Skip to content

Computational Chronometry

A method for dating biblical events built on convergence of independent evidence streams, honest weighting, and clear correction paths — not on one anchor repeated with increasing confidence.

What Computational Chronometry Is

Biblical chronology has historically relied on a small number of well-attested anchor points — the fall of Jerusalem, the accession of Shalmaneser III, the reigns documented in Kings and Chronicles — and then worked outward from those anchors using regnal years and genealogical data. Computational chronometry extends this by treating the chronological question as a signal-processing problem: how many independent evidence streams point to the same date range, and how much do they agree?

The method does not replace traditional biblical chronology. It stress-tests it. Where the traditional anchors are strong, the computational signals confirm them. Where they are contested, the signals map the range of defensible positions rather than forcing a false precision.

The Four Foundational Claims

How the Signals Are Compared

The computational approach builds a weighted signal matrix: each independent evidence stream is scored for internal consistency, cross-civilization corroboration, and alignment with the biblical text. The scores are combined with weights that reflect the maturity of the evidence. The result is not a single date but a probability distribution over a date range — narrower when signals converge tightly, wider when they diverge.

The key discipline is preventing circular reasoning. No signal drawn from the biblical text itself is allowed to corroborate another signal drawn from the same text without an external check. Archaeological, astronomical, or linguistic evidence from outside the biblical corpus provides the external reference points that prevent the method from simply confirming what it already assumed.

What Stays Public

The public documentation of this method covers the foundational claims, the signal family taxonomy, the convergence standard, and the correction path requirements. It does not publish private runtime scoring outputs, raw intermediate calculations, or proprietary weighting tables. What it does publish is enough for an independent scholar to understand the approach, apply the same discipline to their own research, and critique the conclusions — which is the only kind of chronology worth building.