Who Wrote The Bible?

Stunning new Israeli software, part of the sub-field of artificial intelligence, analyzes style and word choices to distinguish parts of a single text written by different authors, and when applied to the Bible its algorithm teased out distinct writerly voices in the holy book. And it agrees with the findings of modern biblical criticism 90% of time.

I can't wait for this to be used on Shakespeare:

Israeli software aims to shed light on the Bible
A team of scholars and scientists are hoping the algorithm they developed will give intriguing new insights about what researchers believe to be the multiple hands that wrote the Bible.
The Associated Press

Software developed by an Israeli team is giving intriguing new hints about what researchers believe to be the multiple hands that wrote the Bible.

The new software analyzes style and word choices to distinguish parts of a single text written by different authors, and when applied to the Bible its algorithm teased out distinct writerly voices in the holy book.

The program, part of a sub-field of artificial intelligence studies known as authorship attribution, has a range of potential application - from helping law enforcement to developing new computer programs for writers. But the Bible provided a tempting test case for the algorithm's creators.

For millions of Jews and Christians, it's a tenet of their faith that God is the author of the core text of the Hebrew Bible - the Torah, also known as the Pentateuch or the Five Books of Moses. But since the advent of modern biblical scholarship, academic researchers have believed the text was written by a number of different authors whose work could be identified by seemingly different ideological agendas and linguistic styles and the different names they used for God.

Today, scholars generally split the text into two main strands. One is believed to have been written by a figure or group known as the "priestly" author, because of apparent connections to the temple priests in Jerusalem. The rest is "non-priestly." Scholars have meticulously gone over the text to ascertain which parts belong to which strand.

When the new software was run on the Pentateuch, it found the same division, separating the "priestly" and "non-priestly." It matched up with the traditional academic division at a rate of 90 percent - effectively recreating years of work by multiple scholars in minutes, said Moshe Koppel of Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv, the computer science professor who headed the research team.

"We have thus been able to largely recapitulate several centuries of painstaking manual labor with our automated method," the Israeli team announced in a paper presented last week in Portland, Oregon, at the annual conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics. The team includes a computer science doctoral student, Navot Akiva, and a father-son duo: Nachum Dershowitz, a Tel Aviv University computer scientist, and his son, Idan Dershowitz, a Bible scholar at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

The places in which the program disagreed with accepted scholarship might prove interesting leads for scholars. The first chapter of Genesis, for example, is usually thought to have been written by the "priestly" author, but the software indicated it was not.

Similarly, the book of Isaiah is largely thought to have been written by two distinct authors, with the second author taking over after Chapter 39. The software's results agreed that the book might have two authors, but suggested the second author's section actually began six chapters earlier, in Chapter 33.

The differences "have the potential to generate fruitful discussion among scholars," said Michael Segal of Hebrew University's Bible Department, who was not involved in the project.

Over the past decade, computer programs have increasingly been assisting Bible scholars in searching and comparing texts, but the novelty of the new software seems to be in its ability to take criteria developed by scholars and apply them through a technological tool more powerful in many respects than the human mind, Segal said.

Before applying the software to the Pentateuch and other books of the Bible, the researchers first needed a more objective test to prove the algorithm could correctly distinguish one author from another.

So they randomly jumbled the Hebrew Bible's books of Ezekiel and Jeremiah into one text and ran the software. It sorted the mixed-up text into its component parts "almost perfectly," the researchers announced.

The program recognizes repeated word selections, like uses of the Hebrew equivalents of "if," "and" and "but," and notices synonyms: In some places, for example, the Bible gives the word for "staff" as "makel," while in others it uses "mateh" for the same object. The program then separates the text into strands it believes to be the work of different people.

Other researchers have looked at linguistic fingerprints in less sacred texts as a way of identifying unknown writers. In the 1990s, the Vassar English professor Donald Foster famously identified the journalist Joe Klein as the anonymous author of the book "Primary Colors" by looking at minor details like punctuation.

In 2003, Koppel was part of a research team that developed software that could successfully tell, four times out of five, if the author of a text was male or female. Women, the researchers found, are far more likely to use personal pronouns like "she" and "he," while men prefer determiners like "that" and "this" - women, in other words, talk about people, while men prefer to talk about things. That success sparked debate about how gender shapes the way we think and communicate.

Research of this kind has potential applications for law enforcement, allowing authorities to catch impostors or to match anonymous texts with possible authors by identifying linguistic tics. Because the analysis can also help identify gender and age, it might also allow advertisers to better target customers.

The new software might be used to investigate Shakespeare's plays and settle lingering questions of authorship or co-authorship, mused Graeme Hirst, a professor of computational linguistics at the University of Toronto. Or it could be applied to modern texts: "It would be interesting to see if in more cases we can tease apart who wrote what," Hirst said.

The algorithm might also lead to the creation of a style checker for documents prepared by multiple authors or committees, helping iron out awkward style variations and creating a uniform text, Hirst suggested.

What the algorithm won't answer, say the researchers who created it, is the question of whether the Bible is human or divine. Three of the four scholars, including Koppel, are religious Jews who subscribe in some form to the belief that the Torah was dictated to Moses in its entirety by a single author: God.

For academic scholars, the existence of different stylistic threads in the Bible indicates human authorship. But the research team says in their paper they aren't addressing "how or why such distinct threads exist."

"Those for whom it is a matter of faith that the Pentateuch is not a composition of multiple writers can view the distinction investigated here as that of multiple styles," they said.

In other words, there's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices.

"No amount of research is going to resolve that issue," said Koppel.

[Hat Tip: APC.]

Update 11:45 am CDT 7-1-11: The Lion sent me a copy of the research paper. Here it is as a PDF file:

Download Acl-bible-resubmitted-280211

Comments

[Larry Lennhoff]

I'd like to see what this software does in two cases:
1) A single author deliberately writing in multiple voices.
2) An epistolary novel where each author writes most of the letters for one of the characters. Can it pick out the two authors? Can it pick out the exception letters?

