p. 124 | Numerical Legerdemain by Editor

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 15, 1864

Numerical Legerdemain.

By Editor

In Review No. 5, present volume, we gave an article entitled, "Confusion on the Prophetic Periods," in which we offered some criticisms upon the position of W. H. Hacking, of Listowell, C. W., who claims that the period of 2300 days should be 2400, and that they commence B. C. 536, and end in A. D. 1866. This article, it seems, has thrown Mr. H. into no small degree of perturbation, and he comes out with quite a nervous reply in the Millennial Harbinger of Feb. 10, 1864.

It is not particularly agreeable to disturb any man's equilibrium; but when we see such a position as that the 2300 days should read 2400, endeavoring to run the blockade of truth, we should be recreant to duty, did we not pursue, and overhaul such contraband, not to say piratical, craft.

We styled his attempt to make 2400 years extend from B. C. 536 into the year 1866, where he places their termination, a piece of "numerical legerdemain," or sleight of hand. On a review of his subject we see no cause to change our opinion. He endeavors by an adroit statement of the case, to carry the impression that the reckoning is all right. He may have deceived himself into that belief; but even in that case, it would be no less a piece of legerdemain. He states the case thus: "B. C. 536 is only 535 whole years; so 1866 only makes the cardinal number 1865, added together make 2400." True 535 and 1865 added together make 2400; that is, if the period commenced on the first day of 535 B. C., it would end on the last day of 1865. But if they commence on B. C. 536, as he claims, then he has 535 whole years and a fraction over, before Christ, and consequently they must end somewhere in A. D. 1865, not in 1866, as he would fain have us believe. Thus, suppose the period to commence in the middle of the year B. C. 536, then we have $535\frac{1}{2}$ years before Christ, requiring only $1864\frac{1}{2}$ years this side of the cross to make 2400, bringing their termination in the middle of the year 1865. So of any other point in the year B. C. 536. At whatever point in that year they commenced, they would end in a corresponding point in the year 1865, not 1866. It requires no great proficiency in figures to see this. Yet he takes great exception to our calling this, numerical legerdemain, and accuses us of doing the same thing in reckoning the 2300 days. He says, "He cast his eye upon the foot-note and discerns a 'piece of numerical legerdemain,' to 'prolong the days;' but he seems to have forgotten that he himself had just availed himself of a portion of this same piece of legerdemain in extending the 2300 from B. C. 457 to 1844." If our friend thinks we reckon this period after his manner of computation, his discernment certainly is not to be envied. Let us try it. According to his rule we should have to reckon the 2300 days thus: "B. C. 457 is only 456 whole years; so 1844 only makes the cardinal number 1843, added together make 2299," instead of 2300! We respectfully decline the charge of any such bungling.

But he goes still further in his efforts to enlighten us on this point, and says:

"Probably I can explain to his satisfaction this 'legerdemain' by the following diagram:

| 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 . † . 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |

"Let the space between each particular line represent a year. Now count the spaces and he will find only six; but if we add the two extreme figures together we have eight."

This is a wonderful display, truly. He says, "Let the space between each particular [he probably meant each perpendicular] line represent a year." Then why does he not put his figures in the spaces, where they belong, and not down under the divisions of the years? It is the years that want to be numbered, not the dividing lines between the years. We therefore

beg leave to put his diagram into correct shape as follows:

| 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 † 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |

Now count the spaces, and we have eight; add the extreme figures together, and we also have eight. Four years before Christ, and four years after, make eight years. But if we have a period of eight years that we wish to end somewhere in the fourth year after Christ, we must commence it, not in the fourth year before Christ, but somewhere in the fifth. We are vastly more surprised at his diagram than at his original reckoning. They are both either numerical legerdemain, or numerical nonsense.

He speaks of our evidence "of the termination of the vision in 1844." We said nothing about the termination of the vision in 1844. The vision does not terminate till the sanctuary is cleansed, which occupies a space of time, and the little horn is broken without hand. The termination of the vision, and the termination of the prophetic period contained in the vision are two things. The latter was only to extend to the commencement of the work called the cleansing of the sanctuary, and did expire, as has been frequently shown, in 1844.

