. So in Ellen White's mind everything really does come together. That doesn't mean that Ellen White was infallible in the way she connected dots. Aren't you ignoring the overwhelming weight of evidence of truth and power in Ellen White's writings?

I believe that it's very reasonable for the Millerites to have reasoned that Christ would come in the 7th month on the Day of Atonement. The Day of Atonement does represent the final judgment. I'm even more impressed by the fact that the Jews always computed a new king's reign as beginning in the 7th Jewish month. I think it is very likely that the start of Jewish regnal years had a prophetic meaning and points to the time of year when the kings of the earth will be removed from power and the True King of the universe begins to rule this planet (Revelation 11:15).

For me, the clincher is the three scenarios of Revelation and how the second scenario describes the Millerite Movement of 1844.

Eduardo Martínez Rancaño · Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 5:19 am Post subject:

Dear Eugene, yes, you are indeed right that Ellen's choice of words could be interpreted as implying that she implicitly recognised an early error of hers and her associates' in calculating the going forth of the decree of Ezra 7, even though her early statements say something about the autumn of 457 being "ascertained" by someone. Now we know their ascertainment was a sloppy job. As for your suggestion that the very start of the autumn of 457 is by itself sufficient proof that Artaxerxes' decree should be reckoned from the autumn, it begs the question. You can't seriously say we must count from the autumn because that's when the autumn starts!

Then there's the damaging evidence of the wording of the decree itself. Not only was it issued earlier than the onset of spring of 457 BC, but it was implemented before Ezra's departure from Babylon, not two monhts after his arrival in Jerusalem. Apart from that, the decree itself doesn't seem to be connected with the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Even in the face of Ezra 4, Isaiah 44:28 is ample proof that Cyrus was God's instrument in having Jerusalem rebuilt. As for the famous passage of Ezra 6:14, the mention of both Darius and Artaxerxes is understandable, considering that it was in the days of Darius that the temple was completed, about 516 BC, and it was in the days of Artaxerxes that the wall of Jerusalem was built, about 444 BC. Naturally, this observation robs all credibility to the notion that 457 BC, in whatever season, had anything to do with the rebuilding of Jerusalem. We know from Haggai 1:1-4 that this prophet considered Jerusalem was sufficiently built early in the reign of Darius, Artaxerxes' grandfather, to sternly rebuke his fellow citizens because while they were living in panelled houses, God's temple languished. Besides, the evidence that the bulk of the rebuilding work of the city was done during the reign of Cyrus can also be verified in Flavius Josephus' Antiquities, xi.1.1-3.

If Ellen White had truly learnt of her early mishap in supporting the purported relevance of 457 BC and wanted to set things straight, she should have confessed her egregious mistake, but that doesn't seem to have been a trait of her life. To keep her claim to prophetic insight rolling, she never really admitted to any errors. Her later pronouncements on such issues as the shut door or the reform dress are nothing but a ploy on words. Yes, I accept that much of what she wrote, irrespective of its origin, is beautiful, but that isn't good enough to consider her authority is greater than anyone else's, for there are also beautiful passages in the Koran and in other pieces of literature that I would never consider inspired in any sense whatsoever.

The true test of her character and of the noxious nature of her prophetic credentials can be perceived in her dealings with some leading brethren. In the case of Albion Fox Ballenger, early in the 20th century, she bore false witness to this pastor's purported association with spiritism. The reason? Ballenger's questions about the usage of the expression "within the veil", which showed that Mrs White's presentation of the "second phase" of Christ's intercessory ministry was sloppy. Rather than recant and renounce her supposedly heaven-approved heresy, she decided to sink Ballenger's prestige and state that, despite all the biblical evidence this pastor could muster, he was not to be paid attention to because he ignored the wonderful manifiestation of the Spirit in her own writings! Sorry, this isn't Sola Scriptura, and she'll have to give an account of her evil deeds one day.

Returning to 457 BC, it can't be confirmed by counting backward (which is actually the method used by Miller) for two simple reasons. The first one is that it is not exegetically obvious that the 70 weeks should be linked with the person of Jesus Christ. Secondly, there's no independent way to prove Jesus Christ was baptised in AD 27. Nor is there any persuasive proof that he was crucified in AD 31. Similarly, there's no evidence that Stephen was stoned in AD 34 or that Paul was converted in that year. Lastly, nothing significant is known to have taken place in 408 BC. The devastating conclusion is that the Christological application of the 70 weeks is one huge hoax. Not even one of the dates seems to be correct.

I'm sorry, Eugene, but there's nothing in the theology of 1844 that can be salvaged. If honest Adventists want to come clean of all past errors (like accusing "apostate" Protestants of being the daughters of the great whore just because they rightfully refused to accept William Miller's mistaken notions), a public confession is imperative before jettisoning all aberrant theology. If we want to be anything like some of our pioneers in their desire to follow truth wherever Jesus and his Word led, irrespective of the cost, we should do just that. The SDA Church should become a mainstream Evangelical church salvaging whatever can be salvaged of its own distinguishing marks, which, apart from a sanitised recognition of the validity of the Sabbath as a day of worship and few other things, isn't much.

Take care of yourself.

Every blessing.
Eduardo