[ah-pee-chorus]

Three of the four scholars, including Koppel, are religious Jews who subscribe in some form to the belief that the Torah was dictated to Moses in its entirety by a single author: God.

i would not use the term scholar in describing people who have reached conclusions without any evidence and who are clearly unwilling to amend those conclusions based on existing or new evidence. i call them apologists. but it is always interesting to wonder why such people would wish to be involved in a project like this. were they hoping the computers would advise that there was only one author thereby contradicting all of the scholarly work in the field? or are they just fascinated at the many "styles" used by god?

[tooclose2detroit]

if man written it was somebody that didnt like bacon, shrimp, or, apparently being together with their wife all that often.

[Abracadabra]

In other words, there's no reason why God could not write a book in different voices.

If God is a God, then there is no reason why He could not have written a book in the SAME voice. One would think God would certainly be capable of that. And if not for any other reason, than to eliminate some serious doubts that God surely knew would emerge with Bible scholarship in our day and age. Either God didn't plan that far ahead, or he wrung His Godly hands in delight thinking of all the confusion He would be causing to the poor spiritual seekers who try to make sense of His writings.

[Ya Way No Way]

Once again, technology is liberating people from superstition.

[george]

Actually, I would rather like to see what it does with the Talmud!

[george]

I did a google search on Donald Foster and came up with wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Wayne_Foster

The section on the "Ramsey murder case" may be of interest.

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

Very interesting. Thanks, Shmaryah. Im into that kinda stuff.

Btw, here is the main website with the complete brief articles: http://www.dershowitz.net/

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

Ohh yeah, and here is the same article from ACL website: http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P/P11/P11-1136.pdf

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

And also, I wanted to comment:

The authors of the article fail to mention that the Pentateuch was not actually written by Moses, but rather WRITTEN DOWN.

In fact, in Exodus 32:32-33 it explicitly says that it was God who wrote the Pentateuch (Torah).

[jancsipista]

we are dealing here with the fabrication in our imagination that is god lets not be childish it is that and only that and we talk about it as something concrete which is not.

[Ezra Baraka]

dumb article, i don't understand why this proves god didn't write it? i mean he created the whole world so if he so pleased for whatever reason write in diff voices why is it so hard to believe that. he is god, do you think its beyond his ability to write in 2 separate voices?? i think its not beyond his ability. dumb article. proves nothing it just proves that people latch on to every dumb thing to disprove god.

[jancsipista]

ezra- you must be brain damaged cant you see that god doesnt have hands so he could not of written it its that simple its a no brainer.

[masortiman]

read the article more closely Ezra.

For folks who believe the DH (documentary hypothesis) this does not change their belief in the DH. For folks who dont believe it, the same reasons advanced against the DH apply to this as well, afaict. For those who try to reconcile the DH with a literal revelation to an historical Moses, a la Weiss-Halivni, the same approach to reconciliation applies.

Where this is interesting is mostly for where it differs from earlier versions of the DH - though its not like all versions the DH and related modern biblical scholarship are all in complete agreement.

[masortiman]

"Once again, technology is liberating people from superstition."

geez people. The machine is applying the same methodology that humans scholars have applied for over 200 years, only more precisely, and is getting similar results. I'm not sure why this should be surprising. The "God could write in different voices" response was in the Hertz Chumash. The response, "Why would He?" is about as old, AFAIK.

I'm more interested in why the think the opening of bereishit is not "P material" and what that suggests for Israelite history.

[Bubba Metzia]

Different voices can be used for different purposes to express different concepts. Different voices in a text does not necessarily mean multiple authors.

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

Well, technically speaking, right in the first verse of Pentateuch it says "elohim", which happens to be plural.

And in Numbers 12:8 it says "temunot", which I believe is plural also.

So, I do not see any problems here...

[Pierre]

It's really exhausting having to read news pieces, particularly from Israel, that make sweeping statements about the beliefs of "millions of Jews and christians" (uh, more like TWO BILLION Christians), *up and against* the beliefs of scholars...when mainline Protestant Churches and even the Catholic Church - as well as of course Conservative and Reform Jews - have long embraced academic scholarship on Bible from Genesis to "maps" - and produced many noteworthy scholars in diverse textual fields. who knows what they're trying to say about WHICH christians and Jews. To reach a figure of "millions of jews", you're going to HAVE to include Reform and Conservative - whom it goes without saying are largely aware of such scholarship!!!

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

What is bothering me, Pierre, is that these guys know their math very well, but most of them have become so politicised that true science is not a priority to them.

This is why I left traditional academia long time ago and do not regret it one bit...

[Tyler]

Posted by: Larry Lennhoff | June 29, 2011 at 01:52 PM

Larry,

You and your wife used to be disciples for Tropper and the EJF. How is life these days ?

[Pierre]

Aleksandr; 'elohim' is also used regarding individuals elsewhere in Tanach, ex., single leadership over plurals of people, etc.

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

Im sorry Pierre, can you provide me with a sample verse where "elohim" is used "regarding individuals" ? I do not recall that...

[Ya Way No Way]

A machine has no bias. Once something is proven by machine, it is easier for people to accept it. 2+2=4 is easier to prove on a calculator than if the teacher writes it on a blackboard.

A child can see that the "Torah" is a hodgepodge of different legends adulterated with pure bunk from some cult like Skquere Town.

Yet, it takes a machine to prove this.

[yidandahalf]

Oh,jesus wept. Who gives a fuck? All this baloney about who wrote what and with what. Did G-d have a sylus, a Bic, or what? Or did Moses use a hammer and chisel or a laser beam? Or was the laser beam G-d?

[meridian]

Salvation comes from the jews. The end of times from an incompetant at a machine

[yidandahalf]

Can anyone shed any light at all on the meaning of the above post?

