No, I would not use this as evidence for the biblical story.   For a few reasons.   1. That is an eleven-year window, but we are talking an earthquake which happened on one specific day!!!     2. Where did this earthquake happen?   Was it centered in Jerusalem?  No, it was centered just north of the Dead Sea, which is close enough to be felt in Jerusalem but not centered there.     3. The event described in the Bible appears to be a miracle, not a natural event, and it appears to be a very localized event, which a large earthquake would not be.  I would say that, on the whole, there is not enough overlap between this earthquake and the biblical event to use it as some sort of “proof” of the miracle described in the New Testament.  It is intriguing.  It is interesting, but inconclusive.

By the way, I appreciate this article. It is a well-researched publication, using primary source data.  It is an interesting read.  It is remarkable to me that scientists can use geological (as opposed to literary) data to nail down an earth quake to plus of minus five years, and to the precise location of its epicenter.  It is worth noting that Josephus reported an earthquake in AD 31.  His historical report is more reliable and precise than this eleven-year window as to the date.  But is the earthquake mentioned by Josephus the same as the one reported in the Bible, and it is the one studied in this article?  Possibly.  I would not rule it out.  But I would not make definitive statements.  Honest and careful apologists need to be cautious in their claims.

To be honest, if a Christian were to use this as “evidence” for the event in Luke, it would make Christianity look like we are stretching it and it would look as though we are trying to creatively fit data to the Bible.  This is a bad look for Christians.   Do not use this paper to support the biblical story, at least not in public discussions.  That is my advice.   I say “could be…”

John Oakes