We Have Two Swords

[tabibito]

I meant precisely what I wrote.

So? The way you use the word "speculation," seems to indicate that you intend it to mean wild and unfounded guess.

How far do you wish to take such an attitude? Nor does employing pretentious language [i.e. "account" and "data"] further your speculative notions.

I used words that present no difficulty for the average 12 year old.

These are narrative texts. You may as well contend that because we have no corroborative comments from those other figures in the text that the story of Rapunzel is an "account" of an actual event.

Narrative is not a genre. It is a form of presentation. You still seem to have difficulty distinguishing one genre from another.

Given your scholarly command of Koine Greek I am surprised you are not aware of the philology and the debates surrounding that phrase.

I am aware that the phrase might mean something else in a different context.

You could read this: The actual paper is available as a pdf download

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...6EFC82282312C2

Eine mögliche Deutung der Antwort Jesu ist, die Phrase σὺ λέγεις mit den unterschiedlichen Ebenen des „Königtums“ (politisch oder religiös) in Verbindung zu bringen. Jesus lässt bei einer solchen Deutung des Textes offen, auf welcher Ebene der Titel auf ihn zutrifft. Σὺ λέγεις ist in diesem Fall weder als eindeutige Zustimmung noch als Ablehnung zu verstehen. mit den unterschiedlichen Ebenen des „Königtums“ (politisch oder religiös) in Verbindung zu bringen. Jesus lässt bei einer solchen Deutung des Textes offen, auf welcher Ebene der Titel auf ihn zutrifft.

One possible interpretation of Jesus' answer is to associate the phrase σὺ λέγεις with the different levels of "kingship" (political or religious). With such an interpretation of the text, Jesus leaves open the level at which the title applies to him. In this case, Σὺ λέγεις is neither to be understood as a clear agreement nor as a rejection.

Ferner wird auch die Ansicht vertreten, Jesus bejahe letztlich die Frage des Pilatus. Er bestätige einerseits, dass er ein König sei, andererseits distanziere er sich von der Formulierung, da seine eigene Vorstellung seines Königtums sich nicht mit der, die in der Frage impliziert wird, decke. Diese Zurückhaltung Jesu führe Pilatus dazu, das Verhör fortzusetzen. Jesu Entgegnung kann (unter Hinweis auf Mt 26,25, Mt 26,64 und Joh 18,37) auch als Zustimmung ohne jegliche Einschränkung gesehen werden. Schließlich spreche Pilatus auch in Mk 15,9.12 von Jesus als „König der Juden“. Aus diesem Grund müsse er die Antwort Jesu in Mk 15,2 als Bestätigung aufgefasst haben

Furthermore, the view is also held that Jesus ultimately answered Pilate's question in the affirmative. On the one hand he confirms that he is a king, on the other hand he distances himself from the formulation, since his own idea of his kingship does not correspond to that implied in the question. Jesus' reluctance led Pilate to continue the interrogation.Jesus' reply can (with reference to Mt 26:25, Mt 26:64 and Jn 18:37) also be seen as approval without any qualification. Finally, Pilate also spoke in Mark 15:9-12 of Jesus as "King of the Jews". For this reason he must have taken Jesus' answer in Mark 15:2 as a confirmation. [(that is the same argument that I presented.)]

THE CONCLUSION:

Jesus kann in der Frage einer potentiellen laesio maiestatis keinesfalls mehr als confessus betrachtet werden, da er den Vorwurf seiner Ankläger klar, eindeutig und unmissverständlich zurückweist. Diese Erkenntnis hat Auswirkungen auf die Interpretation des Prozesses Jesu. Dies zu untersuchen, würde den Rahmen der vorliegenden Ausführungen bei weitem sprengen.

Jesus can no longer be regarded as a confessus in the question of a potential laesio maiestatis, since he clearly, unequivocally and unequivocally rejects the accusation of his accusers. This realization has implications for the interpretation of Jesus' trial. Investigating this would go far beyond the scope of the present discussion.

Nice try, but Google translate has no difficulty translating German to English. Hans Forster does not say what you want us to believe he is saying. In Jesus' immediate answer, he admits to being a king, but "leaves open" the issue of whether he is an earthly king: Jesus' expansion clearly declares he is not. In so doing, he does not confess to the crime of lese majeste: the expanded answer refutes the Jews' accusations. While συ λεγεις can, in some contexts, be a negative answer, in the context of the passages under review, it is an affirmative answer. Did you bother to read the paper, or did you stop at the (English) introduction?