[Ya Way No Way]

No, because it was written by an "incompetant" (sic) at a machine.

[seymour]

god is a genius,

he purposely wrote it in such a way that a a software and scholars like those who wrote the "book of J" would think multiple style equates to multiple writers. The reason is simple to test your faith in you believe in him and the book he wrote.

We can see god playing this game over and over. Like with the issue of carbon dating and evolution.

It seems that many on this site have failed his test of faith

[mordecai]

I have perfect faith that the Oral Law was a concoction of flawed men who sought to idolize themselves by pretending that they were G-d.

[mordecai]

Seymour

My Christian friends have perfect faith that Jesus as the messiah

Some Chabadnik friends have perfect faith that Dagon Schneerson is the Messiah

My catholic friends have perfect faith that in the sacrament of the eucharist the wafer is LITERALLY the body of Christ and the wine is LITERALLY the blood of Christ.

However my Protestant friends have perfect faith that the wafer is not the literal body of Christ.

My Buddhist friends have perfect faith in reincarnation according to a cosmic law called karma

My Hindu friends have perfect faith that Krishna is an incarnation of God. However other sects of Hindus have perfect faith in other incarnations

My Moslem friends have perfect faith that the Koran is inerrant.

My animistic friends have perfect faith in the gods of the trees and mountains.

[ah-pee-chorus]

mordecai -

god is tricky. he fooled all those people.
i am fortunate enough to have seen through all the tricks and arrive at the truth. the creator was the invisible black unicorn.

[Ya Way No Way]

Much of the Oral Law is really the Anal Law, both because of its nature and where it seems to have come from.

[Catcher50]

@Mordecai,

Let's remember that some of your Protestant friends believe that the wine that your Catholic friends believe is the body of Christ, is some sort of horror that Satan bestowed upon mankind.

Also, let's not forget that unless the software is perfectly generic and well tested to prove its objectivity, we can make a pretty good assumption that the code writers wrote code that leaned towards their preconceptions.

I'm not saying that it is not valid (let's remember that computers can do, in an hour, what paper and pencil took accountants a year to do, less than 50 years ago) just that I don't, necessarily trust the conclusions.

[Adam Neira]

The Tanach is part : Genealogy; Drama; Lawmaking and Interpretation; Jurisprudence; Romance; War Battles; Power Dynamics; Place naming; Object Referencing; Chronology; Prophecy; Allegory; Metaphor ; VIP’s; Filler and Wise Counsel. Weighing up the relevance of the different pieces should be left to very wise souls. The shore of history is littered with the ugly flotsam and jetsam resulting from the terrible decisions made by various people who thought they understood the true meaning of the good book. The Tanach is the most important book in the world. The 79,976 words of the Pentateuch assume primacy.

The various parts of the Tanach were written by humans. They did not magically appear on a slab or a scroll of papyrus. Such a fact does not negate the supernatural aspect of revelation as outlined by the sixth article of faith.

The important parts like the law giving and prophecy were after certain individuals received divine revelation into the mysteries of the universe. They then had them written down. Moses would have received the Ten Commandments in a form of divine revelation and he, or someone else who helped, chiselled them on the two pieces of stone. People must remember that from the era 1400 bce to 200 ace there was a miniscule fraction of the media that is around today. So the written word expressed in a Holy Book would have carried great weight. The things chosen to be in the Tanach were of supreme importance and that is why they were included. The Tanach writers did not include such superfluous details as what Joseph had for breakfast or what colour dress Esther was fond of. The realised that it was vital to pack an enormous amount of profound information into the one book that hopefully some would dip into. I am 100% sure that the writers were super phasic at the time and were compelled, forced and completely inspired to carry out there work. When G-d tells you to do something nothing else matters. Even though some people may find the contents long and tedious there is a reason for all that is inscribed within.

Regarding the Mitzvot, Maimonides in his wisdom stated that some Mitzvot apply to all times and places whilst some do not. He excluded many of the minor Mitzvot for that reason, e.g. the one about the need to carry a paddle outside of camp. It is my belief that the Mitzvot can be classified in a hierarchy of importance. I will never believe that the prohibition against child sexual abuse is on a par with the commandment for a woman to wear a wig in public. Where it is more complicated is with such things as the management of the Temple. Some Mitzvot will be observed in the future. The trick is to imagine it is the year 2050 and try and work backwards to today to see how things should unfold. I have a pretty good idea of how things should proceed from here. I thank G-d for such insight. I also need assistance with the mission.

[OMG]

Posted by: Adam Neira | June 29, 2011 at 09:01 PM

“The Tanach is part : Genealogy; Drama; Lawmaking and Interpretation; Jurisprudence; Romance; War Battles; Power Dynamics; Place naming; Object Referencing; Chronology; Prophecy; Allegory; Metaphor ; VIP’s; Filler and Wise Counsel. Weighing up the relevance of the different pieces should be left to very wise souls.”

I bet you, that in your mind you are that wise person.

[Office of the Chief Rabbi]

I am shocked, shocked, that there's apikorsus here on this blog.

Really, though: do you really think the Creator of the Universe dabbles in the publishing business?

[ah-pee-chorus]

Catcher50 -

if the study is published and peer-reviewed, the criteria they chose as inputs should be available for all to see and analyze , including as to their objectivity.

[Adam Neira]

To mordecai,

I have studied all the world religions in depth. I started doin gthis when I was 26. Covered all of them until hitting Judaism in late 2000. The prophecies state that at some point the rational and the divine will converge. In Talmudic tradition it was custom for major issues to be discussed. Some of these debates went on for ages, like the epic three year battle between Shammai and Hillel. The great thing with Judaism is that it was accepted that the higher, more rational argument or better approximation of what conforms to G-d’s wishes would win the day. All your points can be discussed. The thing with comparative religion is that when you challenge prevailing mindsets and frames of reference you often provoke intense reactions of fear, hatred or anger. This is one of the reasons why the redemption unfolds over time. The dazzling light of truth must slowly illuminate the landscape or people will be blinded. Some cognitive dissonance always takes place when a divine truth settles on a new mind. Like when you first learn how to drive, it can seem frustrating and impossible to know what to do, but slowly you gain mastery and control. What is happening all around the world right now, and the internet is an amazing tool, is that the correct foundations of belief are sinking in for many people. Once enough people have got the divine frame of reference a tipping point will be reached and it will be game over in regards to whether the redemption will succeed or not.

