A Telegraph article makes an interesting claim, in a discussion about the Shroud of Turin:

However a new study claims than an earthquake in Jerusalem in 33AD may have not only created the image but may also have skewed the dating results. The Italian team believes the powerful magnitude 8.2 earthquake would have been strong enough to release neutron particles from crushed rock.

And, USA Today reports something very similar:

...where Italian researchers suggest that an 8.2-magnitude earthquake that rocked Jerusalem in 33AD both formed the image and distorted the results of radiocarbon dating...

Ignoring the question of the age of the Shroud of Turin, the specificity of the magnitude 8.2 earthquake makes me ask - are there extant records of such an earthquake, or is the journal suggesting that there was an earthquake, and had it been magnitude 8.2, you have seen the effects in this shroud?

Obviously, the Biblical resurrection account mentions the earthquake, but is there any other corroboration?

  • 1
    Are you asking specifically about the precision of the date and Richter magnitude? Or are you asking about the possibility of evidence of a large earthquake in the (non-Biblical) historical and archeological records? (Also, the Shroud of Turin angle seems like it's a red herring to the question itself.) Commented Feb 12, 2014 at 22:04
  • Related: skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1052/…
    – Sklivvz
    Commented Feb 12, 2014 at 22:48
  • @JonEricson I agree the Shroud of Turin thing is a bit of red herring - it was just the context in which this earthquake appears to have been sourced. I've long wondered if the earthquakes mentioned in the Biblical account had any external corroboration. Commented Feb 13, 2014 at 0:11
  • "the Biblical resurrection account mentions the earthquake"...the Biblical account also mentions an earthquake at the time of Jesus death. I would be surprised to find extra-Biblical evidence for it (esp. 2000 years after the event).
    – x457812
    Commented Jan 30, 2016 at 1:11
  • 1
    Also there is some evidence that Jesus was not born year 1, and therefore his death (at the age of 33.5) would not have been year 33.
    – x457812
    Commented Jan 30, 2016 at 1:19

1 Answer 1


The paper that sparked the news story states in its conclusion:

Considering the historical documents attesting the occurrence in the “Old Jerusalem” of a disastrous earthquake in 33 A.D., the authors assume that a seismic event with magnitude ranging from the 8th to the 9th degree in the Richter scale could have produced a thermal neutron flux of up to 1010 cm−2 s−1.

The historical documents cited are:

  • NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center "Significant Earthquake Database"

    While it does list a number of earthquakes in the first century, the evidence for each is widely diverse. The August 24, 79 A.D. Naples earthquake is well documented since it coincided with the eruption of Vesuvius. The 33 A.D. earthquake in Palestine seems to have far less documentation. The two sources indicate:

    33 A.D., Bithynia and Palestine. At the crucifixion. The city of Nisaea was destroyed. (reference #521)

    33 A.D., Palestine, Jerusalem. (reference #1222)


    Catalogue of Recorded Earthquakes from 1606 B.C. to A.D. 1850, Part I, 1606 B.C. to 1755 A.D. Report of the 22nd Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Hull, Sept., 1853, John Murray, London, p. 1-176.


    Historical seismicity of the Arab region. IASPEI/UNESCO Working Group on Historical Seismograms and Earthquakes, August 27-28, 1985, Tokyo; Preliminary Proceedings, p. 59-84.

    It's not at all clear (without reading those reports) where each got its data. One might expect the second used the first as a baseline. It's possible the 1853 catalogue used the Gospel accounts.

  • Thallus

    We only have only have fragments of his third book of histories via Sextus Julius Africanus' History of the World, which has also been lost. However, Africanus was quoted by George Syncellus, who disputed Thallus' apparent claim that the darkness reported at the same time was an eclipse. There is some doubt that Thallus was writing about the Crucifixion event at all.

  • The Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea

    I've had some difficulty finding out much about this document, except that it appears to be legend, not history. In The Apocryphal Gospels: Texts and Translations Bart Ehrman and Zlatko Plese date the work between the 4th and 12th century. Therefore, it was likely influenced by Matthew's accounts.

  • Dante's Inferno

  • Ambraseys N (2005) Historical earthquakes in Jerusalem: a methodological discussion. J Seismol 9:329–340

    I don't have access to this myself, but the article helpfully notes:

    Modern writers say that Jerusalem is situated relatively close to the active Dead Sea Fault zone. They accept the occurrence of the Resurrection earthquake, to which they assign the severity of a catastrophic event, characterized by a local magnitude ML = 8.2, as well as of another earthquake that took place in Bithynia, during the same period, that would have had even a greater magnitude.

    (Details of "local scale" may be found on Wikipedia's Richter magnitude scale article.)

    But the abstract of the paper cited reads in part:

    However, as we go further back in time before our era, the historical record gradually disappears and the archaeological record takes over. Unfortunately, the archaeological record is too coarse and ambiguous, without any precise internal archaeological indicators. Dating is based on, or influenced by the very few historical records, such as in the Bible and inscriptions, which provide an example of how their assumed accuracy may influence archaeologists' interpretation and dating. Quite often this develops into a circular process in which archaeological assumptions or theories are transformed into facts and used by earth scientists to confirm the dates and size of their proposed events. In this article we discuss the problems that arise when Biblical and archaeological information is used at face value to assess earthquakes in the Holy Land. This combination may produce earthquakes of hypothetical location and of grossly exaggerated magnitude with consequences for the assessment of seismic hazard.

    Therefore the paper used to obtain the oddly specific local magnitude of 8.2 seems to express caution about the evidence for the dates and sizes of earthquake reports like "Old Jerusalem".


It seems likely that all the evidence for an earthquake at the time of the Crucifixion is derived from the Gospel of Matthew. The authors of "Is the Shroud of Turin in relation to the Old Jerusalem historical earthquake?" seem to have over-estimated the strength of evidence for such an event. It is perhaps worthwhile to note that conclusions of the paper depend on the precise timing and strength of the quake.

  • 2
    And, if I may add, overestimated be 10 times at least! A 9th degree event is described as "near-to-total destruction with 50k deaths", which would make it an event of epic historical proportions and not simply little more than a footnote, so it's completely implausible... Also, a neutron blast strong enough to xray someone on a linen shroud would certainly have the same effect on any other shroud/linen in the area. Again, it's unsustainable that this would not be recorded in history.
    – Sklivvz
    Commented Feb 12, 2014 at 23:14
  • 10
    @Sklivvz: In fairness, it depends entirely on where the epicenter was. Last spring, an 8.2 in Russia left no deaths. But yeah, the whole article is full of contradictions and overstatements. The NOAA database guesses the presumed Crucifixion quake to be "moderate" (Damage De = 2). Commented Feb 12, 2014 at 23:30
  • 2
    There have been large earthquakes in populated areas recently, that are not historically disputed in any way. If this is remotely plausible (the imaging part), there should be numerous documented cases of such a thing happening. Commented Feb 13, 2014 at 19:12
  • 2
    @LarryGritz: Are you talking about the Shroud-imprinted-by-radiation angle? I agree that doesn't seem viable, but I didn't even bother addressing it. The question seemed to be more about the earthquake itself. Commented Feb 13, 2014 at 19:26
  • 9
    The article in question has been retracted
    – March Ho
    Commented Jun 15, 2015 at 14:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .