Skip to main content
10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 17, 2020 at 9:51 history edited CommunityBot
Commonmark migration
Oct 24, 2015 at 6:42 vote accept R. Brown
Oct 23, 2015 at 20:09 history edited R.P. CC BY-SA 3.0
edited body
Oct 23, 2015 at 20:04 history edited R.P. CC BY-SA 3.0
edited body
Oct 23, 2015 at 19:59 history edited R.P. CC BY-SA 3.0
added 3684 characters in body
Oct 23, 2015 at 14:18 comment added R.P. You're right. Thanks for bringing up this hidden assumption behind my answer. :-)
Oct 23, 2015 at 13:55 comment added Susan Right, I guess the question is whether they indeed actively thought of it in terms of its components. Would be interesting to search the classical literature to see just how common it was.
Oct 23, 2015 at 13:30 comment added R.P. I am sorry: the Middle Liddell abridgment of the LSJ gives "of like nature" as the second meaning. I took this as a paraphrase of the 2nd meaning listed in the LSJ itself, which is "affected in the same way", but this may have been a bit hasty. It's strange that the LSJ omits a meaning that the Middle Liddell does have. But regardless of this, it seems likely that speakers of Greek actively thought of ὁμοιοπαθής as a compound of ὁμοιος + πάθος. Hence the meaning of the word πάθος seems important in deciding the meaning of ὁμοιοπαθής itself (especially since the latter word seems quite rare).
Oct 23, 2015 at 13:17 comment added Susan Here’s what I’m seeing in LSJ - I don’t read that has “having the same qualities”, but that definition is in BDAG and is well supported by examples there. (Doesn’t it just mean “also human” - as opposed to divine - here?) The Aristotle explanation of πάθος is fascinating, but is it clear to you that the word ὁμοιοπαθής needs to reflect the definition of πάθος, Aristotelian or otherwise? Seems like it is a well established compound.
Oct 23, 2015 at 12:26 history answered R.P. CC BY-SA 3.0