Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Here are some links. This story made a splash in May 2012.

This is Jefferson Williams' site, article, and appearance in a thread:

http://www.deadseaquake.info/
https://www.academia.edu/6108262/Quake_Article
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... 31667.html

I am the primary author of the research article discussed in this article. We DID NOT determine the date of the crucifixion. This article grossly mischaracterizes our research. We dated an earthquake in Judea to have occurred between 26 and 36 AD based purely on what we saw in the sediments. I created a site to explain this research to the general public. It is http://www.crucifixionquake.info.

I've been told this isn't the first time Discovery News has pulled a stunt like this. Apparently, a large media corporation that purports to explain science to the general public doesn't mind trashing reputations and damaging research as long as it generates clicks and revenue for their site. Who would have thought that a large corporation whose CEO received ~40 million dollars in compensation last year would do such a thing ? (2010 (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2012/12/ceo ... _D9HF.html).

Please visit my site and see if you agree with me. Our article was written by scientists; not believers. Scientists who don't presuppose the outcome with faulty front loaded conclusions.

When this kind of thing happens, this type of research is ceded to Creationists who believe in a 6000 year old earth, a global Noachian flood 5000 years ago, and fail to recognize the brilliance of Charles Darwin in explaining how the fossil record is explained by Natural Selection.

Here are bloggers responding to it:

http://ntweblog.blogspot.ca/2012/05/ear ... jesus.html
http://ntweblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/mo ... jesus.html
http://blog.bibleplaces.com/2012/05/evi ... ixion.html
https://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2012/0 ... ucifixion/
http://rogueclassicism.com/2012/05/26/a ... -outreach/

Here is Steve Austin, creationist geologist, on the same subject:

http://www.icr.org/article/greatest-earthquakes-bible/
https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2012AM/webpr ... 04688.html

The published article by Jefferson Williams does have two co-authors, and it does seem to be worth taking seriously. The conclusions are moderately stated:

This leaves three possibilities for the cause of the 26–36 AD earthquake observed in the Ein Gedi section:(1) the earthquake described in the Gospel of Matthew occurred more or less as reported; (2) the earthquake described in the Gospel of Mathewwas in effect ‘borrowed’ from an earthquake that occurred sometime before or after the crucifixion, but during the reign of Pontius Pilate;(3) the earthquake described in the Gospel of Matthew is allegorical fiction and the 26–36 AD seismite was caused by an earthquake that is not reported in the currently extant historical record.

The second option from Williams seems to match what Kris is asking about. Of course we have no very strong reason to arbitrate between explanations (2) and (3).

Unfortunately, there does seem to be some degree of plausibility to the suggestion that the counting of the varves has been fitted to the chronology of Pilate, as discerned in this quote from the article:

This places the above-postulated 31 AD earthquake within the 26–36 AD window (31±5 years) when Pontius Pilate was Procurator of Judea and the earthquake of the crucifixion is historically constrained.

The critical passage about the varve counting is here:

A varve quality index is defined below.

1. Discontinuous ambiguous clastic layer.
2. Clearly identifiable clastic layer but thickness estimate is not very accurate.
3. Well-preserved varve with good accurate estimate of thickness.

Every counted varve was assigned an index value of 1, 2,or 3. For the purpose of this study, where the goal is accurate chronological dating, a varve quality index value of 1 indicates that the varve is somewhat suspect and a varve quality index of 2 or higher indicates that the varve count is regarded as fairly certain. In the 62 years counted from 31 BC to 31 AD, 36 (58%) had a varve quality rating of 1 and 26 (42%) had a varve quality rating of 2 or higher.

