Question About the Synoptic Problem and the Priority of Matthew

[bilby]

the thread topic here seemed like one where a chat-bot might produce a reasonable summary

Only to someone who is more familiar with the hype than the reality.

It remains a fact that NO topic is "one where a chat-bot might produce a reasonable summary", for any worthwhile value of "might"; And your belief and faith in the contrary is not sufficient to render useful all (or any) of the things that would flow from that belief if it were true.

A carnival soothsayer might produce a reasonable summary of some topic or other; But that doesn't imply that such "psychics" are valuable contributors to human knowledge.

Indeed, I view contributions to discussion that start "According to ChatGPT..." with exactly the same enthusiasm and delight that I bring to contributions which begin "According to my astrologer...".

And so should any reasonable person.

Which is why LLM has no business being quoted on these fora as though it were helpful to do so.

 

[Swammerdami]

the thread topic here seemed like one where a chat-bot might produce a reasonable summary

Only to someone who is more familiar with the hype than the reality.

It remains a fact that NO topic is "one where a chat-bot might produce a reasonable summary", for any worthwhile value of "might"; And your belief and faith in the contrary is not sufficient to render useful all (or any) of the things that would flow from that belief if it were true.

A carnival soothsayer might produce a reasonable summary of some topic or other; But that doesn't imply that such "psychics" are valuable contributors to human knowledge.

Indeed, I view contributions to discussion that start "According to ChatGPT..." with exactly the same enthusiasm and delight that I bring to contributions which begin "According to my astrologer...".

And so should any reasonable person.

Which is why LLM has no business being quoted on these fora as though it were helpful to do so.

TL;DR: "Blah blah inanity blah. I've told you this seventeen times so it's true."

We realize you are very fond of your opinions, but three times would have been more than enough, bilby.

“Just the place for a Snark!” the Bellman cried,

As he landed his crew with care;​

Supporting each man on the top of the tide​

By a finger entwined in his hair.​

​

“Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:​

That alone should encourage the crew.​

Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:​

What I tell you three times is true.”​

 

[Swammerdami]

Imagine a parrot who has spent years living in a household of New Testament scholars. The parrot is able to regurgitate many of the sounds uttered by the scholars in their debates.

I have quoted a bot with an "IQ" demonstrably much less than that of the parrot. I regard its utterings as a Starting Point™. A starting point for a summary which, whatever its faults, is better than anything an ignorant layman could produce in several hours using Google, even when Google is instructed to focus specifically on the utterings at iidb.org.

Has the bot erred, misrepresented, or overlooked important facets of the topics? I dunno. Have the experts here identified any such flaws? Apparently not, although I'm confident that the experts will "defend" their superiority by claiming that to even read the bot's output is beneath their dignity!

 

[Politesse]

And yet, nothing Started.

 

[Swammerdami]

And yet, nothing Started.

This remark appears indecipherable -- utterly meaningless and incomprehensible. To clarify, perhaps you could choose from three options:

• I, Politesse, read the bot's summary and noticed no major errors or omissions.
• I, Politesse, did not condescend to read the bot's summary.
• I, Politesse, do not condescend to tell you whether I read the bot's summary or not.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Politesse]

The "bot" did not summarize anything. It did no research, and cannot therefore summarize its findings. It generated a plausible-sounding set of sentences based on a prompt. It is not, and cannot be, consciously aware of the debate on Markan vs Matthean priority, and can only sound as though it does by patching together the rhetorical style of a thousand different authors and dumping them atop an encyclopedia article and the top few Google hits. I don't actually know all of Cortana's sources and cannot comment on them, any more than Cortana itself can. What can one reasonably reply to a clause like "many scholars believe" without an attribution? Except to agree that yes, some scholar probably said that, or at least said something that sounded like that about a somewhat similar issue. In this particular case, we have no autograph for any of these documents, so even actual scholars can only make informed speculation, and wildly divergent theories about the authors and compositional context of the Gospels abound.

 

[Swammerdami]

The "bot" did not summarize anything.

It prepared a "summary."

It did no research, and cannot therefore summarize its findings.

