1844, Karaites and Jewish Calendar

Nicolas

In recent discussion with former Seventh-day Adventists and critics of the SDA Exposition regarding Bible Prophecies, I came across two criticism namely that

1. the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14 should be read as 2200 (alledged to be existing in the DSS) and 2400 (LXX)

2. the Karaites are now confirming September as the YOMA in 1844.

CLAIM NO. 1

Concerning the first charges, I have looked in almost 50 or more English and French Bibles and discovered that all of them to a few exception have the figure 2300. The few exception is not translation but interpretatioin based on the 2300 figure, where the number is divided two halves equalling 1500 days.

No footnotes deals with either alternative figure. The Ben Aher Stuttgartensia Text or Morp. Text has 2300 days. It should be noted that Daniel 8 is written in Hebrew. Jerome in translating the Hebrew text opt for the 230 figure. All existing manuscripts of the LXX to the alledged exception of the Vatican Ms. have 2300 figure. Authorities in the Roman Catholic Church has confirmed the 2400 figure as a misprint. Quotes concerning this misprint can be found in Uriah Smith's comm. on Daniel 8 in his classic DANIEL AND THE REVELATION.

The charges that the DSS originally contained 2200 figure is nothing more than speculation based on conspiracy background. There is only one manuscript that does contained the verse Daniel 8:14. It is called 4QDanb and contains 52 verses in FRAGMENTS. As to Daniel 8:13-14, we only have the phrases: "TO THE OTHER ONE SPEAKING: "HOW LONG" "AND THE TRAMPLING OF THE SANCTUARY AND HOST?" "THEN THE SANCTUARY WILL BE RECONSECRATED" "AND" "I DANIEL" "HAVING THE APPEARANCE OF A MAN. AND I HEARD" "TELL THE MEANING OF THE VISION TO THIS ONE." There is no DSS text as to the 2300 days of Daniel. In BASOR 274:3-26, the marginal comment for Daniel 8:14 is "fragmentary, follows MT." There is no warrant to follow either the 2200 or 2400 figure.

I will add there is also no warrant for the 1500 figure which is not a translation but an interpretation based on the 2300 figure. It should be noted that the word SACRIFICE OR BURNT OFFERING is not in the Hebrew Text.

The designation for burnt offering is always MORNINGS-EVENINGS. In Daniel 8, we have EVENING-MORNINGS which refers to creation and sanctuary days. The word tamid through used with the sacrifice was also used with diverse aspect of the HOLY PLACE/APPARTMENT-COURT of the MOSAIC Sanctuary.

CLAIM NO. 2

As to CLAIM NO. 2, I wish to inform that our interpretation of Daniel 8:14 and our designation of 22 October 1844 as D-DAY for the cleansing of the sanctuary and vindication of its truth, ministry and existence is NOT DEPENDANT ON JEWISH AUTHORITIES but on the Biblical Datum.

The fact that the Karaites did or did not have the YOMA in October 1844 is a pseudo issue. The millerites based their calculation on the KARAITES Reckoning. There is no evidence that S. Snow received any communication with the CARAITES from Israel to the exact date but himself and other Millerites were aware and concious of the validity of the Caraites' Calendrical Reform. And this reform (where or not the reformers did believe in it in 1844) was in harmony with the Biblical Data.

You thoughts on the question will be much appreciated.

God Bless U.
Nicolas.

Eugene Shubert

gillespie9669 · Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2004 5:26 pm Post subject:

Just presenting more on the tread started by Nicolas. As a Geography lecturer the following is right up my street. It's a little technical, but hope it helps someone in some way.

IS OCTOBER 22 [1844] THE CORRECT DATE?

Quoted from V. Ferrel's- A Biblical Defense Defending our Historic Beliefs about the Sanctuary in Daniel and Hebrews (2003)

"Another charge of certain critics is that 1844 may have been the right terminal year, but October 22 is the wrong ending date in that year. Can we defend our position on this?
Was October 22 the correct Gregorian calendar equivalent to the day of atonement on 10 Tisri in 1844? (“10 Tisri,” in the ancient Jewish calendar, would be the tenth day of the seventh month. That was the date on which Yom Kippur-the day of atonement-fell.)
The Millerite believers unanimously found that the Jewish day of atonement (Yom Kippur) in 1844 would occur on October 22. None of their opponents at the time disagreed with this view-and they had
many opponents back then! But today, there are those among us who question the date for one or the other of two reasons:

The first objection-In a lengthy study presented at one of our important theological gatherings of selected workers, quotations from modern Jewish rabbis were presented stating that the Karaite and Rabbinite dating systems would not permit Yom Kippur to fall on a Friday, Sunday, Monday, or Wednesday. The impression was given that, therefore, in 1844 an October date would be impossible.
The reply to that objection is quite simple: October 22 fell on a Tuesday that year.