Having thus misstated our position, he comments upon it as follows:

"Well, this is a most astonishing announcement, truly. We are left, now, to choose which of the two alternatives to accept; either that the word of God has entirely failed, or that the sanctuary has been cleansed; God's indignation ceased in the destruction of his enemies; the little horn broken, and we in blissful ignorance of these stupendous events ever since 1844; to say nothing of the coming of the Lord to accomplish this great work. He must admit that these events mark the termination of the 'time appointed.'"

We admit no such thing; and we challenge the world to show that either the destruction of God's enemies, or the breaking of the little horn, or the coming of the Lord, or any event subsequent thereto, is the cleansing of the sanctuary, or that any of these events mark the termination of the 2300 days. For a full discussion of these points, we refer candid inquirers after the truth (and it is for the benefit of such that this article is principally designed), to works published at this Office.

But our friend grows still more irritable over our mention of his erroneous quotation from the Greek, and says:

"In reference to the seven 'glaring errors in quoting from the Greek,' let it suffice to say that they are simply typographical, and he knows it. If he knows anything, he should know that it is impossible to represent all the Greek characters and aspirates with our alphabet. The aspirates being of no importance, I generally omit the letter H., as it is but a poor substitute for the guttural sound of the Greek. The fifth and tenth words have been mangled by Typo, and the omission and misplacing of the aspirates constitute the 'glaring errors,' all of which having nothing to do with argument, are dragged in for the sole purpose of ousting contempt upon my effort to harmonize the vision with historical facts, and to insinuate ignorance and incompetency on my part."

In the above Mr. H. gives us credit for knowing far more than we claim to know. We were by no means certain that the errors referred to were merely typographical, especially since he requested his article copied into the Gospel Banner, and in that reprint made no correction of those errors. And as to its being "impossible to represent all the Greek characters and aspirates with our alphabet," we can only say that we have felt to place implicit confidence in this respect in the authors of our Greek grammars, who have certainly professed to give in English letters, the exact equivalent of the Greek characters. And as to the letter h. being a poor substitute for the Greek aspirant, both Crosby and Sophocles state that it is represented in English by h, or corresponds to h, or in still stronger language, that the aspirate of the Greek, "in Latin and English, becomes h." And as to the aspirates being of no importance, they are certainly the only distinguishing marks between many Greek words, and just as necessary as the letter h is in our own language.

We showed in our former article that the Septuagint reading of 2400 was incorrect, yet Mr. H., against all evidence, persistently adheres to that reading. On this point he says:

"He next asserts that the number 'is simply a misprint, which has crept into the common version in this country.' To this I reply, that the copy I possess happens to be printed in London, England, and I ask him to produce a copy, printed in any country, that reads 2300. I am well aware that all the Hebrew copies extant read 2300, but in order to settle the question which of the two is a corruption, he must produce the original document."

We did not deny that there might be editions in England or Europe containing the same error as the editions in use in this country. So his flourish over London amounts to nothing. But we did give a statement from Mr. Begg, that the original manuscript in the Vatican from which these editions came, reads 2300 instead of 2400. Is he prepared to dispute this statement? If not, his demand on us for the original documents becomes as stupid as it is pompous. Mr. Begg further states that "of all the standard editions of the Septuagint, that alone from which ours are taken has this error." The evidence on this point, then, is this: 1. All the Hebrew copies read 2300. 2. The manuscript of the Septuagint, in the Vatican, read, 2300. 3. The principal standard editions of the Septuagint read 2300. 4. One edition of the Septuagint printed from the Vatican manuscript, departs from that manuscript and reads 2400 instead of 2300, showing it to be a mere typographical error; and 5. From that edition our copies of the Septuagint have come. What ground does this leave him for his erroneous reading? Not a particle; and no man would endeavor to bolster it up, except through the most dogged obstinacy in adhering to his preconceived notions.

He says again, "We know that our Saviour and his Apostles used and quoted from the Septuagint, and can it be supposed that they would thus countenance the use of a false and erroneous translation of the Prophets." Thus he endeavors to carry the idea that the Septuagint in the Saviour's time, and from its very begining contained this error; whereas the testimony of Dr. Begg shows that this error did not creep into the Septuagint till we come down to an edition printed from the Vatican manuscript, which itself reads 2300. It is thus shown how and when the reading of 2400 got into the Septuagint; yet Mr. H. would carry the impression in the minds of his readers that it existed in the copies used by Christ and his apostles. Here is legerdemain again.