Then all those later comments attributed to Pilate "Why what evil has he done?" [Mark and Matthew] and expanded in Luke to include "I have found in him no ground for the sentence of death; I will therefore have him flogged and then release him" and in John "I find no case against him" all become ludicrous given that at the time the Roman punishment for claiming messianic status [anointed and/or king] was crucifixion.

Your argument fails, according to Forster. Of course, I may have missed something, and Forster might in fact be arguing against what he admits is the majority consensus, which would be an embarrassing admission on your part that it is not unreasonable to reject majority consensus.

[One Bad Pig]

Methinks the author doth largely protest too much. While the Orthodox debate over icons was highly contentious and a few people were killed, it was hardly a bloodbath (and this is coming from someone on the persecuted side in that debate). Further, Christianity has had far more opportunity for such destruction; Judaism hasn't had much power to do so since the conquest of Canaan, and Islam did most of its expansion against Christian cultures, not pagan ones.

No one is disputing the destruction caused by Islam but Islam was not the topic - likewise early Israelites.

I'll take this as tacit acknowledgement that my point is on target.

In the opening paragraph of his paper which commences with the protests of fundamentalist Christians in the 1990s [led by minister Mel Perry] against a replica of Athena Parthenos being placed in the Nashville Pantheon, Pollni notes:

Shenoute is reported to have said that “there is no crime for those who have Christ,” a belief shared and acted upon by fundamentalist Christians from late antiquity to the present.

That's an impressively broad brush he's painting with.

On page four Pollini discusses St Nicholas and how our jolly gift giver is rather removed from his origins.

The St. Nicholas of late antiquity was in reality a composite of at least two individuals, a shadowy figure said to be bishop of Myra, who lived at the time of the Emperor Constantine in the 4th century, and Nicholas of Sion, bishop of Pinara, a true historical individual who lived at the time of Justinian in the 6th century. Many of the stories about Nicholas of Sion were attributed to Nicholas, bishop of Myra. In reality, the composite St. Nicholas was anything but jolly or lovable; he was in fact an ascetic fanatic, admired for his destruction of the sacred images, objects, and temples of the gods of polytheistic peoples in Lycia in southwestern Asia Minor [modern Turkey].

Pollini's attempt to conflate two historical individuals is duly noted, as is his patent hostility to and inaccurate caricature of St. Nicholas. St. Nicholas has virtually nothing in common with Santa Claus.

However, the dispute [if that is what you consider it to have been] over icons continued for over a century commencing under Emperor Leo III in 726 who denounced icons and his council of 730 that forbade the veneration of icons up to the reign of Theophilus in the 800s. .

Under Leo III's successor Constantine V [Copronymus] monks, clergy, and laity who resisted decrees against images were harassed and persecuted. This included the torture and often murder of thousands of monks, among them Stephen of St Auxentius' monastery. Now while some might take issue with the term "bloodbath" which, I agree, has a highly emotive inference, I would suggest that most people would consider such behaviours as those outlined to be, at the very least, state intimidation and brutality of some duration and on a large scale.

I appreciate your grudging admission that I'm correct here. Yes, the iconoclast controversy lasted over a century, until the final restoration of icons in 843.

Having read Rohmann's book [which is not a polemic] he presents a measured response to the destruction of certain texts in the ancient world which in many respects reflected the Christian pre-occupation with demons, the refutation of any philosophical ideas that challenged biblical texts, as well as much needed attempts to create a unified religion/church. However, from the reign of Augustus there had always been severe imperial concerns and/or edicts against astrology [particularly any predictions that might relate to, or hint at, of imperial deaths]

You might note, I did not accuse Rohmann's book of being a polemic (unlike your other source). I do intend to read it when I find the time. I've got a rather large stack of other books to add it to.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So? The way you use the word "speculation," seems to indicate that you intend it to mean wild and unfounded guess.

You have a tendency to put your own speculative explanations forward for events that occur in the various gospels and present your speculations as if they cannot be questioned.

I used words that present no difficulty for the average 12 year old.

These texts are not accounts they are tendentious narratives written with the sole purpose of preaching and teaching. Nor do they contain data.

Narrative is not a genre. It is a form of presentation.

The content of these narratives is what is under consideration.

I am aware that the phrase might mean something else in a different context.

The phrase as it is found in Mark, Matthew, and Luke is not an unequivocal "Yes".