The second objection-The other objection is this: Because the spring new moon might have occurred on two different dates, it could have resulted in a September 23 or October 22 date. How can we today know which was right?
Frankly, they are questioning whether God correctly guided His people back then to select the right date. But do we have further facts on this?
The Karaites knew-Fortunately, the Karaite sect of Jews, living in 1844, had continued the ancient Jewish practice of carefully ascertaining the beginning of each year, so they could religiously observe the
correct Hebrew calendar.
In figuring the day of atonement in 1844, Miller and his associates relied on the Karaite method of determining calendar dates, not the Rabbinite system which was quite liberal. The Karaites were more concerned than any other Jewish group to calculate by the ancient system. Yet some today question whether the Karaites may have been correct that year.
Greater accuracy now-Fortunately, we now have a far more accurate method of determining Jewish dates for 1844.

We can bypass the Karaite calendar and go to materials that have been derived directly from contemporary texts of the ancient world. What we want to know is when (in terms of the Babylonian system of intercalation, which we know was the same system the Jews anciently used) did the month of Tisri start in 458 and 457 BC. Those are the dates which demarcated the fall-to-fall year during which Artaxerxes I issued his decree and Ezra returned to Jerusalem with his fellow exiles.

These dates can be determined simply by looking them up in Parker and Dubberstein’s tables in their book, Babylonian Chronology (first published in 1956). We are helped by the fact that 235 lunar months have the same number of days as 19 solar years.
Therefore we do not need to be concerned with the specific years within this intercalary cycle. We can simply divide the 19 years of the cycle into the 2300 days of the prophecy. Every 19 years repeat themselves, so any multiple of 19 years later would give the same date for 1 Tisri. Nineteen goes into 2300 a total of 121 times with one left over.
If 19 had divided evenly into 2300, then 1 Tisri would have fallen on the same Babylonian day in 1844 that it did in 458 BC. In order to deal with that leftover year, we must consult the tables. They reveal variations from year to year, depending on when the moon came up in the spring of the year (something astronomers now can determine for every year in the past).

Millerites correct-

From this we learn that, in the fall of 1844, it fell on October 22.
The Millerites only had to make a choice between one new moon or the other in 1844 (an early Tisri or a late Tisri). They chose the late one-the one recommended by the Karaites-and that was the correct one
when it is figured from the Babylonian lunar year of 458/457 BC.
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. So the Millerites did have the right date. This has now been established as definitively as it can be through the study of ancient mathematics and astronomy."
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)

Nicolas · Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2004 5:34 pm Post subject: 2300/2200/2400 days

Hi Brother Shubert,

Validity of the 2300 Days. There are no valid reason to doubt the number 2300 in Daniel 8:14. Critics of the Seventh-day Adventist interpretation of Daniel 8:14 (i.e E.E. Franke and R. Vowless) have pointed that the figure should be 2200 days.

However, no existing manuscripts have been discovered, even among the famous Dead Sea Scrolls to confirm their claim. They point to the LXX and we know that all available manuscripts of the LXX has the number 2300 to the exeption of the Vatican Ms. which according to the best authorities is a misprint. The Critical LXX text which is that of Ralh gives the text for both the Critical Text and Theodotion as "two thousand 300" and no variants are even mentioned. This is significant for any significant ones WOULD HAVE BEEN for this is why it's a critical text. They point to conspiracy regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls manuscrips of Daniel. However, only one DSS Manuscript [4QDan-b] contains any fragment reference to Daniel 8:14. Authorities in this field stated concerning this fragment text "fragmentary, follows MT ..." through the figure 2300 is not mentioned. The reason behind such confidence is crystal clear, there are no reasons at all to doubt the MT figure 2300.

They point to Jerome and Jerome's Vulgate has 2300 days.

All English and French and Jewish Bibles and most likely all Bibles of all Languages have the figure 2300 and the 1150 days is an interpretation based on the 2300 days. I have found no Bible Footnotes dealing with the proposed figures of Franke and Vowless. Commentators like I. Newton, Matthew Henry, Keil, JFB and others make no reference to any alternative figures 2200 or 2400. It should be noted that the Jewish Historian F. Josephus makes no mention of 2200 and 2400 days in his writings.

The 1150 days. As stated the 1150 days is interpretative rather than translation. No manuscripts have the number 1150 days. This figure is based and dependant on the 2300 days. Very few Bibles have this number. The GNB, Bible Francais Courant and Bible du Semeur contain this interpretative figure.

It is largely based on the meaning of tamid. In the hebrew text it is hattamid or the tamid. It has been variously translated as meaning regular, daily, continual with reference to the burnt offering sacrifice. However, it must be noted that the word SACRIFICE/BURNT OFFERINGS (used throughout Dn. 8ff) is an added/extra word not found in the Hebrew Text of Daniel 8ff. Through it is used in association with the burnt offering in the OT, it is also used with the grain offering, showbread, incense, light, allowance and so forth. There is no reason to limit this word to the burnt offering. This is what happen when we are dependant upon Jewish tradition i.e the Jewish Talmud and invalidate the testimony of the Bible. Such views that limit hattamid to the burnt offering is far from empowering in-depth and expanding studies of the prophetic passage. WIthout doubt, hattamid is a cultic term which include the burnt offering and beyond. It is the totality of the HOLY PLACE/COURT ministration. It should be noted that it is never used in relation to the MOST HOLY PLACE ministration, a yearly ministration which can hardly be qualified as continuous or daily.

