Quake Reveals Day of Jesus' Crucifixion
The "all four gospels" is the kind of thing that might sound impressive to someone not acquainted with scholarship on the Gospels because it gives the impression of multiple independent attestation. However, it is consensus in New Testament scholarship that Matthew and Luke knew Mark and were dependent upon Mark for their crucifixion narratives, so this is not independent attestation. Views differ a little on John, but many (like me) think that John knew the Synoptics too.
It's been debated for years, but researchers say they now have a definitive date of the crucifixion.
Jennifer Vegas
The article focuses on a detail in Matthew's story of the crucifixion:
Matt. 27.51: And behold, the veil of the temple was torn into two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook and the rocks split open.
Geologist Jefferson Williams has investigated earthquake activity to see if he can use it to pinpoint the date of Jesus' crucifixion:
To analyze earthquake activity in the region, geologist Jefferson Williams of Supersonic Geophysical and colleagues Markus Schwab and Achim Brauer of the German Research Center for Geosciences studied three cores from the beach of the Ein Gedi Spa adjacent to the Dead Sea.
Varves, which are annual layers of deposition in the sediments, reveal that at least two major earthquakes affected the core: a widespread earthquake in 31 B.C. and an early first century seismic event that happened sometime between 26 A.D. and 36 A.D.
Now I should say at this point I have not been able to consult Williams's work directly, but from this report, it becomes apparent that the research pinpoints the crucifixion to the decade between 26 and 36. Given that the traditions locate Jesus' death during the time when Pontius Pilate was prefect, and given that Pilate was prefect from 26-36, this is not big news. In fact, the precise correlation between Pilate's governorship and the window for the earthquake seems so striking that I wonder whether there is some confusion over the reporting.
Nevertheless, the article goes on to pinpoint the date of Jesus' crucifixion using other means, primarily the work of Colin Humphreys and Graeme Waddington, which dates back to 1985 (see The Date of the Crucfixion). At least on the basis of the reports in the article, then, the earthquake research is only able to locate the crucifixion within the ten year period 26-36, but the older Humphreys and Waddington article is required for more precision.
Several bullet-points are offered in order for the pinpointing:
- All four gospels and Tacitus in Annals (XV,44) agree that the crucifixion occurred when Pontius Pilate was procurator of Judea from 26-36 AD.
- All four gospels say the crucifixion occurred on a Friday.
- All four gospels agree that Jesus died a few hours before the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath (nightfall on a Friday).
- The synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) indicate that Jesus died before nightfall on the 14th day of Nisan; right before the start of the Passover meal.
- John’s gospel differs from the synoptics; apparently indicating that Jesus died before nightfall on the 15th day of Nisan.
The "all four gospels" is the kind of thing that might sound impressive to someone not acquainted with scholarship on the Gospels because it gives the impression of multiple independent attestation. However, it is consensus in New Testament scholarship that Matthew and Luke knew Mark and were dependent upon Mark for their crucifixion narratives, so this is not independent attestation. Views differ a little on John, but many (like me) think that John knew the Synoptics too.
The first three bulletpoints are taken over from the article by Humphreys and Waddington, which also uses the rhetoric of "all four gospels". The latter two bullet points contain errors. The Synoptics appear to place the death of Jesus on the day of Passover, 15 Nisan, and not on 14th. They depict Jesus engaging in the Passover meal at sunset, when the day begins, and being crucified that same day. John does indeed differ from the Synoptics, but not in the way claimed here. John depicts Jesus' death as occurring not on the day of Passover (15th), but on the day before (14th). So either Williams is confused or the journalist is confused or both.
Typically, the same errors are taken over without any checking in other versions of the report, e.g. the Daily Mail.
However, the real problem with this kind of work is that it fails to take seriously the nature of the texts that are being studied. What Matthew appears to be doing here is to rewrite his Marcan source in typical Matthean fashion. Of all the evangelists, Matthew is the one who likes to add earthquakes to his accounts. There is one again at the resurrection (Matt. 28.2). Indeed, one should probably be wary of using the term technical term "earthquake" to describe all of these -- it is the evangelist's way of saying that the earth was shaking and something dramatic was happening. He describes the big storm (Matt. 8.23-27) as a great earthquake (seismos) on the sea.
To take Matthew's "earthquake" as a geological report is to misread his account. The story he is presenting here is one of those that very few New Testament scholars would take seriously as history. It's even read with caution by the most conservative scholars, and for good reason. The Discovery report ends its quotation of Matt. 27.51-2 with the tombs opening, but if it had continued its quotation, the reader would have seen how Matthew goes on to recount what some people call the Zombie Pericope, when bodies come out of the tombs, walk around and meet people. This is not history but legend.