Nice try, but Google translate has no difficulty translating German to English. Hans Forster does not say what you want us to believe he is saying. In Jesus' immediate answer, he admits to being a king, but "leaves open" the issue of whether he is an earthly king: Jesus' expansion clearly declares he is not. In so doing, he does not confess to the crime of lese majeste: the expanded answer refutes the Jews' accusations.

I suggest you go back and read that paper once again. The phrase σὺ λέγεις as it is found in Mark fifteen as well as Luke twenty three and Matthew twenty seven is generally accepted to be a non-committal response i.e. you have said. And Förster notes that he cannot accept Demandt's interpretation that it is an unequivocal affirmative.

Now with regard to your other comments to which I replied:

More to the point, Pilate understood the answer to be affirmative, or perhaps you have another (attested) reason to advance for his writing "the King of the Jews."

And that renders all those later comments by Pilate as to the innocence of Jesus [finding no guilt in him] historical nonsense. It also makes it quite clear why Pilate had Jesus crucified which was the punishment for messianic claimants i.e. Kings of the Jews.

You long ago rejected the reasons that were advanced.

And what "reasons" were those?

[Diogenes]

You have a tendency to put your own speculative explanations forward for events that occur in the various gospels and present your speculations as if they cannot be questioned.

Yes, I agree you do.

[tabibito]

You have a tendency to put your own speculative explanations forward for events that occur in the various gospels and present your speculations as if they cannot be questioned.

What I present are my conclusions. To say that your responses are questioning those conclusions is well and truly wide of the truth, as is dismissing them as speculation. When a person questions a conclusion, the person will outline his reasons for doing so. Saying that someone or something else says otherwise is not questioning, it is contradiction. Stating the factors, point by point, relevant to the issue, is questioning.
The only times I have speculated have been when your questions demand answers that can only be based in speculation. Even then, the answers have not been wild flights of fancy, but educated guesses.

These texts are not accounts they are tendentious narratives written with the sole purpose of preaching and teaching. Nor do they contain data.

They are accounts from the perspective of the author. As such, they can be expected to be nuanced according to the authors' preferences. I made no claim that they contain data, I said that they are data. Accounts written for the purposes of teaching are tendentious?

The content of these narratives is what is under consideration.

They were not presenting fictional accounts of imaginary characters. Harry Potter (and other parallels that you try to draw) is a fictional account of an imaginary character. Different genres, different conclusions. All available evidence suggests that the authors were honest men who were presenting accurate information and appraisals to the best of their ability within the limits of the information that they had in hand and according to the conventions of their time and language.

The phrase as it is found in Mark, Matthew, and Luke is not an unequivocal "Yes".

The applicability of the general grammatical conventions should be considered in the light of how the phrase is used in the context of the passages under review. In John's account, it is an unequivocal "yes." In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Pilate accepts the answer as a "yes" - as the wording on the plaque ("the king of the Jews") that he had put on the cross attests.

I suggest you go back and read that paper once again. The phrase σὺ λέγεις as it is found in Mark fifteen as well as Luke twenty three and Matthew twenty seven is generally accepted to be a non-committal response i.e. you have said. And Förster notes that he cannot accept Demandt's interpretation that it is an unequivocal affirmative.

Generally accepted? The "generally accepted" opinions are stated in the paper. That opinion is: the response was unquestionably affirmative. Forster declares, with good reason, Demandt's claim that the answer is a clear yes on philological grounds is unfounded. Forster does not allow that the answer is equivocal in the context of the passage.

Introduction: paragraph 1
Walter Grundmann says that the phrase can be understood on philological grounds as either positive or negative, to which "exegesis is willing to ultimately give the phrase the meaning that seems to fit the respective situation,

(["exegesis is willing to give meaning" acknowledges that a general principle produces a conclusion that majority consensus willing to allow. If I were to do it, you would be (falsely) complaining that it was speculation.])

without there being sufficient semantic arguments from the point of view of philology

([There you have it, a process that you would dismiss as speculation - it is in fact reasonable surmise. ])

... "After all ... what" the original author says "should be unmistakable for the intended readership of the biblical texts"

([For the text under review, the claim can be questioned on grounds that the intended audience was not the author's audience, but the quoted (or paraphrased) speaker's audience.])

And that renders all those later comments by Pilate as to the innocence of Jesus [finding no guilt in him] historical nonsense. It also makes it quite clear why Pilate had Jesus crucified which was the punishment for messianic claimants i.e. Kings of the Jews.

