The Gospel of Matthew describes an earthquake during Jesus’ Crucifixion. Sediment disturbances mentioned in a recent article in the International Geology Review points to the Biblical earthquake and may give a concrete date of the crucifixion. Painting by James Jacques Tissot.
According to the Gospel of Matthew, an earthquake shook Jerusalem on the day of Jesus’ crucifixion. A new study of cores and seismic activity near the Dead Sea in the latest issue of International Geology Review* may provide scientific data relating to the event described in Matthew 27. Moreover, a recent report by Discovery News suggested** that the new research on sediment disturbances can be combined with Biblical, astronomical and calendrical information to give a precise date of the crucifixion: Friday, April 3rd, 33 C.E.
Matthew 27:50-54 reads:
“Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised. After his resurrection they came out of the tombs and entered the holy city and appeared to many. Now when the centurion and those with him, who were keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were terrified and said, ‘Truly this man was God’s Son!’”
Geologists Jefferson B. Williams, Markus J. Schwab and A. Brauer examined disturbances in sediment depositions to identify two earthquakes: one large earthquake in 31 B.C.E., and another, smaller quake between 26 and 36 C.E. In the abstract of their paper, the authors write, “Plausible candidates include the earthquake reported in the Gospel of Matthew, an earthquake that occurred sometime before or after the crucifixion and was in effect ‘borrowed’ by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, and a local earthquake between 26 and 36 AD that was sufficiently energetic to deform the sediments at Ein Gedi but not energetic enough to produce a still extant and extra-biblical historical record. If the last possibility is true, this would mean that the report of an earthquake in the Gospel of Matthew is a type of allegory.”
In our free eBook Easter: Exploring the Resurrection of Jesus, expert Bible scholars and archaeologists offer in-depth research and reflections on this important event. Discover what they say about the story of the resurrection, the location of Biblical Emmaus, Mary Magdalene at the empty tomb, the ancient Jewish roots of bodily resurrection, and the possible endings of the Gospel of Mark.
The geologists compared their findings with Biblical information, including the chronology of the reign of Pontius Pilate, the Gospels’ accounts of the crucifixion occurring on a Friday evening, and the Synoptic Gospel account that Jesus died just before Passover on the 15th day of Nisan. Using this Biblical information in conjunction with the geological report, the author of the Discovery News story reasoned that Friday April 3, 33 C.E. is the most likely date of the crucifixion.*** While there are no direct extant archaeological artifacts relating to Jesus’ crucifixion, the disturbances in soil deposition may reflect the earthquake described by Matthew. This quake, occurring during Jesus’ crucifixion, would have been too minor to be described by non-Biblical histories, but major enough to terrify the surrounding centurions.
Curious about what archaeology can tell us about Roman crucifixion? Read Hershel Shanks’s “Scholars’ Corner: New Analysis of the Crucified Man” as it appeared in Biblical Archaeology Review today in Bible History Daily.
Notes
* Williams, Jefferson B., Markus J Schwab and A. Brauer. “An early first-century earthquake in the Dead Sea” International Geology Review, Volume 54, Issue 10, 2012.
** “Day of Jesus’ Crucifixion Believed Determined.” Discovery News
*** Update: Geologist Jefferson Williams responded to Bible History Daily about the online attention given to the geological study. Bible History Daily has updated the article to reflect his commentary, and has copied a portion of his comment here that clarifies the initial report (read the full comment in the comments section below):
“I am the primary author of the research article and the original Discovery Article grossly misrepresented our work… Our article had very little to do with the date of the crucifixion. The article discussed Earthquake Geology and primarily how we arrived at a date for this earthquake (31 AD +/- 5 years). Because of uncertainties associated with the text of Matthew 27, we departed from previous Dead Sea Paleoseismology and dated the earthquake based purely on what we saw in the sediments. We then used an article by Humphreys and Waddington to compare our earthquake date with the date range of the crucifixion and the two years most commonly cited; 30 AD and 33 AD. If I had a do-over, I never would have mentioned those years since the only relevant textual information for our 3 conclusions was the date range of 26-36 AD. We are not New Testament Scholars and did not try to add textual information to come up with an exact date. Unfortunately, that was the impression of the Discovery article and this spread all over the internet.”
