Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Peter Kirby wrote: 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.

TedM wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote: 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.

So, what's the next step -- drop it or dig further?

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.