The plaque attests that Jesus was found to be the king of the Jews, though Pilate found him guilty on purely technical grounds: the same grounds that you so stridently trumpet; Jesus claimed to be a king; an offfence for which the penalty was death. The gospels' authors portray Pilate, in his private persona, to consider that Jesus was innocent of action that deserved death: as governor, he did not have a free hand. In a court, justice often takes second place to the letter of the law.

And what "reasons" were those?

Should I point out what your response would be if it were me asking you for that information? Why would I consider reiterating what you have already dismissed as wild flights of fancy? I'll take your request as a bid to provide for yourself further excuse to be offensive.

[tabibito]

What I present are my conclusions. To say that your responses are questioning those conclusions is well and truly wide of the truth, as is dismissing them as speculation. When a person questions a conclusion, the person will outline his reasons for doing so. Saying that someone or something else says otherwise is not questioning, it is contradiction. Stating the factors, point by point, relevant to the issue, is questioning.
The only times I have speculated have been when your questions demand answers that can only be based in speculation. Even then, the answers have not been wild flights of fancy, but educated guesses.



They are accounts from the perspective of the author. As such, they can be expected to be nuanced according to the authors' preferences. I made no claim that they contain data, I said that they are data. Accounts written for the purposes of teaching are tendentious?



They were not presenting fictional accounts of imaginary characters. Harry Potter (and other parallels that you try to draw) is a fictional account of an imaginary character. Different genres, different conclusions. All available evidence suggests that the authors were honest men who were presenting accurate information and appraisals to the best of their ability within the limits of the information that they had in hand and according to the conventions of their time and language.



The applicability of the general grammatical conventions should be considered in the light of how the phrase is used in the context of the passages under review. In John's account, it is an unequivocal "yes." In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Pilate accepts the answer as a "yes" - as the wording on the plaque ("the king of the Jews") that he had put on the cross attests.



Generally accepted? The "generally accepted" opinions are stated in the paper. That opinion is: the response was unquestionably affirmative. Forster declares, with good reason, Demandt's claim that the answer is a clear yes on philological grounds is unfounded. Forster does not allow that the answer is equivocal in the context of the passage.

Introduction: paragraph 1
Walter Grundmann says that the phrase can be understood on philological grounds as either positive or negative, to which "exegesis is willing to ultimately give the phrase the meaning that seems to fit the respective situation,

(["exegesis is willing to give meaning" acknowledges that a general principle produces a conclusion that majority consensus willing to allow. If I were to do it, you would be (falsely) complaining that it was speculation.])

without there being sufficient semantic arguments from the point of view of philology

([There you have it, a process that you would dismiss as speculation - it is in fact reasonable surmise. ])

... "After all ... what" the original author says "should be unmistakable for the intended readership of the biblical texts"

([For the text under review, the claim can be questioned on grounds that the intended audience was not the author's audience, but the quoted (or paraphrased) speaker's audience.])

The plaque attests that Jesus was found to be the king of the Jews, though Pilate found him guilty on purely technical grounds: the same grounds that you so stridently trumpet; Jesus claimed to be a king; an offfence for which the penalty was death. The gospels' authors portray Pilate, in his private persona, to consider that Jesus was innocent of action that deserved death: as governor, he did not have a free hand. In a court, justice often takes second place to the letter of the law.



Should I point out what your response would be if it were me asking you for that information? Why would I consider reiterating what you have already dismissed as wild flights of fancy? I'll take your request as a bid to provide for yourself further excuse to be offensive.

ADDENDUM: I finally found the pieces you were referring to. Still trying to work out why the paragraphs are so at odds with the rest of his write-up.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

"As you say" acknowledges that he is the King of the Jews.

Grundman, Förster, and various others are less emphatic. And concerning the Marcan text, if Pilate accepted Jesus guilt [as you contend] then all those later comments put into the mouth of Pilate are rendered nonsensical - as Förster also noted.

What I present are my conclusions. To say that your responses are questioning those conclusions is well and truly wide of the truth, as is dismissing them as speculation. When a person questions a conclusion, the person will outline his reasons for doing so. Saying that someone or something else says otherwise is not questioning, it is contradiction. Stating the factors, point by point, relevant to the issue, is questioning.

Your comments are hardly a reasoned deduction or inference. You accept that these gospel texts are as veracious, you know nothing of early first century Judaea's "recent" history or the prevailing social and religio-political situation in those early decades, nor anything about how Rome governed its provinces at this period.

The only times I have speculated have been when your questions demand answers that can only be based in speculation. Even then, the answers have not been wild flights of fancy, but educated guesses.