Permalink: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/crucifixion/jesus%e2%80%99-crucifixion-reflected-in-soil-deposition/
Previous
What day would have this been on a lunar Calendar?
Does the suggested date take into account the Gregorian reform of the Roman calendar? That is, is this supposed to be April 3rd or April 13th?
Why do you all want to change BC Before Christ to BCE….Is Christ that awful that He has to be eliminated from everything…What was so wrong with BC, and AD except that Christ was infolved?
The geologists’ chronological certainty seems unfounded. Matthew explicitly reports strong seismic activity as the occasions of both the storm on the Sea of Galilee Jesus stilled in 8:24 (seismos megas) and the moving of the stone sealing Jesus’ tomb and in 28:2 (seismos . . . megas). In 27:51, he reports that the earth was shaken (he gE eseisthE) and stones split, but does not use the adjective “great” as in the other references.
Comments #1 and #2 are good ones. I suspect that the article would have taken into account the lunar calendar and the Gregorian reform. I hope to find the magazine and read further!!
For the 33 C.E. to be accurate Jesus would have been 38-39 yrs old. According to the Notes in the NIV John the Baptist was born in 7 B.C., Jesus 6 months later. The year of the quake in 26 C.E. may be more accurate being that Jesus would have been 31-32 yrs. old at crucifixion. The flight to Egypt and the death of Herrod should support Jesus being born BEFORE. 5-6 Before C.E.
Something that must be taken into account is the words of Jesus Christ as written in Matthew 12:39-40. I quote: “39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” (KJV) And, according to Matthew 28:1 “1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” (KJV) Remember, this was written by a Jew about Jews. The Jewish calendar starts a new day at sundown. So, the sabbath ends at sundown, Saturday. And, we know from other passages, that Christ was crucified on Passover and was resurrected on the Feast of Firstfruits. The Feast of Firstfuits starts on the day after the sabbath after Passover. Which means it always starts sundown on the Saturday after the Passover. In order to fulfill what Christ said, Passover would have had to occur on a Wednesday. He would be in the ground Wednesday night, Thursday day, Thursday night, Friday day, Friday night, Saturday day. That’s 3 days and 3 nights. His resurrection most likely occurred shortly after sundown on a Saturday. So, you are looking for a year when Passover started on sundown Tuesday.
#7 is interesting, and he recounts an old, or minority, argument about the timing of Passover. The only Wednesday passover between 26 and 36 AD was March 24 of 34 A.D. According to Humphreys and Waddington, this date is too late, considering the timing of Paul’s conversion which they feel can be confidently dated to AD 34.. I have heard–though there are disagreements–that part of a day constituted a “day” in the era of the NT.
Thus, the part of a day that remained on Frieday April 3 constituted a “day,” followed by night and then Saturday the 2nd day, and on Sunday, just after sunrise would be the third day. Durant, of course, said this is “two days,” but there are others who argue that this constiutes the three days. There are many arguments for April 3 of 33 AD that make sense–incl\ the info about Pilate being in hot water after the death of Sejanuis. Three days and three nights? Hagner in WBC noted that the comparison with the Jonah experience was not quite exact in a variety of ways—i.e., Jonah did not die as Jesus did and “the early Church described Jesus as being active… between his death and resurrection” ciitng I Peter and Eph. The lack of exact likeness between the two is an obsession of “some modern interpreters,” and did not bother the early Church. But still—interesting to hear other views!
The article is promoted in a way that gives the impression of greater possibility of accuracy over the dating than the given margin for at least the smaller quake allows. Jesus died in AD 30, not least because the Talmud, suggestively for gospel accounts, recorded things started to go wrong in the Temple 40 yrs before the temple was destroyed. That’s not 33 AD. Apart from various arguments for 30 AD there is the celestial evidence. There are certain patterns associated with quakes. Astrologers wisely don’t normally predict quakes as the typical signs are precisely typical and the pattern need not accompany tremors every time though typical signs should be present when they do occur. Thus as pointed out by the AFA recently May 20th’s Italian quake showed showed Pluto suitably angular and in affliction to Uranus at the time of the recent main Italian quake. This is the kind of pattern one would expect. On 6th April 30 AD Pluto was angular, afflicted and opposite Saturn within a pattern that would very much accompany quaking and is overall so painful it would also reflect a world historical death.
