1844 is Obsolete 19th Century Historicism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.