So what? That has nothing to do with anything. Did you read where I likened the bot to a parrot?
Did you understand the simile??

It generated a plausible-sounding set of sentences based on a prompt.

So what?

It is not, and cannot be, consciously aware of the debate on Markan vs Matthean priority

Of course. Babble babble babble. Tell us what we all already know???

, and can only sound as though it does by patching together the rhetorical style of a thousand different authors and dumping them atop an encyclopedia article and the top few Google hits.

Blah blah blah.
The bot DID produce a summary. Setting aside the pressing issue of Matthean priority it might be instructive for several of us if we could see how WELL the bot did on preparing this summary. These bots produce EXCELLENT summaries for SOME queries, and bad summaries for others.
My question is: How did it do on this query? It sounds like you do not know the answer to that simple question and have nothing to contribute but "babble babble babble" on matters we all are very aware of.

... What can one reasonably reply to a clause like "many scholars believe" without an attribution?

An expert, or even a well-read layman, would probably know whether the claim "many scholars believe X" is true or false.

I assume you are aware that the bot was NOT asked to produce a scholarly article for submission to a journal?
It strikes me that you are focused on expressing your antipathy toward bots, rather than evaluating the summary it happened to produce. Am I right?

Except to agree that yes, some scholar probably said that, or at least said something that sounded like that about a somewhat similar issue. In this particular case, we have no autograph for any of these documents, so even actual scholars can only make informed speculation, and wildly divergent theories about the authors and compositional context of the Gospels abound.

I understand that the requisite expertise might be very difficult to attain. Give it your best shot: Did YOU notice important errors or omissions in the bot's OUTPUT?

 

[Politesse]

It strikes me that you are focused on expressing your antipathy toward bots, rather than evaluating the summary it happened to produce. Am I right?

Correct.

 

[Politesse]

If we start throwing in AI "chatters" to supply this "discussion forum" with participants, the overall quality of discussion can only degrade.

 

[Swammerdami]

I was inspired by the Chat-Bot to pursue the synoptic problem further. Here are my conclusions.
NONE of the following is taken from the Bot's output. I did use several sources suggested by Google.

There seem to be three main hypotheses:

(1) Mark and Q were the two early sources. Both Matthew and Luke borrowed from each of Mark and Q.
(2) Matthew was first; Mark and Luke both borrowed from Matthew.
(3) [Griesbach Hypothesis] Matthew was first; Luke borrowed from Matthew; Mark borrowed from both Matthew and Luke.

First let us review the demon named "Legion" (in Mark and Luke but not Matthew) and the "Miracle of the Swine." If Mark and Luke both copied Matthew, where did "Legion" come from? (This may be compatible with the Griesbach Hypothesis but we dispose of that below.) Where did this story take place? On the east bank of the Sea of Galilee, but near which town? Three possibilities are presented; in decreasing order of closeness to the Sea these are:
* Gergesa (Origen's version of Matthew) -- adjacent to Sea
* Gadara (Matthew) -- 10 km distant
* Gerasa (Mark and Luke) -- 50 km distant
Gergesa is most likely correct, and in "some manuscripts". One source shows this as a 3rd century correction.
Gadara is plausible, especially if Matthew's author thought this place-name would be more recognizable than the small village of Gergesa.
Gerasa appears wrong; perhaps the name was conflated with Gergesa.

If Matthew came first, why did BOTH Mark and Luke replace the place-name with the incorrect Gerasa?
But if Mark came first, Matthew simply applied geographic knowledge to correct an error.

The parable of the mustard seed in Mark (4:30–32) is different from the version in Matthew and Luke; this is cited as evidence for Griesbach's claim that Luke borrowed from Matthew. But much more parsimonious is that both Matthew and Luke acquired the parable from Q; and that this was a parable provided by Mark independent of Q.

Q is parables and sermons, so that parable is easily disposed of, but Griesbach also places emphasis on a difference in the stories of Jesus' arrest.
Let us first note that in Matthew, Peter's betrayal comes after Jesus is spat on, but in Mark and Luke the betrayal comes first. So much for the idea that both borrowed from Matthew!

Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?

And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.