However, as seen from the fact that the exact center of 31 AD is used, no uncertainty due to the uncertainty of varve counting has entered the final estimate. All the counted varves have been used in the 62 year difference between 31 BC and 32 AD, including all 36 varves that had a quality rating of 1. Instead a margin of error has been assigned based on other considerations:

One way to determine the accuracy of this estimateis to compare the varve-counting accuracy of this studywith that of Migowski (2001), who counted varves in thesame core. Since both investigations independently cameup with similar dates for the early first-century earth-quake (31 AD vs.
∼
33 AD in Migowski (2001)), this isconsidered to be a valid comparison. Between two well-defined ‘anchor’ earthquakes of 31 BC and 1293 AD,Migowski (2001) counted 1324 varves. Of these, 94 yearswere masked by earthquake deformation. Inasmuch asMigowski (2001) used varve counts in the masked intervalsto match her varve-counted year to historically documented earthquakes, the number of masked years in the 1324-year interval represents a combination of deformed layersand adjustments in the varve count to account for errorsin varve counting; 94 years out of 1324 years amountsto 7.1%. Assuming a worst case scenario that the entiremasked varve count is due to varve-counting errors, 7.1%of the 62-year interval between 31 BC and 31 AD amountsto 4.4 years. Rounding up, this means that for any givenearthquake between 31 BC and 31 AD, the dating pos-sesses an accuracy of at least
±
5 years. This places theabove-postulated 31 AD earthquake within the 26–36 ADwindow (31
±
5 years) when Pontius Pilate was Procurator ofJudeaandtheearthquakeofthecrucifixionishistoricallyconstrained.

I'm not a geologist, but a few things about this concern me:

1. There is no reference to existing standard methods in assigning a margin of error here. Instead the author works out what the margin of error should be, based on a simple ratio, based on a single comparison, and that involving two teams working on the same problems. It seems like it would be possible for geologists to have a better consensus about this subject, whether they already have one or will develop one, with better foundations.

2. There still is no strong reason to accept 31 AD as the center on which the margin of error should be calculated. For example, this other person came up with 33 AD as their count, presumably by counting 64 varves from the 31 BC earthquake recorded by Josephus. What this illustrates is that we still haven't eliminated the inaccuracy that can come from the way of counting varves. If 33 AD were the center, which seems just as legitimate on the face of it, then the 5-year margin of error would exclude 26-27 AD while including 37-38 AD, which means that we haven't included the full range of plausible dates when using the exact count and tight range that Williams does.

3. In order to represent that possible inaccuracy, one simple suggestion is to round off to the nearest decade point (20, 30, 40, etc.) and add 5 years to the margin of error. This would avoid giving the impression of having more accuracy than we can actually have. This would give us 30 AD +/- 10 years instead.

I wonder whether Williams' work has been reviewed with a response by other geologists.

I tend to think if there was an earthquake at the time of the crucifixion, it would have been made more prominent in early Christian statements of faith. Its allegorical function in the gospels is pretty obvious I think. Of course there's nothing impossible about the idea that Jesus was just a run of the mill crucified lestes who, by chance, had a large earthquake accompany his execution, which was taken as a "sign". We'll never know.

That's a good point. If it were an important historical 'sign', then we have to explain its non-existence in the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John.

On the other hand, the 'prior' probability that it's made up seems fairly high. We have enough examples inside and outside of the New Testament of earthquakes being written into stories in order to emphasize the divine intervention taking place. Also relevant, in the Gospel of Matthew, is the close proximity of the earthquake claim to the raising of the saints claim, and the opening of their tombs, to which Williams understandably does not appeal. He does appeal to the rending of the temple curtain, but even the geologist is circumspect enough to notice that this tearing of the curtain also occurs in Mark and Luke, where there is no earthquake, thus suggesting it might have nothing to do with a historical earthquake and everything to do with the symbolism of the claim.

Williams rules out a few other candidates based not only on their dating but also on the idea that they were too far away at their epicentre:

(1) a presumed submarine earthquake with an epicen-tre off the coast of modern-day Lebanon near the port city of Sidon in 19 AD (Turcotte and Arieh1993);
(2) a 37 AD earthquake with an epicentre close to Antioch, Syria (Guidoboni et al. 1994);

It's worth mentioning that many believe that the Gospel of Matthew was written in or near Antioch, Syria. Could it be an oral tradition regarding this 37 AD earthquake after all that has led to the inclusion of this story? Well, maybe, if it's not just invented.

