Steven Avery

I'm not familiar with Plato arguments, so I'll pass on them for now. My understanding of the Shakespeare controversy is simply that the author was another individual writing under Shakespeare's name. Surely you recognize that this is completely different than saying that somebody analyzes the plays and finds different authors to the various plays. If the latter is the case, I'll be happy to wing a letter to Holding on this part, which is minor since you could substitute all sorts of other names.

Shalom,
Steven
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Doug Shaver

I didn't ask you to. Try reading my post again.

Added in edit: My apologies. I got mixed up on what I'd written when to whom.

I trust, though, that you realize how lame it sounds to say you *could* prove something but just can't be bothered to do so?

Diogenes the Cynic

The latter is the case. There aren't really any serious theories that ALL of Shakespeare's plays were written by a single pseudonymous writer. Stylistic analysis would not be much use then. There are some who think that Shakespeare's plays had multiple authors, which is something that stylistic analysis can tell.
I doubt it. Holding's premise is flawed. His assertion that this kind of analysis is never applied to other authors or bodies of literature is completely false. It is frequently tested in such a manner, Holding, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about.

Steven Avery

Not sure your context here, and don't know what the apology was.

I thought I have made it clear that with the presups of mythicists (e.g. late dating of everything) I would never be able to demonstrate to mythicists Pauline authorship of the epistles. And I would not try, it is not a question of not being "bothered", please do not put sentiments in my mouth improperly. I am happily "bothered" to demonstrate many things on these forums.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Then tell us the following.
How many Shakespeare authors ?
How is this proven by stylistic analysis ?
And why is there nothing close to agreement on this ?

Actually you are misrepresenting him, since his reference was to the conclusions.

"I have yet to see these sort of guidelines applied to other literary works and authors as a guide, and the same sort of conclusions reached"

Now perhaps he should say "conclusively" or "definitively" or "with wide acceptance" before reached. More than a quibble, but only a bit more. Have you sent Holding a note, so he will parse his words more carefully next time and be more familiar with the wide divergence of stylistic viewpoints vis a vis Shakespeare et al ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Diogenes the Cynic

More than one. Basically, computer analysis shows that some of the earliest works attributed to Shakespeare were probably written by other authors. I'm not a Shakespearian scholar, though, so I can't give you details.
Stylometry
Who said there isn't anything close to agreement on this? Pharoah simply contested Holding's declaration that "nobody denies" that Shakespeare wrote everything attributed to him. The opposite is true. Almost nobody claims that Shakespeare DID write everything attributed to him. There is no significant disagreement on that.
Well then, Holding is STILL wrong. The same sort of conclusions HAVE been reached.
The same sort of conclusions HAVE been reached conclusively, definitively and with wide acceptance.
There is no "wide divergence" of viewpoints. There is wide acceptance of the SINGLE viewpoint that Shakespeare did not write everything attributed to him. Try reading with comprehension.

Steven Avery

Probably or definitely ?

All Wikipedia says is..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shakespeare
"A related question in mainstream academia addresses whether Shakespeare himself wrote every word of his commonly accepted plays, given that collaboration between dramatists routinely occurred in the Elizabethan theatre. Serious academic work continues to attempt to ascertain the authorship of plays and poems of the time, both those attributed to Shakespeare and others."

You claim they have it all wrong, and really academia agrees on multiple distinct authorship, with one author for some plays and another author for other plays ?

Then demonstrate this agreement from scholarship references.

See request above.

See request above.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Diogenes the Cynic

Let's go with definitely.
No, that's not all Wikiedia says. You missed all this:
There is universal agreement that some of the plays are collaborations. That means that there is universal agreement that Shakespeare did not write everything attributed to him.
This is a Bible forum, not a Shakespeare forum. I've indulged you in this digression as far as it deserves to go. Holding was wrong in his assertion that stylistic analysis has not been used to test Shakespeare and Plato. It has been. His qualification about getting similar conclusions to Bible analysis is not only wrong, but meaningless. How does using the analysis to authenticate something rather than falsify it prove that the analytic method itself is flawed? That's like saying that DNA tests must be wrong because some people get positive results and some get negative. Holding's objection is senseless. The same analysis has been used to authenticate some Pauline letters, you know....or at least to show that seven of the letters came from the same hand. If you have a problem with stylistic analysis, please show us how it's flawed.

Steven Avery

Sounds like a pretty undefinite definite.

That was covered in what I posted, and is totally different than the claim you made that earlier plays were from another author.

Let's look at this nonsense...

Doiogenes reads "some reason to believe" in a collaborationist on parts of some plays as

a "definite" to
"earliest works attributed to Shakespeare were written by other authors."

This is silly stuff. Diogenes was 10x more off than anything of Holdings, even when he was supposedly meticulously dealing with the exact issue.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Diogenes the Cynic

And there is UNIVERSAL agreement that some of the plays were collaboration. There is UNIVERSAL agreement that Shakespeare did not write everything attributed to him. Holding was wrong when he asserted otherwise.

You don't seem to be tracking this debate very well and you're ignoring facts which are inconvenient to you. What else is new?