There are differences among all three versions. Luke is the only one that mentions neither "spit" nor "buffet" nor "palms of their hands" but does mention "blindfold." Griesbach may argue that Mark is the most divergent of the three (the question who is he that smote thee" isn't asked) but with the other differences using this as evidence for Mathean priority is an over-reach.

But why the divergence in this account anyway, since much of the synoptic texts are almost identical? Perhaps the detailed story of Jesus' arrest and trial, so very central to the cult, was so widely known that the Gospel writers didn't need to copy verbatim.

Marcan priority affirmed!

 

[bilby]

TL;DR: "Blah blah inanity blah. I've told you this seventeen times so it's true."

You have it backwards; It is true, yet you persist in acting as though it were false. So I keep having to point out, over and over, for the benefit of anyone who might be misled, that you are engaged in the dissemination of nonsense.

I view contributions to discussion that start "According to ChatGPT..." with exactly the same enthusiasm and delight that I bring to contributions which begin "According to my astrologer...".

And I will not resile from pointing out that these sources are bunkum.

If that upsets you, then stop doing it.

 

[bilby]

I understand that the requisite expertise might be very difficult to attain. Give it your best shot: Did YOU notice important errors or omissions in the bot's OUTPUT?

"My astrologer correctly predicted the winner of this year's superbowl. How can you argue that she is not a valuable source of information about the future? What error or ommission can you point to in her prediction?".

 

[bilby]

If we start throwing in AI "chatters" to supply this "discussion forum" with participants, the overall quality of discussion can only degrade.

Unfortunately, I can only "like" this post once.

 

[Swammerdami]

I will click the Report button and ask Moderation Staff to route the hijacking posts in this thread to a new thread, perhaps with a title like

"Chat Bots, although very 'stupid', now outperform human experts on some tasks, e.g. many types of medical decisions"​

TL;DR: "Blah blah inanity blah. I've told you this seventeen times so it's true."

You have it backwards; It is true, yet you persist in acting as though it were false. So I keep having to point out, over and over, for the benefit of anyone who might be misled, that you are engaged in the dissemination of nonsense.

Oh my. I finally got you to shut up about your false understanding of the word 'intrinsic' by quoting Wikipedia:

Commodity money consists of objects having value or use in themselves (intrinsic value) as well as their value in buying goods.

... But now you've got a new bone you can't let go of!

I understand that the requisite expertise might be very difficult to attain. Give it your best shot: Did YOU notice important errors or omissions in the bot's OUTPUT?

"My astrologer correctly predicted the winner of this year's superbowl. How can you argue that she is not a valuable source of information about the future? What error or ommission can you point to in her prediction?".

Do you know what a scientist is, bilby? Some scientists have actually -- gasp! -- TESTED the validity of astrological predictions!

Spoiler: Their conclusion

the predictions were no better than random

I chose to test the value of ChatGPT by presenting queries and posting its responses, hoping IIDB experts would identify the flaws in its response. Zero -- ZERO with a Z -- flaws have been identified in the Bot's output. Politesse effectively admitted that the Bot's summary was probably fairly good: He despises it for other reasons.

ChatGPT produced several paragraphs, much more than the brief sentence or two from an astrological prediction, yet ZERO errors have turned up. Admittedly this is because some of you would rather spend 20 minutes denouncing me and my experiment than the 4 minutes needed to peruse the Bot's output and see if it actually resembled an astrological prediction.

@Moderation Staff -- bilby will be unable to resist firing off 2 or 3 more insults. Remember to also move those to the new thread.

 

[Swammerdami]

I am not the one derailing this thread. I posted a Bot's output for comment; there is zero evidence that anyone read any of that output except me.

Now I posted the conclusion of a human layman -- myself -- and hope for feedback. Do my arguments against Mathean priority have merit?

I was inspired by the Chat-Bot to pursue the synoptic problem further. Here are my conclusions.
NONE of the following is taken from the Bot's output. I did use several sources suggested by Google.