I will now discuss some of your points for a bit of fun.

Seymour

(1) My Christian friends have perfect faith that Jesus as the messiah

A – Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. He is one of the most important people to have lived. My intense research in 2002 proved to me that he did not fulfil the Messianic imperatives and thus he wasn’t the true messiah. If you read the New Testament you will see that it is a derivation and extension of the Tanach. Ditto the Koran BTW. As one example of how the early Christian writers tried to bolster their claims after he died they tried to match the genealogy of Jesus into the, at that time, extremely well known family kept tradition that the messiah would come via the male line from King David via Solomon. They also explained away the prophecy of ushering in an age of world peace by saying that the sacrifice of his life would have redemptive powers in itself. To satisfy the “He must be alive” part of the messianic imperatives they said he had been resurrected and would return one day in a second coming. If a purely objective alien scholar was to land on Planet Earth and review the chronology of the two books they would say that Jesus’ messianic claims were not kosher. Another point is that many Christian sects are hanging on to the idea that he will return and solve all the problems. Such passivity and intellectual and spiritual escapism is not what G-d wants. The Christian groups that say he was a G-d himself are also descending into pagan idolatry. There are many other points I could raise to prove that he wasn’t Moshiach. And by the way, I have nothing against Christians. I know how it is possible to get agreement on fundamental divine truths with any person or group with at least a half sane mind.

(2) Some Chabadnik friends have perfect faith that Dagon Schneerson is the Messiah

A – Ditto pretty much the same as above. The Lubavitcher who are hanging onto this belief are caught between their intense respect for a great man and a childlike need to have an all encompassing father figure in their life. They are like people on a life raft that they don’t realise is only a fifty metres off a calm, shallow shore who are clinging to the boat for dear life because of the fear of what lies beneath them. There are also some group members and leaders, not just in the Lubavitch community, who profit personally from keeping a certain hierarchy in place. In the 1974 sci-fi film “Zardoz” the eternals profited by scaring the brutals into submission by using a huge stone head of the god Zardoz that would fly around the outlands. George Orwell’s 1984 also uses the image of an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniescent Big Brother figure to maintain control.

(3) My catholic friends have perfect faith that in the sacrament of the eucharist the wafer is LITERALLY the body of Christ and the wine is LITERALLY the blood of Christ.

A – Just plain silly. A little discussion about chemistry and biology should be able to shift their mindset. But sometimes people are so protective of their mindset that they react like cats on a hot tin roof to provocations of truth. How much trauma and pain people have had in their lives can greatly affect their willingness to consider new perspectives or encounter new people. In a similar vein some people are scared of travelling to new lands because they have watched so much rubbish on TV and never really met anyone from a foreign land so they settle for a comfort zone and lose out on the possibility of adventure.

(4) However my Protestant friends have perfect faith that the wafer is not the literal body of Christ.

A – You say potato, I say potatoe. Arguing over points of minutiae is a waste of time. Like a young couple getting ready for a Sunday drive in the country that get bogged down in arguments over what picnic blanket should be taken. I also wish protestants and Catholics would move on. Northern Ireland is a case in point. Both sects should embrace a more inclusive ethical monotheism akin to traditional Judaism, but I am not proselytizing.

(5) My Buddhist friends have perfect faith in reincarnation according to a cosmic law called karma.

Buddhism falls down on a few points. It sees time as cyclical yet it is both linear and expansive. Reincarnation is an interesting concept that needs more discussion than I have time for here. The Thirteenth Article of Faith is also interesting and can be explained. The karma idea is not really that different to the idea that we reap what we sow or the eleventh article of faith, except that it brings in the idea of past life wrongs affecting current life circumstances. Even some Jewish sages believe however that the sins of the fathers carry on for generations etc.

(6) My Hindu friends have perfect faith that Krishna is an incarnation of God. However other sects of Hindus have perfect faith in other incarnations.

I spent seven and half months travelling through nine states of India with my girlfriend and a motorbike in 1991. We met hundreds of people, went to many temples, spoke to saddhus at the Ganges and in cave, sat with academics, businessmen, temple priests, policemen, soldiers, workers, beggars, teachers and tourists. Studied the history, geography and culture, learnt tola tola Hindi and had an amazing time. I follow Indian politics quite closely. The main issue with polytheism is that the various like Krishna, Vishnu, Kali, Shiva, Ganesh etc. are idealised projections of self. Polytheism leads to a certain scatteredness of mind. This is why India, which I love as a place by the way, has not really fulfilled its potential although it could. If the predominate core belief system of the people is flawed so goes the nation. However Hinduism is not without merit. All belief systems can be redeemed, and that is in fact what is happening now.

(7) My Moslem friends have perfect faith that the Koran is inerrant.

Your use of the word “inerrant” is fascinating. It is not in common usage. It is an adjective meaning - free from error; infallible. That is what you were getting at. I have always enjoyed etymology because it is possible to go back to the pure roots of a word. Like with the game Chinese whispers sometimes meaning morphs over time. The

1645–55; < Latin inerrant-, equivalent to in- in-3 + errant-, stem of errāns present participle of errāre to wander, err; see -ant

So exactly what I mentioned in issue (1) is relevant here. The etymology of the word you used is exactly the point about the Koran. Also, there are very few things “without error” on the Planet. A new born child that is pure, innocent and free is an exception. Some designs are better than others as in the field of architecture. You can thus rate things on a scale of 100% correct to 100% incorrect. The Koran may not contain any spelling or grammatical mistakes so in that respect it is inerrant, but whether a book is linguistically perfect is not the issue. It is what is done with the words from a book that matters. History bears witness to the fact that there have been many dangerously incorrect interpretations of the Koran, New Testament and Tanach etc.