The 1150 days is based on tradition and a missing Hebew word namely OLAT or burnt offering. Hence taking away the constant is viewed by Seventh-day Adventists Christians as the continual priestly ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary. This heavenly ministry is binded with the sacrifice of himself on the cross. The OLAT HATTAMID is always designated as MORNINGS-EVENINGS in the Old Testament and never as EVENING-MORNINGS.

Keil comments on the 1150 days should be noted: "This separation of the expression into evening and morning, so that to number them separately and add them together would make 2300 evening-mornings = 1150 days, is shown to be INADMISSIBLE, both by the asyndeton evening-morning and the usages of the Hebrew language. That in Dan_8:26 (the evening and the morning) stands for it, does not prove that the evening ad morning are reckoned separately, but only that evening-morning is a period of time consisting of evening and morning. When the Hebrews wish to express separately day and night, the component parts of a day of a week, then the number of both is expressed. They say, e.g., forty days and forty nights (Gen 7:4, Gen 7:12; Exo 24:18; 1Ki_19:8), and three days and three nights (Jon 2:1; Mat 12:40), but not eighty or six days-and-nights, when they wish to speak of forty or three full days. A Hebrew reader could not possibly understand the period of time 2300 evening-mornings of 2300 half days or 1150 whole days, because evening and morning at the creation constituted not the half but the whole day. Still less, in the designation of time, "till 2300 evening-mornings," could "evening-mornings" be understood of the evening and morning sacrifices, and the words be regarded as meaning, that till 1150 evening sacrifices and 1150 morning sacrifices are discontinued. We must therefore take the words as they are, i.e., UNDERSTAND THEM OF 2300 WHOLE DAYS."

The points against the interpretative figure 1150 days are that 1. the term sacrifice/burnt offering/olat is not mentioned at all in Daniel 8 in relation or association with the word tamid 2. the designation mornings-evenings are absent and if the author wanted the morning and evenings to be separate he would have written 2300 mornings and 2300 evenings 3. the word order evening-mornings designate a compound creation and sanctuary day

Critics like R. Vowless points and challenge SDA to show the existence of yom and related hebrew words for days in Daniel 8:14 then build an interpretation based on speculation and an absent word namely tamid.

Sanctuary Days. As stated above, the 2300 days are creation days, the better times previous to the entrance of sin in this world, however they are also sancutary days. Daniel 8 is written not only in the hebrew language but with a sanctuary language with many direct and indirect reference to cultic terms such as tamid, ram, he-goat, horn, sanctuary and so forth. The change from impure beast in Daniel 7 to sacrificial and sanctuary beasts in Daniel 8 is further evident of the cultic setting and background of Daniel 8. The cleansing of the sanctuary following the tamid and the abomination of desolation is further truth. The chazon given FOR or which BELONGETH to the time of the end is still another proof of sanctuary background. Daniel 7-8-9 is not mere descriptive of future events but are Sanctuary Prophecies centered on Christ and His Constant Ministry in our behalf. The chazon of the little horn, the ram, the he-goat are only guiding post, leading us to the time of the end, time in which belongs the Cleansing of the Sanctuary and the Vindication of its truth, and the Justification and Making Righteous of its people.

I believe that the HOLY PLACE appartmnet represent our second steps in the path way to God's Throne - Sanctification. We have the menorah, the table of shewbread and the golden incense. Those Christo-centric symbols are also representative of God's continuous provision for His children, daily feeding us, illuminating us and interceding for us. Those symbols were also continously with the people in their journeys in the wilderness. The table of Shewbread was there in the miraculous manna, the menorah was there in the pillar of fire in the evening and the golden incense was also there in the pillar of cloud. It should be noticed that it was the changes from the pillars of cloud to the pillar of fire that was used as reference time for the burnt offering, more than the going up and down of the sun. I believe that on this basis that the evening-mornings not only designate creation days but was used with this cultic setting in mind like the already-mentioned terms.

Hope this will help.

God Bless U.
Nicolas.

Nicolas · Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2004 5:39 pm Post subject:

Hi gillespie9669,

Thank you for posting Vance Ferell's arguments in favor and confirmation of our historic beliefs. The argumentations in his book are largely those of Wm. H. Shea and other BRI Scholars as found in DRC Volumes 1-3 more specifically.

I fully agree on his observaiton concerning point one. However, Wm. H. Shea's defense of 22 October 1844 based on new calculation remain to be simplified.

God Bless You.
Nicolas.

gillespie9669

http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=790

Click the above link to some additional thoughts related to this thread started by Nicolas. It should give some valuable insights into the general time period during which the examination of the record books of heaven would take place.
_________________
Derrick Gillespie (First labelled "SDA", THEN, "Pseudo-SDA", and then "Impolite". What label next?)