And your conclusions as you repeatedly demonstrate are highly coloured by your theological predispositions. That you believe you have witnessed/experienced accurate pre-event prophecies and miracles indicates your superstitious mind-set in that regad.

They are accounts from the perspective of the author.

They are narratives written by individuals who were not present at any of the events they purport to recount; oral traditions and stories not withstanding. And they also reflect the theological beliefs of the communities for which each was written.

I made no claim that they contain data, I said that they are data

They are not "data" [i.e. factual information [such as measurements or statistics] used as a basis for reasoning, discussion or calculation]

Accounts written for the purposes of teaching are tendentious?

These gospels were written for theological purposes and each puts forward the particular viewpoint [or bias] of the religious community for which it was composed. These are not dispassionate reports nor histories [in the Greek meaning of that word].

They were not presenting fictional accounts of imaginary characters. Harry Potter (and other parallels that you try to draw) is a fictional account of an imaginary character.

To some extent they may be considered as semi-fictions written for a specific purpose. They are also products of societies that believed in miracles, evil entities, and portents, as are folk tales.

Furthermore we have nothing with which to cross-reference so much of the internal narrative of these gospels. No one else has left their written description of the supposed miracles they witnessed. Nor have any of those that Jesus cured left us any information on the long-term efficacy of their respective cures.

However, because of the belief in goetes [whom Josephus described as men who promise or perform miracles] it is understandable that exorcisms and miraculous cures were accepted by Jesus' contemporary society and audience as evidence of his abilities in that regard.

Different genres, different conclusions. All available evidence suggests that the authors were honest men who were presenting accurate information and appraisals to the best of their ability within the limits of the information that they had in hand and according to the conventions of their time and language.

How do we know that each of these texts was solely the work of one person? The content of these documents could have been brought together from several separate sources that had passed through various hands before they were compiled into one text.

Nor are these independent texts dispassionately examining events that had occurred previously. Again, they are not histories.

The applicability of the general grammatical conventions should be considered in the light of how the phrase is used in the context of the passages under review. In John's account, it is an unequivocal "yes." In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Pilate accepts the answer as a "yes" - as the wording on the plaque ("the king of the Jews") that he had put on the cross attests.

From a historical perspective the Roman authorities would have regarded Jesus as guilty for being acclaimed as [or claiming] Jewish messianic status. The phrase as it occurs in Mark is equivocal.

Generally accepted? The "generally accepted" opinions are stated in the paper. That opinion is: the response was unquestionably affirmative. Forster declares, with good reason, Demandt's claim that the answer is a clear yes on philological grounds is unfounded. Forster does not allow that the answer is equivocal in the context of the passage.

The simple fact is that there is no academic consensus on this phrase as it occurs in Mark fifteen verse two. And as Förster notes there is a dramatic element to these texts.

We need to remember that these gospels are separate texts written at different times, in different locations, and for their own respective community. They were never intended to be bound together [at a much later date] in an anthology.

These texts would have been read aloud to a group and in that respect they are story telling and therefore they utilise a lot of dramatic emphasis. The climax of Mark is the trial and death of Jesus. The burial and discovery of the empty tomb may be considered as the falling action and to some extent the denouement, although in the shorter text of that gospel everything is left on something of a cliff-hanger to which person[s] unknown later added the What Happened Next resolution.

In the Lucan narrative Jesus is specifically charged with making himself a "king" [chapter twenty three verse two]. On hearing this accusation and Jesus' σὺ λέγεις Pilate finds him innocent. This is completely nonsensical if Jesus' reply is a tacit admission, given that claims to messianic status carried the death penalty.

The plaque attests that Jesus was found to be the king of the Jews, though Pilate found him guilty on purely technical grounds: the same grounds that you so stridently trumpet;

There were no "technical grounds" in Roman law as it applied in this specific instance. Accusations made for claiming [or being acclaimed as] the Jewish messiah carried the death penalty. Once again you display your total ignorance of the contemporary situation. I repeat, that only Rome had the authority to appoint kings within its orbit. Nor would any military commander release someone who [so Mark tells us] "was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder during the insurrection".

Jesus claimed to be a king; an offfence for which the penalty was death. The gospels' authors portray Pilate, in his private persona, to consider that Jesus was innocent of action that deserved death: as governor, he did not have a free hand. In a court, justice often takes second place to the letter of the law.

Of course Pilate had a "free hand" he was the law. He held the Imperium.

There is also the question as to whether any of these trial scenarios as depicted in the NT narratives have any historical basis whatsoever.