My animistic friends have perfect faith in the gods of the trees and mountains.

Animism is in interesting belief system. It predates nearly all other belief systems. There are very few places left on Earth however as at mid 2011/5771 that it predominates. The recently discovered tribe of people living in mud huts in the Amazon in Brazil are a sample. The problem with animism is that the fauna, flora and minerals of the world have never issued instructions to anyone about behaviour. They may imply “Chop me down so you can build a fire and get warm” or “Eat me because you are hungry” but they will not lead to great higher cognitive shifts. Thus all animist cultures are primitive. Captain Cook and his crew after landing in Australia were amazed at the primitivism of the indigenous people. Later English explorers also found that the Aborigines never constructed any form of civilization based on even minor infrastructure upgrades like the Chinese, Babylonians and Egyptians had done many centuries before. 40,000 years of settlement and the whiff of monotheism only arrived in the late 1700’s. Some people also romantically project onto animist cultures some kind of perfect, ideal culture when in fact all animist cultures were steeped in superstition. Child abuse, rape and murder occurred in all of them. Unfortunately and to the consternation of G-d, animists are not on their own in this respect. BTW, the promise of the Tanach, and why Moses has been turning in his grave for nearly 3300 years is that so many people have disobeyed the most elementary of commandments. The most important being “Don’t sexually abuse children !”

So G-d has tried to get through to so many people and faiths but they have shut him out. With prayer, vigilance and right action this state of affairs can be rectified over the coming thirty eight years.

[Moshe MS]

Interesting video on this subject, from a Chabad "intellectual"

http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/1528357/jewish/Who-Wrote-the-Torah.htm

[oy_vey]

i love how goyiim come in her with the oh jesus crap..... emunah ppl not software...forget yoshkeh the bastard son of mary forget all this shtick EMUNAHHHH

[Abracadabra]

god is tricky. he fooled all those people.
i am fortunate enough to have seen through all the tricks and arrive at the truth. the creator was the invisible black unicorn.

Posted by: ah-pee-chorus

APC - You were right that God is tricky. He even tricked YOU! You see, I know for an absolute fact that God is the Flying Spagetti Monster.

Forget the invisible black unicorn - that's a mistake. It's just another myth. It's even avodah zarah. I know the truth and I can even prove it. You see, nowadays prophecy is only given to children and people with psychosis. And children and psychotic people will tell you that the Flying Spagetti Monster is REAL. They have the prophecies. They know. And that's proof. There are more proofs, but your mind may not be able to comprehend them if you're not on the right spiritual level. You might also have to wait until you're over 40 x 3 = 120 otherwise you could go crazy from trying to learn them. Of course if you would go crazy trying to learn them then you would be psychotic and know for a fact that God is the Flying Spagetti Monster. But why should you have to go through all that just to know? I'm telling you! And I have a long line - an unbroken chain - of many, many generations of playing telephone where each person told the next generation the truth going all the way back to when it was told to them from the mouth of the Flying Spagetti Monster as they heard it from him at the foot of the great big small mountain of Spagetti 3,500 years ago. If you would just have enough emunah and bitachon you would know the truth.

[PishPosh]

The Documentary Hypothesis by itself is a creation of different schools of thought over periods of time and one dosent need a computer to see that.

[mordecai]

Adam,

Thank you so much for clarifying that everybody else's faith is wrong and your faith is right.

To paraphrase George Orwell in Animal Farm (and to change it around a little):

All religions are equal but one is more equal than all the others.

Please understand that I do not denigrate Judaism. But if we are to take Judaism itself and not compare it to other religions you ill observe that Karaites did not believe in the Oral Law, nether did the Saducees. I would imagine that neither do reform jews.

Faith means that we believe in doctrines that cannot be verified through scientific methods and even that which appears to be otherwise proved to the contrary is still believed on the basis of faith.

Thus I may agree with you that the wafer is not literally the body of Christ. But to a devout Catholic he would argue the mystery of G-d and that G-d can make all things possible such that biology and chemistry are transcended.

So I we have perfect faith that G-d parted the Red Sea then we are transcending reason as the water as parted by G-d could not have occurred through any natural or scientific process.

The point is that you wish your faith to be THE faith, THE truth and THE way. Other faiths are "silly."

It does not matter that you travelled through India, are well read, and studied comparative religions. In the end you cling on to faith, but it is your faith not necessarily a universal verifiable faith

[zurach]

"dibrah torah keloshan bnei adam" did you ever learned that ?

[zurach]

well scholars belived for generations that the world is flat, and that its millions of years old any ones guess depends on wich one you belief from 1 to 50 million! ...

[seymour]

Posted by: mordecai | June 29, 2011 at 08:25 PM

I went to church with a friend and I ask him what was the meaning of the cracker and he said the body of christ.

I said you mean symbolic of the body of Christ, NO it is the body of Christ

the only think I could say was how fat was he

[Ezra]

Our tradition emphasizes that the Torah was GIVEN to us; how it was written is interesting, but surely of secondary importance. The beracha when given an aliyah is "noten ha-Torah" - NOT "kotev ha-Torah."

Ezra

[Pierre]

Aleksandr; I have no idea why I typed that! I must have been thinking about words like 'elohim' being plural and typed 'elohim' instead of 'words'. I probably meant to say 'plural' words that have individual meaning, like panim, chayim, etc.

