II. How Miller First Fixed Upon the Year “1843”

Miller’s first recorded declaration concerning the year “1843” appeared in his early statement of faith, dated September 5, 1822. It was without particularization, argument, or evidence regarding the beginning date of the 2300 years, or the relationship of this longer, over-all period to the lesser 70 weeks of years. It merely anticipated the second advent in a general way, as coming at the close of the 2300 years—“on, or before 1843.” ^{1See p. 463.}PFF4 789.1

Miller fixed upon the year “1843” by means of the premise that the crucifixion marks the close of the “seventy weeks,” or 490 year-days. Then, from the total of 490 years he simply subtracted A.D. 33, which he understood to be the probable date of the cross. And this, in turn, yielded 457 B.C. as their beginning, his formula being 490-33=457. These commonly accepted dates appeared in most King James Bible margins of the day-that is, A.D. 33 for the crucifixion, and 457 B.C. for the seventh year of Artaxerxes. A paralleling subtraction formula (of 2300-457=1843) then led him to the logical closing date for the 2300 years. And this, he thought, led up to and involved the second advent.PFF4 789.2

But for over a decade before the actual Jewish year “1843” began, Miller realized that the prophesied 2300th year would not end until sometime in the common, civil, calendar year 1844, for he reckoned “1843” to be on the basis of the “Jewish sacred year,” which he understood extended from spring to spring. This he calculated as approximately from equinox to equinox, or March 21, 1843, to March 21, 1844. ^{2William Miller, “Synopsis of Miller’s Views,” Signs of the Times, Jan. 25, 1843, p. 147. Actually, there never was a Jewish luni-solar year extending from equinox to equinox, which is simply an equinoctial solar year. The Jewish “sacred year” gauged their annual series of typical feasts. This ran from spring to spring, originating in the stipulation of the months was from the spring, beginning with Nisan.} However, it was not until Miller’s “Jewish year 1843” ran out (in the spring of 1844) that the great majority of the Millerites began to pay serious heed to a few insistent voices in their midst. ^{3Such as Bliss: “If, therefore, the 2300 years began at a given point in the year 457 B.C. they will not end until the same point is reached A.D. 1844.” (Bliss. “Chronology,” Signs of the Times, June 21, 1843, p. 123.)} (See Exhibit C.) These had been trying to demonstrate that 2300 years from 457 B.C. would terminate over in the Jewish year “1844,” not within the year “1843.” ^{4The reason for this subtraction fallacy is that the year immediately before A.D. 1 is B.C. 1. There is no zero year. Hence, simple subtraction cannot be used in reckoning from B.C. to A.D. in chronology. Astronomers have a different method of computing that avoids this inconvenience. (See Prophetic Faith, Vol. II, p. 431, note.)}PFF4 789.3

Picture 1: MILLERITE CALCULATION OF STRUCTURAL DATES OF BASIC 2300-YEAR PERIOD
Exhibit A (upper): progressive revisions by Miller and associates of the three key dates of the 2300-year prophecy, Occurring between the years 1822 and 1844. The heavy lower line represents the considered and final position or exposition, in the seventh-month movement. Their findings were the result of years of patient and intensive research exhibit C (center): diagram showing Miller’s early erroneous dating for the Jewish Sacred year “1843,” as from equinox (march 21, 1843) to equinox (march 21, 1844), in relation to the gregorian years, and then showing the final revision, After much study, to April 19, 1844, as the first day of the first month (Nisan) of the year “1844.” This was based on the restored mosaic reckoning, Brought to their attention by the karaite calendation exhibit D (Lower): synchronization of the first and seventh Jewish months (Nisan and Tishri), With our April and October, and the method of calculating the time between the passover (Nisan 14) and the day of atonement (Tishri 10)
Page 791PFF4 791

The Millerites were hardly to be censured for falling into such a subtraction error when it seemed to have been supported by the then-standard Bible marginal dates for the 490 years. Nor were they either the first or the last to stumble into this technical pitfall. Most prophetic expositors before them had usually so reckoned. ^{5See the chart in Vol. Ill, p. 744.} And even the chronologist Hales, upon whom the Millerites first came to rely so strongly, had himself slipped into the straight subtraction error for the 2300 days. And this was even after explaining in the same book the fallacy of such a method! Modern scholars even yet occasionally trip over this from sheer inattention.PFF4 791.1