"He continues: 'He accuses me of an 'effort to prolong the days,' by taking the 'benefit of that extra hundred days, with which he would be glad to stretch out the 2300 days.' Now I would ask him if he learned this glaring piece of dishonesty 'in the light of the sanctuary,' where he recommends me to go? If he has, I must beg to be excused from entering such a 'sanctuary.'"

The charge of dishonesty, especially of glaring dishonesty, is somewhat grave in its nature; but then, we always endeavor to take into consideration the pressure under which those labor who are betrayed into such hasty words, and are therefore prepared to make due allowance, and to take all such charges easily. But we fail to see the "dishonesty," and would inquire if he is not endeavoring to prolong the days, making them a hundred years longer than we have been wont to believe. Such certainly appeared to us to be the very object of his article.

He closes his remarks as follows:

"In conclusion, I would just inform him that I read Dr. Litch's Prophetic Expositor twenty years ago, but must confess that I have small faith in the expositions of a man whose calculations have utterly failed, and whose mind is yet darkened by Platonic philosophy; whose conceptions of things have so little to do with the Word, that he is still laboring under the Satanic delusion that the soul that sins shall not die."

We never knew that Dr. Litch published a "Prophetic Expositor." He did publish two volumes of "Prophetic Expositions," from one of which we have quoted. Our friend, it seems, read it twenty years ago; and if he had weighed the testimony and borne it in mind,

instead of losing sight of it for the past twenty years, we venture to say, he might have avoided some errors. But he objects to Dr. Litch on account of his present position; however, it is not the testimony of Dr. Litch that we have quoted, but only what Dr. L. quotes from Dr. Begg. Dr. Begg is the man, then, instead of Dr. Litch. Our friend manifests a singular faculty of mistaking the mark. But even if the testimony was Dr. Litch's, his objection to him is not good. It goes upon the assumption that if a person is in error on one point, he cannot have truth on any other; or, that if we are in error concerning the state of the dead and destiny of the wicked, we cannot have correct views of prophecy. We fail to see any such connection between those doctrines. But have we not all been in error in times past concerning the nature and destiny of man? and because light on this subject has now come, shall we throw away all the truth that we have ever held on other subjects before? This would be singular, indeed.

We cannot close without alluding to the fact that our friend's English seems to be in almost as bad a predicament as his Greek. An example or two will suffice. He opens his article as follows:

"BRO. NEWMAN: I observe an editorial in the Advent Review of Dec. 29th, a marked copy of which has been sent to me, criticizing quite indignantly my last article on the numbers in Dan. viii, 14, and Dan. ix, 26. After having introduced the subject by a short exordium on the consequences of letting go the great 'anchor,' which great anchor he proceeds to inform us is the position established by Adventists in 1844, that the period is 2300 years in length, commenced B. C. 457, and ended A. D. 1844. QUERY: How does he make 457 and 1844 to foot up 2300 unless by such a 'piece of legerdemain' as he accuses me of? One would suppose that the two sums added together should make 2301."

The paragraph ending before the query, the reader will observe, makes no sense. The sense is not complete. The idea is not carried out. He starts off on a line of thought, and then loses it, and goes on to something else, leaving the first unfinished.

Again we read, "Aside from all other considerations, the simple fact of the present copies of Hebrew reading 2300, and those of the Septuagint 2400, the claims of accuracy are about equal. But when we take into consideration the stunning fact that the 2300 period has long since expired (even if we do commence with B. C. 457), and nothing whatever has transpired to mark the termination of the vision in 1844, that the shorter period will not cover it within 100 years; that 2300 will in no wise harmonize with other prophetic periods, and that the description given of the ram does not correspond with the facts of history obtaining at the time the 2300 years are supposed to commence."

Here again we come to a period, but the sentence is not finished, nor the sense complete. Perhaps these sentences were written by him all right, and perhaps his manuscript was carefully and legibly prepared, so that there could be no mistaking it, and perhaps this mangling has also been done by "typo;" and if all this is so, why, then, to say the least, Mr. H. is very unfortunate in his efforts at publication, and should either send his articles to offices where the errors of the "typo" are looked after a little more closely, or insist upon seeing a proof before they go to press. But if he is satisfied with this manner of putting the English language together, or deems it of "no importance," or from any other cause concludes to let it pass, as he appears to have done, no correction having yet appeared, and this article also having been copied into the Gospel Banner, then he would seem to have mistaken his calling in endeavoring to be a teacher through the medium of the press.