[Yechiel]

2+2=4; the calculator/computer says so... I can program the computer to give me different results. What I am getting at is that by setting different parameters and humans (programmers) entering fundamental data the computer will process information entered by the end user and give results accordingly. In short; input = output.... So whilst 2+2=4 is true, it is not the computer that decided so. Get my drift? Now, let's apply that logic to this article. Although, on simple matter we all know that the computer's results are accurate, (thanks to the men that programmed the code...) I can actually prove it. In more complex matters I would not jump to conlusions since I can not prove it indefinitely and I still need to rely on the human element of error.

[Yechiel]

By 2+2=4 I mean what those numbers represent...

[Pierre]

A purim pashkavil from Koppel...
http://kavvanah.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/pashkevil-nach.jpg

[seymour]

Posted by: Yechiel | June 30, 2011 at 09:31 AM

and the Torah was written by god because your parents told you and their parents told them

not that is absolute prove or maybe you will claim your where there

as far as the computer when you are dealing with science there is peer review to make sure that is was not biased. and in addition there are tests to see if the program works by using on other books and novel and other written stuff.

you are clueless how scientist works and how the process works

it is not like religion when someone says something and that is it

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

2 Pierre: Its ok. I was asking just in case I missed something (trying to learn you know...)

2 seymour: I can assure you that real Torah (Pentateuch) can be proven valid logically and (in some cases) mathematically. I don't know about anyone else here, but I do not follow The Law of Moses just because it says that it is from God.

On the other hand, if you choose to believe that Torah is not divine, then I think no ammount of evidence, science and logic will ever convince you.

[Alex]

Sputtering incoherence does not buttress an argument.

As for science as opposed to scientism, let's begin with the example of the discredited "hockey stick" graph used to support the tenuous theory, at best, of man-made global warming. The the hypotheses and theories with which honest scientists must proceed are by definition biased. In fact, constant vigilance and testing is necessary to identify, isolate and remove the errors that are inevitable during scientific discovery - they are expectable as well as excusable. What is not excusable, in contrast, are the frequent instances when ethically compromised scientists proceed with pre-conceived agenda-driven motives. In such instances, which occur far too often, the likelihood for error (let alone outright fabrication) is trebled to the point where discretion demands the rejection of the whole enterprise in its current state.

[Yechiel]

Seymour
I may not grasp science; you do not understand simple English... Is it deliberate, or do you actually lack elementary intelligence?

BTW the fact that it works on other books is not the equivelant of mathematical calculations which are an absolute.

There is an interesting Rashb"a in Mishmereth Habayith:
המחבר בקי ברפואות יותר ממנו, שיודע שאינו יודע, אבל הוא אינו יודע ואינו יודע שאינו יודע... וכבר אמר החכם אריסטו שמי שאינו יודע שאינו יודע, אינו יודע
I know that this quote is not exactly Aristotle but rather from earlier philosophers (Plato? Or perhaps 'third world' wise words) Regardless, it has some depth that great minds like you can appreciate.

[ah-pee-chorus]

, I know for an absolute fact that God is the Flying Spagetti Monster. Posted by: Abracadabra

abra, to hedge my bets i will accept the FSM in addition to the IBU. i am now a 'pastafarian'.

[Shmarya]

As for science as opposed to scientism, let's begin with the example of the discredited "hockey stick" graph used to support the tenuous theory, at best, of man-made global warming. The the hypotheses and theories with which honest scientists must proceed are by definition biased. In fact, constant vigilance and testing is necessary to identify, isolate and remove the errors that are inevitable during scientific discovery - they are expectable as well as excusable. What is not excusable, in contrast, are the frequent instances when ethically compromised scientists proceed with pre-conceived agenda-driven motives. In such instances, which occur far too often, the likelihood for error (let alone outright fabrication) is trebled to the point where discretion demands the rejection of the whole enterprise in its current state.

Posted by: Alex | June 30, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Quite literally the overwhelming majority of scientists agree without reservation that that global warming causes climate change and that we are experiencing that right now.

Science is peer reviewed. Scientists work very hard to disprove findings and to test findings in any way imaginable.

Global warming/climate change is real. Evolution is real. Core samples and tree ring samples and ice core samples and so many others are real.

The evidence against the Torah's account of creation is massive.

And while Biblical criticism is not science, we now know the work done by several generations of scholars can be confirmed.

And you, as always, are extremely delusional.

[AMR]

According to this there should have been three authors and not two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

If you notice the trope - the cantilation marks/notes used to "sing" the Torah Reading there are three distinct styles.

Curious the computer only found two

[Shmarya]

The trope is a much later addition. I doubt they programed to include it.

And there are more that 2 authors anyway.

What is meant by 2 is 2 at a certain point in time. Go earlier than that, and there are more that are redacted into, essentially, 4, which then get redacted into two, and then combined into 1.

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

The evidence against the Torah's account of creation is massive.

This could not be more far from the truth.

Shmaryah, seriously, if you want to stir-up controversy, can you at least thoroughly check the facts. Because when you dont, you look ... bad. ;)

[Yochanan Lavie]

The torah's account of creation is an allegory, IMO.

[Alex]

Now Scat, there you go again.

Everyone knows that climate changes, it's just whether or not the activity of human beings significantly adds to that change. I know that you know that but, in your frenzy to lash out, I guess you missed my point. So, for the sake of the emotionally challenged among us, we will try once again. Although it takes an enormous degree of forbearance on my part I do it because of the pity that I feel for you.) Are you ready? Here it goes: The point of my comment was not to open debate on man-made global warming, rather it is to temper the religious-like bigotry and naive obeisance to all that is labeled as science or fact as long as it supports one's pet beliefs or assuages doubt and shame and absolves from obligation. Got it? That's a good boy!

By the way, your gratuitous insults speak more about you than you might care to reveal.

[Catcher50]

@Alex...Here's a surprise: There is no scientific debate as to whether cc/gw is man influenced. All of the serious, peer reviewed studies provide ample evidence that the change in global temperature and attendant increase in violent and extreme weather can be tied to the increase in human use of hydrocarbons, deforestation, etc. All, of the contrary "reports" are without serious, validated evidence. They are based on "it's so because I know it's so." Not exactly acceptable.