However, it is possible that a non-historically reported earthquake created the 26–36 AD seismite.

Earthquakes are not exactly unusual in general. This possibility must be considered a viable one.

Didn't Halley's Comet make an appearance at a key time, too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet

1P/−239 K1, −239 (25 May 240 BC)
1P/−163 U1, −163 (12 November 164 BC)
1P/−86 Q1, −86 (6 August 87 BC)
1P/−11 Q1, −11 (10 October 12 BC)
1P/66 B1, 66 (25 January 66 AD)
1P/141 F1, 141 (22 March 141)
1P/218 H1, 218 (17 May 218)
1P/295 J1, 295 (20 April 295)
1P/374 E1, 374 (16 February 374)
1P/451 L1, 451 (28 June 451)
1P/530 Q1, 530 (27 September 530)
1P/607 H1, 607 (15 March 607)
1P/684 R1, 684 (2 October 684)
1P/760 K1, 760 (20 May 760)
1P/837 F1, 837 (28 February 837)
1P/912 J1, 912 (18 July 912)
1P/989 N1, 989 (5 September 989)
1P/1066 G1, 1066 (20 March 1066)
1P/1145 G1, 1145 (18 April 1145)
1P/1222 R1, 1222 (28 September 1222)
1P/1301 R1, 1301 (25 October 1301)
1P/1378 S1, 1378 (10 November 1378)
1P/1456 K1, 1456 (9 June 1456)
1P/1531 P1, 1531 (26 August 1531)
1P/1607 S1, 1607 (27 October 1607)
1P/1682 Q1, 1682 (15 September 1682)
1P/1758 Y1, 1759 I (13 March 1759, predicted by Halley)
1P/1835 P1, 1835 III (16 November 1835)
1P/1909 R1, 1910 II, 1909c (20 April 1910)
1P/1982 U1, 1986 III, 1982i (9 February 1986)
Next perihelion predicted 28 July 2061

https://blogs.stsci.edu/livio/2013/03/1 ... 99s-comet/

Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Hanania enters this astronomical story through an intriguing anecdote in the tractate Horayoth (“rulings”) in the Talmud—the central Rabbinic text. The passage reads as follows:

Rabbi Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua went together on a voyage at sea. Rabbi Gamliel carried a supply of bread, Rabbi Yehoshua carried a similar amount of bread and in addition a reserve of flour. At sea, they used up the entire supply of bread and had to utilize Rabbi Yehoshua’s flour reserve. Rabbi Gamliel then asked Rabbi Yehoshua: “Did you know that this trip would be longer than usual, when you decided to carry this flour reserve?” Rabbi Yehoshua answered: “There is a star that appears every 70 years and induces navigation errors. I thought it might appear and cause us to go astray.” Rabbi Gamliel then exclaimed: “You are so knowledgeable and you nevertheless have to travel to make a living?” Rabbi Yehoshua then answered bitterly: “How come you are so surprised? Don’t you know that two of your own students Rabbi Eliezer Hisma and Rabbi Yehohanan Ben Gudgada who are so smart that they can tell you how many drops there are in the ocean, have neither bread to eat nor clothes to wear?”

This surprising story is generally interpreted as evidence that Mishnaic scholars knew about the periodic return of Halley’s Comet. If true, then they might have obtained the astronomical records from the preceding Great Knesset scholars (active before 300 BCE), who had probably learned about it during the Babylonian exile (in the 6th century BCE). The fact is that the visits of Halley’s Comet in both 164 BCE and 87 BCE were recorded on Babylonian tablets.

http://reginamag.com/the-ancient-myster ... bethlehem/

In A.D. 66, Halley’s Comet was recorded by Flavius Josephus as “hanging over Jerusalem like a bloody sword”; the first Jewish-Roman war began that year.