I am only writing this because someone has prodded me into doing so, but frankly, as a doctor or religious studies I am almost too weary to bother making any comment after nearly a quarter century of confronting what is the dismissive intellectual snobbery of some, the fundamentalist biblical prejudices of others, the insulting indifference and cheap scepticism of publishing, media, which is preventing major data regarding Christ being known to the world because of prejudices regarding “astrology” – I must regrettably include Biblical Archaeology itself in this which a few years back published on the Magi and then refused an invitation to even look at the evidence of astro-archaeology now published as “Testament of the Magi” (see Amazon). I use the NRSV so wasn’t aware re the NIV note cited in this debate but it is correct if it makes out the year of Christ’s birth to be 7 BC and the crucifixion AD 30. And if one pursues the related line of inquiry opened up by the D’Occhieppo/Hughes theses on ancient astronomy/astrology then one can arrive at a clearly expressive, unmistakable pattern for Christ’s birth and life such as ancient Magi would understand but which recent knowledge can dramatically embellish. It can do so to such exactitude that Christ’s house of origins following traditional magian ideas can even reveal such as the names of his ancestors (using asteroids not seen or named till modern times but necessarily true because once into the magian universe all time is one). The data works to this day as when the impossibly combined natal James conjunct Part of Brothers was hit off at the time of the discovery of the James Ossuary. It all works except that scientism hasn’t the will or humility to consider such things might work. It would disturb too many ideas so it has to be wrong, therefore it must be rejected and dismissed (rather like Christ himself one might say – “no room at the inn!). Not even astrologers are much interested if for rather different reasons – as one put it to me the picture I was dealing in was too close for comfort, so intimately revealing it was frightening, they would prefer the icon. But I think that would go for most people to a degree. Keep looking for Jesus, making noises about finds but never quite wanting the core revelations, journey rather than arrive. David Hughes has not even wished to look at the astrological confirmation and enlargement of his own theories despite the Society of Authors, his own publisher, one of my editors who knew him, all asking him to get in touch in addition to my own occasional emails over the years. Sadly I have even read (in an article of the Flamsteed Astronomical Society in London) that Hughes only went into his researches on the Bethlehem Star on the offer of big bucks and certainly he regularly hogs media on this subject while I who entered the arena for truth and now dispose of vastly more detail of public interest, am excluded. If this message is not ignored or condemned I should be surprised, it would only fit the usual pattern. But I can only say people questing for evidence about Jesus need to examine themselves. What are you doing it for, how and why?
I am the primary author of the research article and the original Discovery Article grossly misrepresented our work. While this is one of the better rewrites of the Discovery article the line “Using this data in conjunction with the geological report, the authors of the study reasoned that Friday April 3, 33 C.E. is the most likely date of the crucifixion.” is not true. Our article had very little to do with the date of the crucifixion. The article discussed Earthquake Geology and primarily how we arrived at a date for this earthquake (31 AD +/- 5 years). Because of uncertainties associated with the text of Matthew 27, we departed from previous Dead Sea Paleoseismology and dated the earthquake based purely on what we saw in the sediments. We then used an article by Humphreys and Waddington to compare our earthquake date with the date range of the crucifixion and the two years most commonly cited; 30 AD and 33 AD. If I had a do-over, I never would have mentioned those years since the only relevant textual information for our 3 conclusions was the date range of 26-36 AD. We are not New Testament Scholars and did not try to add textual information to come up with an exact date. Unfortunately, that was the impression of the Discovery article and this spread all over the internet.
Foremost, in between, and bottom line, ” HE IS RISEN”.. We serve a RISEN, LIVING, SAVIOR, GOD.
Thank you 7. Even Daniel acknowledged that the Messiah would be “cut off” in the midst of the week…..and which day is the ‘midst’ of the week???
Why do religious people seek tangible proof of Biblical events to shore up their faith? Remember what Jesus said to doubting Thomas–”Blessed are they, etc.” I think that those who seek tangible proof of Biblical events are sure to run into unresolvable contradictions–if anything, it shakes the underpinnings of the faith. The writers of the gospel were writing scripture for believers, not scientific texts.
Let’s not forget the types and shadows of the Jewish Festivals, 10th of Nisan , 14th Nisan, and the Firstfruits after the Sabbath Week..Should explain it all…..