5 ms·

One question I have whenever algorithms are used to try to figure out multiple authors: was this algorithm tested on works we know that were written by a single

One question I have whenever algorithms are used to try to figure out multiple authors: was this algorithm tested on works we know that were written by a single author? People change. Maybe the scribe developed back problems or RSI or arthritis. Even writing styles can change. What is the range of single person variability, and how does that compare with the variability we see in the work?

emmelaich 6y ago
That's mentioned but dismissed. I would think age might be a factor though. Some scribe took a break for whatever reason returning to the task after 10 years or so? > Although one cannot rule out completely that the clear separation between the two halves of the manuscript and the difference in writing patterns are due to a change of writing implement (a different pen), writing fatigue or some injury that the writer suffered when moving on to the second half of the manuscript, the more straightforward explanation is that a change in scribes occurred.
- ars 6y ago
  A new scribe is a more straightforward explanation than a new pen?
Jedd 6y ago
A similar question is around what size training data do we have where we know works had different authors. My understanding is there's very little original material from this era to work with - as all biblical canon is replicas, from a handful, to many dozens of generations / copies distant.
- ars 6y ago
  They use author to mean "person using a pen", not author in the normal sense of the person composing the text. There's plenty of scribal material in the Judaic world, they should try their algorithm on it and see if it works.
  - Jedd 6y ago
    Yes, that was my understanding of TFA too - but the question remains, unless more than a handful of authors are easily distinguishable, and there's a different and reliable way to identify those distinct authors (did they sign their work?) then we have a very small sample set. Writing was not a common skill, so my naive extrapolation of that fact is that there would be few teachers, and consequently more likelihood that two random authors would present material that, prima facie, looked similar. It's fascinating work, to be sure, though I do wonder about the usefulness of identifying how many authors were involved in penning these various parchments.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - FridayoLeary 6y ago
      >Writing was not a common skill, so my naive extrapolation of that fact is that there would be few teachers was it? I think the society back then was pretty advanced, i.e. literate.
      - Jedd 6y ago
        I can't find many authoritative sources, but it stands to reason that in a mostly agrarian society, there'd be fewer people who could write, would have access to good writing materials, specifically materials with longevity, and get those materials into hermetically sealed environments that would ensure their integrity for a couple of millennia.
  - FridayoLeary 6y ago
    >There's plenty of scribal material in the Judaic world, they should try their algorithm on it and see if it works. It wouldn't tell them anything much. The script used nowadays is entirely different from the DSS.

emmelaich 6y ago

That's mentioned but dismissed. I would think age might be a factor though. Some scribe took a break for whatever reason returning to the task after 10 years or so? > Although one cannot rule out completely that the clear separation between the two halves of the manuscript and the difference in writing patterns are due to a change of writing implement (a different pen), writing fatigue or some injury that the writer suffered when moving on to the second half of the manuscript, the more straightforward explanation is that a change in scribes occurred.

ars 6y ago
A new scribe is a more straightforward explanation than a new pen?

Jedd 6y ago

A similar question is around what size training data do we have where we know works had different authors. My understanding is there's very little original material from this era to work with - as all biblical canon is replicas, from a handful, to many dozens of generations / copies distant.

ars 6y ago
They use author to mean "person using a pen", not author in the normal sense of the person composing the text. There's plenty of scribal material in the Judaic world, they should try their algorithm on it and see if it works.
- Jedd 6y ago
  Yes, that was my understanding of TFA too - but the question remains, unless more than a handful of authors are easily distinguishable, and there's a different and reliable way to identify those distinct authors (did they sign their work?) then we have a very small sample set. Writing was not a common skill, so my naive extrapolation of that fact is that there would be few teachers, and consequently more likelihood that two random authors would present material that, prima facie, looked similar. It's fascinating work, to be sure, though I do wonder about the usefulness of identifying how many authors were involved in penning these various parchments.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - FridayoLeary 6y ago
    >Writing was not a common skill, so my naive extrapolation of that fact is that there would be few teachers was it? I think the society back then was pretty advanced, i.e. literate.
    - Jedd 6y ago
      I can't find many authoritative sources, but it stands to reason that in a mostly agrarian society, there'd be fewer people who could write, would have access to good writing materials, specifically materials with longevity, and get those materials into hermetically sealed environments that would ensure their integrity for a couple of millennia.
- FridayoLeary 6y ago
  >There's plenty of scribal material in the Judaic world, they should try their algorithm on it and see if it works. It wouldn't tell them anything much. The script used nowadays is entirely different from the DSS.