The historical date to be investigated in this study has to do with the first substantial clash between the Ottoman (Osmanli) Turks and the troops of the Byzantine Empire ; that is, the first encroachment of Othman, or Osman, and his tribe upon the Oriental border of medieval Europe and its fortified castles. The limited sources extant agree that the invasion began with the Ottoman assault on Bapheum ( Turkish, Kujun-Hissar) a sheep castle, whose protective moat was filled with water from the river Sangarius, flowing not far from Nicome­dia. (Map of territory will be shown in July Ministry.) Nicephorus Gregoras, who 'was contemporary with Othman, writes, "That fight ought to be considered the beginning of destruc­tion to the Romans "¹ (The Byzantine Greeks were wont to call themselves Romans.) Geor­gins Pachymeres, a slightly earlier historian, designates Othman's attack as the "beginning of enormous evils." Later historians have come to the same conclusion—Gibbon, Von Hammer, Zinkeisen.

In the spring of the year the roving young bloods of Asia, brandishing their spears with cries and shouts, would climb the mountains, build a military camp, and try their daring and skill at border plunder and foray. ³ It was sport, not war, but men were now and again killed. And such was the life that young Othman knew, although little is acknowledged with certainty concerning his house of origin. The last dec­ades of the thirteenth century saw Turks and Tartars alike plundering the mountain castles of Asia Minor even to the Aegean shore and the Euxine Sea. ⁴ There was anarchy every­where in Asia Minor at this time. In the four­teenth century one more Scythian advance was made upon the Mediterranean provinces—that of Timur the Lame, or Tamerlane.

Othman did not invade the territory of his Turkish neighbors ; and out of all these terrors of nomadism which were impinged upon medi­eval civilization, his tribe only increased to such a state that for four centuries it continued an empire in Southeastern Europe. The prophecy of the fifth and sixth trumpets appears to be based upon this historical fact. To this tribal invasion of Christian territory, history has as­signed a beginning date ; ⁵ and to the length of time that the Ottoman invaders were to continue their "torment" and ultimate Moslem rule in Christendom, prophecy has assigned an exact period of time. (Rev. 9:5, 15.) In addition, history has also recorded the collapse of this independent Turkish state in Europe, and Tur­key became but a mere line of demarcation be­tween the Near East and its European border.' It remains to point out (I) the unquestionable historical sources with respect to the Turkish invasion ; and (2) to demonstrate the true date for this invasion, which admittedly has marked the beginning of the Turkish era under the trumpets. ⁷

It is not within the province of this study to discuss the interpretation of the symbols ob­viously applied by the prophecy in Revelation 9 to the events of contemporary history. The exactness of the fulfillment of the prediction was declared by the Millerites themselves, and has been definitely stressed by the Spirit of prophecy. This fact lends encouragement to the investiga­tion of the underlying chronology. The Byzan­tine sources are the most important, for Otto­man writers do not appear until the period of the conquest of Constantinople. With reference to the Ottoman historians, Herbert Gibbons writes :

"We must remember that . . . all the Ottoman historians are very late, that they cite no sources upon which to base their assertions or inferences, and that they write with the intention to please, and un­der the necessity of pleasing, the Ottoman court, at a time when its rulers had become so powerful that they could not brook the recording of a humble origin for their royal house."'

Date of the Ottoman Attack

William Miller was apparently the first (in 1831) to tie together the two prophetic periods in Revelation 9—the 150 years and the 391 years and fifteen days—and he forecast an end to the whole period to occur about 1839.⁹ The prediction of Josiah Litch in 1838, pointed to the year 184o, "sometime in the month of Au­gust." ¹⁰ The Milkrites based their deductions upon the historical statement of Edward Gibbon that On July 27, A. D. 1299, "Othman first in­vaded the territory of Nicomedia." ¹¹ Gibbon stresses the date as one of "singular accuracy." About half a century later Joseph von Hammer challenged Gibbon's 1299 date, claiming that the year 1301 was correct for the invasion of Oth­man, and saying that a study limited merely to the Byzantine writers would have corrected his errors. ¹²

It was in the year 1827 that Von Hammer published his Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, in which he opposed Gibbon's date for the invasion of Nicomedia.¹³ A few years later, in a work titled The Signs of the Times, Alexander Keith referred to Von Hammer's criticism:

"Baron von Hammer, whose name carries with it the highest authority in oriental literature and re­searches, has lately corrected this singular error of Gibbon's; and refers to the very authority of Pa­chytner, appealed to by Gibbon, in proof that /301 is the true date. He refers also to other authorities, such as Had[s]chi Chalfa's Chronology.—Geschichte des osrnanischen Reiches, durch von Hammer, vol. I, p. 68, et not. p. 577."¹⁴

The Millerites do not mention any review of either Gibbon's or Von Hammer's authorities, or of the thirteenth century source—Georgius Pachymeres—who appears to be the one con­temporary historian contributing the exact date for Othman's invasion. ¹⁵ However, these early Adventists had in hand Keith's two-volume work in which Von Hammer's criticism was mentioned, and from these volumes were mak­ing numerous selections for their publications. Moreover, in a current Signs of the Times, a writer refers to a possible "1300 or 1301 date" for the attack of Othman. ¹⁶ They must there­fore have been fully cognizant of the criticism against Gibbon.

