3 ms·

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 mat

by 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.

by Jedd 6y ago

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.