@APC...I think that you and I, basically, agree, but IMO, methodology can also influence results.

[Alex]

Catcher,

Here's a surprise. I didn't post here with the intention of debating the pros and cons of man-made climate change. You must have missed that declarative sentence contained in the post that you are responding to. Didn't you? I just cited an example of agenda driven as opposed to honest scientific inquiry and findings in order to demonstrate the need for an ounce (wouldn't ask for more) of discrimination. Your overly broad claims and logically weak statements betray your true believer mentality. Your unwarranted sarcasm is unnecessary because your not very good at it and Scot has enough bile to last ten people an entire lifetime.

[Yechiel]

Alex
Well said (all comments)

[Yechiel]

OK now;
The Pentateuch was written by Shmarya and APC (hence the two writers the computer affirmed...) Although their writings are pretty close in nature, some subtleties in writing style/skill sets them apart...
As such, nothing stated in it should be taken too seriously.
I hope that most commenters have the mental capacity to grok the depth my statement and the point I am driving...
;-)

[catcher50]

@Alex...Got to show me that declarative sentence. I've read your post and either you thought and didn't write that sentence, or are having problems dealing with the English language.

While you may consider my statements weak, apparently virtually no one in the serious climate science agrees with you.

Also, you might bother to figure out what sarcasm is. My comments were quite straightforward.

By the way, you repeatedly state that you don't want to open the debate on man made GC/CS, and yet, that is precisely what you do.

You might want to look in a mirror so that you can see what others see (and that is sarcasm).

[Aleksandr Sigalov]

The funny part is that Pentateuch is the only document that gives Jews the right to the Land of Israel.

If someone proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that Pentateuch is just a man-made document, what would you think will happen to Jews in Israel (and in other parts of the world)?

[Idan]

Hi guys,

I'm one of the authors (Idan). I really appreciate the lively discussion here, and I thought I might just clear a couple things up…

APC: i would not use the term scholar in describing people who have reached conclusions without any evidence and who are clearly unwilling to amend those conclusions based on existing or new evidence. i call them apologists. but it is always interesting to wonder why such people would wish to be involved in a project like this. were they hoping the computers would advise that there was only one author thereby contradicting all of the scholarly work in the field? or are they just fascinated at the many "styles" used by god?

@APC: I hear where you're coming from, but if we're on the topic of reaching conclusions without sufficient evidence, I'd ask that you (re)read our article, which is available online, rather than rely on a generic description of "religious Jews." We didn't set out to prove anything, but rather to test the hypotheses out there as best we could. We would have published our findings no matter what. That strikes me as a reasonable attempt at scientific work, and I hope you'll agree.

AMR: According to this there should have been three authors and not two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis […] Curious the computer only found two

@AMR: You're quite right that DH doesn't postulate two sources. In fact, other than J, E, and D (non-Priestly), the Priestly "source" is generally thought to consist of at least two strata (P and H). It's messy. The closest thing to a scholarly consensus is that a Priestly school wrote much of the material in the Pentateuch/Hexateuch, whereas the remainder (non-Priestly, or "prophetic") — while hardly uniform — is much more similar to itself than to the Priestly stuff. Our experiment tested the validity of that consensus view, and we found that there's a lot going for it. Our results don't come close to proving that only two authors contributed to the text of the Torah, nor do they confirm 100% of the P/non-P dichotomy.

masortiman: geez people. The machine is applying the same methodology that humans scholars have applied for over 200 years, only more precisely, and is getting similar results.

@masortiman: Our methodology is unique in a number of ways, not least of which is the data we don't look at. We ignore repetitions, contradictions, and all that jazz, and yet our results — as you say — are not too different from those of nineteenth century scholars. Two major criticisms of DH are (1) that it confuses subject matter for authorship, and (2) that it projects modern notions of literary structure onto ancient texts — i.e. scholars see repetitions and assume multiple authorship, when in fact it's an artifact of biblical style. Since we control for content and ignore subjective notions like repetition, we're somewhat less vulnerable to such criticisms.

masortiman: The "God could write in different voices" response was in the Hertz Chumash. The response, "Why would He?" is about as old, AFAIK.

@masortiman: Good question...

[Alex]

How pathetic that you can't even see the sarcasm in "here's a suprise." If you will look above you will find the straight forward declarative sentence you failed to see, Professor. To save you the time and the likelihood of overheating your brain; "The point of my comment was not to open debate on man-made global warming..." Is that declarative enough for you? You needn't bother replying.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Idan: Thank you for coming on board. FM is a very contentious site, but we have some really intelligent commenters. Wear your helmet- it gets rough in here ;)

[Abracadabra]

APC - I urge you to take heed the words of our Sages: "Tzapasta meruba lo tzapasta"

While you are trying to hedge your bets and adopt Pastafarianism, you are also an Inblunicornian. That is just not acceptable to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The FSM is a very jealous God. She doesn't like it when people believe in other gods like the Invisible Black Unicorn. If she finds out that you are an Inblunicornian she will smite you and your descendants with plagues and curses and remove you from the Spaghettiland that was promised to our forefathers. But worst of all, she will make it impossible for you to have sauce with your Spaghetti all the days of your life. So, if you want to be an Inblunicornian, you're going to have to hide it from the FSM and not let anyone know, lest her loyal followers tell her on one of their triannual trips to the Spaghetti Temple (to offer meatballs and other delicacies sacrificed to the FSM to please and appease her). So, take my advice on this - keep your Inblunicornianism under wraps. (Rumor has it though that there is an underground blog or movement, I think it's called PastafanariaPrax.)

[Adam Neira]

To Yochanan Lavie,

Sometimes FM makes Roller Derby seem civilized.