It is of outstanding significance that the Mill­erites rejected the 1301 date of Von Hammer for Othman's first attack upon the Byzantine border, and deliberately founded their prophetic argument upon the 1299 date proposed by Ed­ward Gibbon. Apparently they do not state why their choice was made, nor discuss error in the 1301 date. The course of events in the Near East ultimately defended their decision. Again and again, throughout the closing period of the 2300 years, these students of prophecy came face to face with similar alternatives. A comparison of the calendars used in thirteenth century practice will show why Von Hammer's 1301 date is wrong.

Von Hammer Errs in Turkish Calendar

It is not necessary to employ the Turkish cal­endar in reconstructing the chronology of Pa­chymeres. We introduce it here merely to aid in pointing out the error in the 1301 date.

The Turkish year was a calculation based upon ob­servation of the moon only, and it was not tied to the solar seasons. Its beginning recedes through the various months of the year, going back to the starting point about every thirty-two years, inasmuch as each year ran short of the solar about ten or eleven days. The calendar is called that of Muharram, which is the name of the first month. The year is designated as A. H., signifiying in the year of the Hegira, that is, from the flight of Mohammed. Much difference of opinion has existed as to the point of time from which the Hegira years should be reckoned, and this has led to a variation in dates in Turkish chronol­ogy. There are numerous standard Hegira tables, all of which agree in their reckoning. Webster's Dic­tionary gives a simple method for computing the corresponding Julian year for any given year of the Hegira. At the time of Othman's attack, and for several subsequent years, the Calendar of Muharram began the year in the fall."

Von Hammer was an Orientalist of repute, but he was not always a careful computer, for he did not prove his dates when it was in his power to do so. In his outline he follows the Turkish chronologer Hadschi Chalfa, who died in the year 1658, and hence is not a source authority. Petrus Possinus, the chronologer and analyst of the Pachymerian volumes, and one with whom Von Hammer checks, also em­ploys the Turkish calendar in his Synopsis. ¹⁸ But he is commonly correct in his Julian dates, for he proves them. However, there are his­torians for this period who err in their use of the Turkish calendar, as Cantemir has pointed out. ¹⁶ We shall cite two statements from Pos­sinus in order to show that he himself had in hand a correct Turkish table:

1. "In the year of the Hegira 700 [A. H.], whose beginning was the 16th day of September, in the year 1300 of the vulgar Christian era," etc. 20

2. "The first day of that year of the Hegira 702 [A. H.] was the 26th of the month of August in the year of 1302 of our era." ²'^.

These two statements and their accompanying dates are in precise agreement with the standard Turkish calendar for our period. The section of the Turkish table to which they belong is here repeated:

(See PDF for Table)

The foregoing section of a standard Hegira table agrees with the statements of Possinus, but not with those of Von Hammer, who, fol­lowing Hadschi Chalfa, chose for the July battle of Bapheum the year 701 A. H.,²³ and equated it with the Julian year 1301. He necessarily ad­mits that the attack on Bapheum occurred in the summer harvest,²⁴ but he overlooked the fact that in 701 A. H., the corresponding Julian year 1301 does not include the month of July, but begins with September. There is no Turk­ish calendar that makes the year 701 A. H. coin­cide with that part of the Christian year 1301 that embraces the month of July. Hence neither Von Hammer nor those who have followed his lead have any authority for the year 1301 as the date of the Ottoman invasion.

These calendar relations are of utmost im­portance to the dates pertaining to the Turkish prophecy. Besides Von Hammer, the Turkish calendar has led into error other historians of note—Zinkeisen and Jorga. They, too, contend that the year 1301 marks the battle of Bapheum between Othman and the Greek commander Muzalo. Jorga (1908) cites Zinkeisen (1840), who in turn cites the sources of Von Hammer (1827). But obviously not one of Von Ham­mer's authorities has a "June 27" date for the at­tack, as found in both Zinkeisen and Jorga ;²⁵ for Von Hammer himself employs the July 27 date of Pachymeres, although he takes his year 1301 from Hadschi Chalfa. We are therefore faced with the problem of proving the year to which Pachymeres' July 27 date belongs. At the same time we shall discover other incontro­vertible evidence why the year 1301 is incorrect for the assault on this particular castle.