Meyers, Strange, Meyers, and Hanson (1979) dated the construction of a Gush Halav synagogue (in Stratum VI) to around 250 A.D. and report the village was abandoned beforehand; possibly after the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The date for building the synagogue is primarily based on ceramics but is supplemented by 6 coins. Magness (2001a) proposed that the 'first' synagogue at Gush Halav was constructed no earlier than the second half of the fifth century and perhaps as late as the first half of the sixth century while adding that there were no major earthquake destructions followed by reconstructions as envisioned by the excavators. Instead, occupation continued until the late seventh or early eighth century.

Although Meyers, Strange, Meyers, and Hanson (1979) interpret destruction at the end of VIa due to the Eusebius' Martyr Earthquake of ~306 AD, their chronology is debated. Magness (2001a) performed a detailed examination of the stratigraphy presented in the final report of Meyers, Meyers, and Strange (1990) and concluded, based on numismatic and ceramic evidence, that a synagogue was not built on the site until no earlier than the second half of the fifth century. While she agreed that earthquake destruction evidence was present in the excavation, she dated the destruction evidence to some time after abandonment of the site in the 7th or 8th centuries AD. Strange (2001) and Meyers (2001) went on to rebut Magness (2001a) to which Magness (2001b) responded again. One point of agreement however is that earthquake destruction evidence does appear to be present.

Eric M. Meyers in Stern et al (1993) also discussed this earthquake

Although the earthquake of 306 CE apparently did a great deal of damage to the structure, the stylobates were shored up and other repairs undertaken to make the period II building sturdier.

Meyers, Strange, Meyers, and Hanson (1979) report strong evidence for destruction at the end of VIb due to the northern Cyril Quake of 363 CE. Their discussion of archeoseismic evidence follows:

Therefore a second phase - VIb - of Late Roman occupation, after this seismic event, is postulated. This second Late Roman phase is also terminated by an earthquake, no doubt in A.D. 362. The coin evidence for this terminus is extremely illuminating, inasmuch as the earliest preserved surfaces of the western corridor contain coins which may extend at the latest until A.D. 365. Equally important, the ceramic repertoire from VIb corresponds precisely to that of Meiron Stratum IV and Khirbet Shema Stratum IV. In other words, there is a clear continuity in the ceramic tradition here, unmistakably late Roman. Whereas Stratum VIa contains many 3rd-century Middle Roman forms, these forms virtually disappear in VIb.

Stratum VII, representing the Byzantine period, thus begins after the 362 earthquake and is characterized by significant localized repairs made within the building.

Their misdating of the Cyril Quake to 362 AD is a mistake frequently found in older papers. Their mention of coins from the Western corridor extending "at the latest until 365 AD" is somewhat problematic as this coincides with the date of the Crete Earthquake of 365 AD. The epicenter of this earthquake was too far away to have produced archeoseismic damage at Gush Halav so this will be left as a numismatic mystery which does not infringe badly on their chronology. The biggest potential problem with their chronology is it is debated. Magness (2001a) performed a detailed examination of the stratigraphy presented in the final report of (Meyers, Meyers, and Strange (1990)) and concluded, based on numismatic and ceramic evidence, that a synagogue was not built on the site until no earlier than the second half of the fifth century. While she agreed that earthquake destruction evidence was present in the excavation, she dated the destruction evidence to some time after abandonment of the site in the 7th or 8th centuries AD. Strange (2001) and Meyers (2001) went on to rebut Magness (2001a) to which Magness (2001b) responded again.

Netzer (1996) reviewed the original archaeological reports and although he agreed with the original dating of the material remains, he concluded that only one synagogue was constructed at Gush Halav and it was constructed in the first half of the 4th century CE. He further concluded that the seismic destruction of this synagogue dates to the 551 CE Beirut Quake. He did not interpret destruction in 363 CE that left a mark in the material remains.

Eric M. Meyers in Stern et al (1993) also discussed this earthquake

The second building period thus witnessed no major modification [for] the plan of the building. However, stratigraphic assessment of the data indicates quite clearly that great effort was made to reinforce corners, stylobates, and walls. The debris buildup in the western corridor in particular demonstrates how soon after the great 363 CE earthquake the basilica was reused. Many architectural fragments were then reused, and a smaller bema replaced the earlier and larger one on the southwest interior of the southern facade wall.