[Shmarya]

Everyone knows that climate changes, it's just whether or not the activity of human beings significantly adds to that change. I know that you know that but, in your frenzy to lash out, I guess you missed my point. So, for the sake of the emotionally challenged among us, we will try once again. Although it takes an enormous degree of forbearance on my part I do it because of the pity that I feel for you.) Are you ready? Here it goes: The point of my comment was not to open debate on man-made global warming, rather it is to temper the religious-like bigotry and naive obeisance to all that is labeled as science or fact as long as it supports one's pet beliefs or assuages doubt and shame and absolves from obligation. Got it? That's a good boy!

By the way, your gratuitous insults speak more about you than you might care to reveal.

Posted by: Alex | June 30, 2011 at 01:58 PM

Please.

You're a snide, pathetic person.

Now process: The science is against you.

Not a little bit against you – OVERWHELMINGLY against you.

Now do toddle off.

[ah-pee-chorus]

@APC: I hear where you're coming from, but if we're on the topic of reaching conclusions without sufficient evidence, I'd ask that you (re)read our article, which is available online, rather than rely on a generic description of "religious Jews." We didn't set out to prove anything, but rather to test the hypotheses out there as best we could. We would have published our findings no matter what. That strikes me as a reasonable attempt at scientific work, and I hope you'll agree.

idan-
i respect you for responding here.
the findings you published are testament to the integrity of your work. my statement was mainly one of curiousity. if those of you who conducted the research are certain of the divinity of the torah, i'm confused as to why you would undertake this study, which can only lead to a need for more apologetics and cognitive dissonance. and if despite the evidence of multiple authors you maintain your position that god was its author, then i would call that portion of your analysis unscientific, even if the findings themselves were done in a scientifically acceptable manner. however i have no idea whether any of that would apply to you, as the study wasnt about who wrote it and whether conclusions of more than one author disprove god as the author.
i did read the study from your site and found it facinating. (at least that which i understood).

[ah-pee-chorus]

facinating s/b fascinating

[ah-pee-chorus]

Abracadabra -

since our sages are the IBU and the FSM, can you direct me to where either said,"Tzapasta meruba lo tzapasta" ?

Inblunicornian

i love that term. i may even start using that on forms that ask for my religion. i hope you havent copyrighted it.

please do not tell FSM about my double dealing. i would hate to be smacked by one of its noodly appendages.
and i thought the place of worship was the COTFSM (church of the flying...).
is the " Spaghetti Temple " some kind of breakaway minyan by those that didnt want to pay the building fund for the big church? please advise.

[Yochanan Lavie]

APC: Do they serve lukshen kugel as a communion wafer at the Spaghetti Temple?

[catcher50]

@APC...If they do serve kugel, as communion wafer, does it contain raisons, thereby getting the wine in at the same time, or not?

Also, do they use pre-cooked noodles in the Kugel or a recipe like my wife uses (and calls "no bake" kugel) and starts with dry noodles?

[ah-pee-chorus]

YL-
i only daven by the main church. we alternate between lukshen and salt and pepper kugel. i dont even like to think about what those schnorrers from the Spaghetti temple do.

catcher50-
much like the druze, the basic tenets are not allowed to be shared with outsiders. i just joined so i'm still learning.

[Abracadabra]

APC - Being new to Pastafarianism, your confusion is understandable. The FSM is God - not a Sage. (Gods and Sages are different). But we have holy Sages who have explained to us so much of the will of God (hello be her name) because her will is so (darn) hard to decipher. We believe that only the holy Sages know the true will of FSM. We revere the words of our holy Sages because they said so many words and were kind enough to write them down, passing the wealth of barely comprehensible wisdom down through the ages.

My spelling error also may have confused you. Instead of "Tzapasta meruba lo tzapasta" it should have read:

"TaPasta meruba lo TaPasta".

In ancient Pastafarian scrolls it is written as follows:

תפשת מרובה לא תפשת

Anyway, have no fear, I would never report your blasphemy to the FSM. I fear for what she would do to you.

Because you are new, it would be difficult for you to understand the differences between the the COTFSM (Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) and the Spaghetti Temple. But if you learn the extensive minutia of Pastafarianism, you will come to realize which is the real, true version of our sacred religion.

[Abracadabra]

Yochanan - (LOL!!) You have to taste the Rebitzin's lukshen kugel - only then will you be a true believer in the Godliness of the FSM!

[Jeff]

i only daven by the main church. we alternate between lukshen and salt and pepper kugel. i dont even like to think about what those schnorrers from the Spaghetti temple do.

APC, I know some young people from Israel who make Yerushalmi kugel with spaghetti (or linguine). Does that count?

[ah-pee-chorus]

jeff- they might be secret pastafarians, but theyll never admit it.

[Adam Neira]

Anthropegenic climate change theory is a metaphorical political tool. The Genesis account of Creation is not to be taken literally yet it is a very accurate account of intelligent design. Faith and science were prophesied to meet at some point. I am happy to sit with anyone for a period of time and present the evidence for a higher force in the universe. G-d really does intervene in the course of human affairs.

[Abracadabra]

G-d really does intervene in the course of human affairs.

Posted by: Adam Neira | July 02, 2011 at 06:16 PM

So does the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and her pasta sauce tastes so much better!

Faith and science were prophesied to meet at some point.

The prophets of the FSM, said that if we keep ignoring her laws and statutes, she's going to smack us with some pasta plagues. And as a prophet myself, I can tell you Adam that you're biting off way more than you can chew.

Any garden variety neurotic can be a prophet. Walk up and down the streets of New York City - you'll find plenty of them there.

[Adam Neira]

To Abracadabra,

False prophets give real prophets a bad name. A good test now would be lining up a few claimants and see if their explanation of what may unfold in the coming days, weeks, months and years seems reasonable.

[Noe]

Most recently;

http://seforim.blogspot.com/2011/07/attribution-and-misattribution-on.html

http://seforim.blogspot.com/2011/08/computer-confirmation-of-p-biblicists.html