Jewish Wars 6.5.3
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /war6.html

Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus,[Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it. At the same festival also, a heifer, as she was led by the high priest to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple. Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner (22) [court of the] temple, which was of brass, and vastly heavy, and had been with difficulty shut by twenty men, and rested upon a basis armed with iron, and had bolts fastened very deep into the firm floor, which was there made of one entire stone, was seen to be opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night.

https://gilgamesh42.wordpress.com/2014/ ... bethlehem/

Nordgren also provides the hypothesis that the comet of Bethlehem was really Halley’s comet seen in 66 CE, providing an inspiration to the creation of the story. This is given a considerable amount of air-time, but it doesn’t seem to connect with any of the other talking heads who don’t talk about the hypothesis and so it stands out from the rest of the show. As for its plausibility, I discuss that in my book. It is not likely the best explanation for the creation of the story, but it has received consideration by Raymond Brown, so it deserves attention even if it is dismissed.

All of these hypotheses require due caution.

Thanks so much for all of the awesome posts-- I was so excited when I check the site and there were a bunch of posts. I am going to read through everything and see what all of you had to say-- particularly Peter!! Thanks for looking into this and sharing your thoughts!

Thanks for bringing this stuff to our attention.

Cheers, Peter!

Peter Kirby wrote:

Jewish Wars 6.5.3
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text ... /war6.html

Thus were the miserable people persuaded by these deceivers, and such as belied God himself; while they did not attend nor give credit to the signs that were so evident, and did so plainly foretell their future desolation, but, like men infatuated, without either eyes to see or minds to consider, did not regard the denunciations that God made to them. Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year. Thus also before the Jews' rebellion, and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month Xanthicus,[Nisan,] and at the ninth hour of the night, so great a light shone round the altar and the holy house, that it appeared to be bright day time; which lasted for half an hour. This light seemed to be a good sign to the unskillful, but was so interpreted by the sacred scribes, as to portend those events that followed immediately upon it.

Here is my terrible attempt to make sense of the text:

Whiston's Translation (1828 ed.)	Greek Text (Niese ed., 1890)	MY Poor Crib Translation
6:289 Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year.	6:289 τοῦτο μὲν ὅτε ὑπὲρ τὴν πόλιν ἄστρον ἔστη	6:289 This, on the one hand, when above the city a star stood,
.	ῥομφαίᾳ παραπλήσιον	resembling a sword,
.	καὶ παρατείνας ἐπ᾽ ἐνιαυτὸν	and extended almost a year,
.	κομήτης	a comet (long haired).
6:290 Thus also, before the Jews' rebellion,	6:290 τοῦτο δ᾽ ἡνίκα πρὸ τῆς ἀποστάσεως	6:290 This, on the other hand, at which time before the rebellion,
and before those commotions which preceded the war, when the people were come in great crowds	καὶ τοῦ πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον κινήματος ἀθροιζομένου τοῦ λαοῦ	and the towards the war moved to come together the people,
to the feast of unleavened bread, on the eighth day of the month of Xanthikos [Nisan],	πρὸς τὴν τῶν ἀζύμων ἑορτήν ὀγδόη δ᾽ ἦν Ξανθικοῦ μηνός	towards the unleavened bread the feast eighth but is Xanthikos month
and at the ninth hour of the night,	κατὰ νυκτὸς ἐνάτην ὥραν	during night ninth hour
so great a light shone around the altar and the holy house,	τοσοῦτο φῶς περιέλαμψε τὸν βωμὸν καὶ τὸν ναόν	a great light shone about the alter and the temple
that it appeared to be bright daytime;	ὡς δοκεῖν ἡμέραν εἶναι λαμπράν	as to seem daytime to be bright
which lasted for half an hour.	καὶ τοῦτο παρέτεινεν ἐφ᾽ ἡμίσειαν ὥραν	and this extended as far as a half hour

DCH