Meyers, Strange, Meyers, and Hanson (1979) attributed seismic destruction at the end of VIIb to the 551 CE Beirut Quake however their chronology is debated. Magness (2001a) performed a detailed examination of the stratigraphy presented in the final report of Meyers, Meyers, and Strange (1990) and concluded, based on numismatic and ceramic evidence, that a synagogue was not built on the site until no earlier than the second half of the fifth century. While she agreed that earthquake destruction evidence was present in the excavation, she dated the destruction evidence to some time after abandonment of the site in the 7th or 8th centuries AD. Strange (2001) and Meyers (2001) went on to rebut Magness (2001a) to which Magness (2001b) responded again. One point of agreement however is that earthquake destruction evidence does appear to be present. Archeoseismic evidence at Gush Halav for the 551 CE Beirut Quake, based on epicentral distance and the magnitude of the earthquake is very possible but unfortunately the chronology from this excavation is not clear.

Eric M. Meyers in Stern et al (1993) also discussed this earthquake

The final Byzantine phase (period IV), is basically attested through the buildup of floors, which were renewed regularly over time. A coin hoard of some 1,953 specimens was discovered in the western corridor. Although the latest coins do not extend to the great earthquake of 551 CE, the collapse of 19m of molding in the western corridor testifies to the building's collapse in a single event. [JW: The youngest coins date to 491-518 or 457-518 - Meyers, Strange, Meyers, and Hanson (1979:54)]

Meyers, Strange, Meyers, and Hanson (1979) add

The vivid reminder of the 551 disaster may be seen in the photographs of the excavated remains of this last phase of the synagogue's use as a sanctuary. All the major architectural elements collapsed, where they lay more or less unmoved until the recent excavations.

Based on rebuilding evidence ?

Based on rebuilding evidence ?

• collapse of 19m of molding in the western corridor testifies to the building's collapse in a single event.

• Earthquake Archeological Effects chart
  Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)
  
  Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
  of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Description	Intensity
Collapsed Walls	collapse of 19m of molding in the western corridor testifies to the building's collapse in a single event.	VIII +

The archeoseismic evidence requires a minimum Intensity of VIII (8) when using the Earthquake Archeological Effects chart of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224).

Meyers, Strange, Meyers, and Hanson (1979). "Preliminary Report on the 1977 and 1978 Seasons at Gush Halav (el-Jish)." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research(233): 33-58.

Magness, J. (2001a). THE QUESTION OF THE SYNAGOGUE: THE PROBLEM OF TYPOLOGY. THE QUESTION OF THE SYNAGOGUE: THE PROBLEM OF TYPOLOGY, Brill: 1.

Magness, J. (2001b). A RESPONSE TO ERIC M. MEYERS AND JAMES F. STRANGE. Judaism in Late Antiquity 3. Where we Stand: Issues and Debates in Ancient Judaism, Brill: 79.

Meyers, E. M., et al. (1990). Excavations at the Ancient Synagogue of Gush Ḥalav, American Schools of Oriental Research.

Meyers, E. M. (2001). THE DATING OF THE GUSH HALAV SYNAGOGUE: A RESPONSE TO JODI MAGNESS. Judaism in Late Antiquity 3. Where we Stand: Issues and Debates in Ancient Judaism, Brill: 49.

Strange, J. F. (2001). SYNAGOGUE TYPOLOGY AND KHIRBET SHEMAʿ: A RESPONSE TO JODI MAGNESS. SYNAGOGUE TYPOLOGY AND KHIRBET SHEMAʿ: A RESPONSE TO JODI MAGNESS, Brill: 71.

Russell, K. W. (1981). The earthquake chronology of ancient Palestine and Arabia from the 2nd to the 8th century A.D. Anthropology. Salt Lake City, UT, University of Utah. MS.

Ambraseys (2009) states:

Gush Halav, 30 km southeast of Tyre, shows archaeological evidence of destruction in the mid sixth century but this, like other archaeological datings, cannot be trusted.

Russell (1985) reports

The 551 earthquake has been used to date the 6th century destruction of the synagogue at Gush Halav (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1979: 37; Meyers 1982: 121-22), although this correlation is suspect in light of the coin hoard sealed beneath the collapse rubble (see above). The "washed-in layer of yellowish soil" in which the hoard was found (Meyers, Strange, and Meyers 1979: 54) could represent post destruction deposition as a result of water percolation through the loose collapse rubble, rather than human deposition prior to the 551 earthquake.