There seem to be three main hypotheses:

(1) Mark and Q were the two early sources. Both Matthew and Luke borrowed from each of Mark and Q.
(2) Matthew was first; Mark and Luke both borrowed from Matthew.
(3) [Griesbach Hypothesis] Matthew was first; Luke borrowed from Matthew; Mark borrowed from both Matthew and Luke.

First let us review the demon named "Legion" (in Mark and Luke but not Matthew) and the "Miracle of the Swine." If Mark and Luke both copied Matthew, where did "Legion" come from? (This may be compatible with the Griesbach Hypothesis but we dispose of that below.) Where did this story take place? On the east bank of the Sea of Galilee, but near which town? Three possibilities are presented; in decreasing order of closeness to the Sea these are:
* Gergesa (Origen's version of Matthew) -- adjacent to Sea
* Gadara (Matthew) -- 10 km distant
* Gerasa (Mark and Luke) -- 50 km distant
Gergesa is most likely correct, and in "some manuscripts". One source shows this as a 3rd century correction.
Gadara is plausible, especially if Matthew's author thought this place-name would be more recognizable than the small village of Gergesa.
Gerasa appears wrong; perhaps the name was conflated with Gergesa.

If Matthew came first, why did BOTH Mark and Luke replace the place-name with the incorrect Gerasa?
But if Mark came first, Matthew simply applied geographic knowledge to correct an error.

The parable of the mustard seed in Mark (4:30–32) is different from the version in Matthew and Luke; this is cited as evidence for Griesbach's claim that Luke borrowed from Matthew. But much more parsimonious is that both Matthew and Luke acquired the parable from Q; and that this was a parable provided by Mark independent of Q.

Q is parables and sermons, so that parable is easily disposed of, but Griesbach also places emphasis on a difference in the stories of Jesus' arrest.
Let us first note that in Matthew, Peter's betrayal comes after Jesus is spat on, but in Mark and Luke the betrayal comes first. So much for the idea that both borrowed from Matthew!

Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,
Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him.
And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face, and asked him, saying, Prophesy, who is it that smote thee?

And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the servants did strike him with the palms of their hands.

There are differences among all three versions. Luke is the only one that mentions neither "spit" nor "buffet" nor "palms of their hands" but does mention "blindfold." Griesbach may argue that Mark is the most divergent of the three (the question who is he that smote thee" isn't asked) but with the other differences using this as evidence for Mathean priority is an over-reach.

But why the divergence in this account anyway, since much of the synoptic texts are almost identical? Perhaps the detailed story of Jesus' arrest and trial, so very central to the cult, was so widely known that the Gospel writers didn't need to copy verbatim.

Marcan priority affirmed!

 

[bilby]

I chose to test the value of ChatGPT by presenting queries and posting its responses, hoping IIDB experts would identify the flaws in its response. Zero -- ZERO with a Z -- flaws have been identified in the Bot's output

I merely note that this is zero flaws identified from the zero attempts made by the utterly disinterested IIDB crowd.

 

[bilby]

bilby will be unable to resist firing off 2 or 3 more insults.

Bilby has yet to "fire off" a single insult in this thread.

Pointing out that you are making a terrible mistake is not an insult; Nor is pointing out that your new faith is unfounded in reality.

 

[bilby]

I am not the one derailing this thread. I posted a Bot's output for comment

Pick one.

 

[pood]

I chose to test the value of ChatGPT by presenting queries and posting its responses, hoping IIDB experts would identify the flaws in its response. Zero -- ZERO with a Z -- flaws have been identified in the Bot's output

I merely note that this is zero flaws identified from the zero attempts made by the utterly disinterested IIDB crowd.

I think this is the point. I did not read the summary because I do not read AI.

 

[IIDB Staff]

The topic of this thread is not the veracity of chatbots. Please get back on target.

Has the bot erred, misrepresented, or overlooked important facets of the topics? I dunno. Have the experts here identified any such flaws?

This is a debate board between humans. If you want to debate the veracity of chatbots, start a new thread to debate that, please.

Any quoted source, whether it is chatbots or the national enquirer, can be brought up and also can be dismissed as unserious if someone feels they have tested the source enough to find it unreliable. They don’t need to re-litigate that every time.

The TOPIC here is about religion and is outlined in the OP.