Diogenes the Cynic

I think that's unrelated. Here's what I get from Etymology.com:
My Liddel and Scott also lists pappa as a child's word for "father," which, I'm pretty sure, retained the same meaning as papa in Latin, although I can't sem to find it in my Cassell's Latin Dictionary..

Chris Weimer

Papa isn't a Latin word attested in any literature that I am aware of (although it may be inscribed somewhere). However, pappus means an old man. Perhaps there's a relationship there.

But I was only kidding with the popa - after all, why then would I have winked? ;-)

Didymus

Yes. Most non-specialist historians, or specialists in other areas, are complacent on the subject. Postmodernists, in particular, are perfectly happy to treat the effect (the growth of Christianity) as though it were caused by a real event. If "perception is reality," then MJ = HJ.

There's also the fact that historians are not so interested in events as they are in the impact of events. They'll settle for just about any cause so long as it's not in glaring contradiction to the evidence and if it reasonably accounts for the social and political effects.

But I think the parsimony of which you speak has to share equal billing with some other factors, like the career risks for academics in openly taking an MJ position.

That sort of digging and willingness to go against the grain takes a strong commitment and a tough skin, and even moreso if your living depends on the goodwill of a religious institution. Look what happened to Gerd Ludemann at Tubingen, an institution that Joseph Ratzinger and many others believed to be a nest of radicalism. And he didn't even take an MJ position.

It's the easier way out. And it's more tolerated by believers because it still leaves room for faith. MJ closes that door.

Didymus

Diogenes the Cynic

I found this on Dictionary.com:
This for "papal."
I had it in my head that Pope meant "father" and that it came fom a Latin word papa. Apparently it actually comes from the Gr. pappas and from what I can tell it pretty much always had its ecclesiastical meaning in Latin.

Anyway, it has nothing to do with Papias.

Julian

[MOD]
Reminder! This thread is for answering question in a brief and simple manner. Any discussion in here would detract from this purpose. You feel the need to discuss something? Take it outside!

Julian
Moderator BC&H
[/MOD]

Damian

That having been said, an external link to more detailed information accompanying any such simplified answers would be much appreciated.

Chris Weimer

More in-depth answers could be achieved by asking the question in another thread. That way, it also gives input from various people here instead of merely relying on authority of another site.

Awmte

Ok, since this thread is all about asking questions, here's a couple more.
I have read a lot about the chiastic structure of Mark, and I've studied Vorkosigan's analysis (not in any depth, mind. It seems to me that some of the chiastic constructs are more compelling than others).
My question is this: Is this structure an artefact of the Greek text, or does it also manifest in the English translations? Wouldn't something necessarily get lost in the translation from one language to another?
Eagerly awaiting enlightenment...

Awmte

cajela

And what does chiastic mean?

Awmte

Um, a verse structure in the form of a chiasmus? At least that was my meaning. Sorry if I was unclear.