However, if such an interrogation did take place, a man of Jesus' background and social position appearing before him on the charge of claiming [or being suspected of claiming] messianic status would have been unlikely to have brought out Pilate's sympathies towards either Jesus or his cause, particularly before breakfast!

And in Roman law concerning individuals of Jesus' social rank if such an individual stood accused and made not answer to the charges brought by the witnesses, he was automatically guilty and sentence duly followed.

What you are attempting to do is to explain and justify this scenario [as it has come down to us in the Marcan text] as potentially reliable history. It is no such thing.

Again, this is dramatic fiction with the interrogation/trial by Pilate as the dramatic climax of the narrative.

Here are the Jewish leaders inciting the crowd.
Here is Pilate recognising their ulterior motives and trying to save a man he considers to be innocent.
Suddenly there is a brief chance of a reprieve with the alleged amnesty,
That hope is dashed with the crowd [encouraged and incited] by those same Jewish leaders, demanding the release of another prisoner.
Finally we have Pilate compelled to acquiesce to the will of the mob and release that prisoner
Pilate then condemns the innocent man to be flogged and crucified.

Should I point out what your response would be if it were me asking you for that information? Why would I consider reiterating what you have already dismissed as wild flights of fancy? I'll take your request as a bid to provide for yourself further excuse to be offensive.

It would appear that these reasons to which you referred must forever remain elusive and unknown.

[tabibito]

Yet another plate of polemic, insult, contra-factual claims, and self aggrandisement, with a garnish of no more than a few tattered remnants of actual fact.

Nothing worth responding to.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'll take this as tacit acknowledgement that my point is on target.

Then you take it incorrectly.

You were far from "on target" concerning your comments on the iconomachy of the eighth-ninth centuries. I would suggest that the harassment, persecution, of the laity and the murder and torture of thousands of monks is hardly something inconsequential and which can be dismissed with the comment

a few people were killed

.

That's an impressively broad brush he's painting with.

In what precise regard?

Pollini's attempt to conflate two historical individuals is duly noted, as is his patent hostility to and inaccurate caricature of St. Nicholas. St. Nicholas has virtually nothing in common with Santa Claus.

I omitted his comments on the jolly gift giver

in modern Christian myth

I appreciate your grudging admission that I'm correct here. Yes, the iconoclast controversy lasted over a century, until the final restoration of icons in 843.

Once again, alas, you are incorrect. You dismissed this prolonged period of violence between Christians as:

highly contentious and a few people were killed, it was hardly a bloodbath

What is known would appear to contradict that remark.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Nothing worth responding to.

It appears you are lost for words!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Yes, I agree you do.

Writes the idiot who [premised solely on his reading of a chapter title] maintained:

The table of contents includes a chapter on social reproduction, Marxist confirmed.

And

The chapter title is sufficient to understand she is employing a critical theorist lens.

Only for it to be demonstrated to him that the chapter in question has nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism or Marxist theory.

[Diogenes]

Writes the idiot who [premised solely on his reading of a chapter title] maintained:

Only for it to be demonstrated to him that the chapter in question has nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism or Marxist theory.

No where have I been demonstrated to be incorrect in my analysis.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No where have I been demonstrated to be incorrect in my analysis.

You made a assumption premised on a complete lack of evidence. Only a fool does that.

[Diogenes]

You made a assumption premised on a complete lack of evidence. Only a fool does that.

P1) The telos of chapter titles are to indicate the contents of the chapter.
P2) Ringrose employs the term "social reproduction" in the chapter title.
C1) Ringrose employs "social reproduction" as a means of analysis in the chapter.
P2) "Social reproduction" is a critical means of analysis.
C2) Ringrose employs a critical means of analysis in the chapter.

At least you've derailed from defending Jesus' saying for the disciples to buy one and only one sword to lead a rebellion against the Roman occupation of Juæa in the 1st cet. AD and establishing Himself as a temporal king.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

P1) The telos of chapter titles are to indicate the contents of the chapter.
P2) Ringrose employs the term "social reproduction" in the chapter title.
C1) Ringrose employs "social reproduction" as a means of analysis in the chapter.
P2) "Social reproduction" is a critical means of analysis.
C2) Ringrose employs a critical means of analysis in the chapter.

At least you've derailed from defending Jesus' saying for the disciples to buy one and only one sword to lead a rebellion against the Roman occupation of Juæa in the 1st cet. AD and establishing Himself as a temporal king.

You made a assumption premised on a complete lack of evidence. Only a fool does that. Keep digging.