Hammer 1

Greek υἱοῦ Θεοῦ. A son of God

There is no definite article "the" here. Thus "the Son" is less than accurate.

Similarly, there is no definite article for ἀρχῆς "an origin/beginning." When there is no definite article we don't add one. When there is a definite article, we don't remove it. 

τοῦ εὐαγγελίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ 

all these words are in the genitive.

αὐτός The True Self

Scholars always knew that the pronoun αὐτός was used "inordinately" throughout the New Testament (as in, way beyond normal usage of classical Greek), but failed to understand why. It is a word that fundamentally denotes one’s true self, often distinguishing the soul from the body (Od. 11.602) or, conversely, the body from the soul (Il. 1.4). It functions reflexively as “self” and, in oblique cases, as a personal pronoun (“him, her, it”).

It emphasizes individual identity in contrast to others, such as a king vs. his subjects (Il. 6.18), Zeus vs. the other gods (Il. 8.4), or a warrior vs. his weapons (Il. 1.47).

With the article (ὁ αὐτός, ἡ αὐτή, τὸ αὐτό), it signifies "the same" or "the very self."

In prose, αὐτός can appear without the article for proper names (αὐτὸς Μένων, X. An. 2.1.5) and is used impersonally in phrases like αὐτὸ δείξει ("the result will show," Cratin. 177). It also expresses volition (“of one’s own accord,” Il. 17.254) or personal presence (“in person,” D. 1.2).

The most frequent noun word used in the NT is not "God" (θεός), found 1,317 times, but rather αὐτός the self, found over 5,600 times. The only words more frequent are "and" (9,000 times) and "the" (20,000 times). Similarly, the most frequent word in the Old Testament Hebrew is את the eternal self, occuring over 11,000 times.

The Neuter Form

In philosophical or poetic usage, particularly in Homer and Plato, the neuter form αὐτό may denote one’s true self, either the soul (Od. 11.602) or, conversely, the body (Il. 1.4), depending on context. It also appears in abstract references to essence, identity, or the very thing itself (τὸ αὐτό), as in expressions of intrinsic nature or reality (cf. Plato, Republic 362d: αὐτὸ ὃ μάλιστα ἔδει ῥηθῆναι – "the very thing that most needed to be said").

Thus, while αὐτός is not reflexive in the grammatical sense (cf. ἑαυτοῦ, "of oneself/one's own self"), it does, especially in neuter form, preserve and express a conceptual sense of "Self" or "the same being", particularly in metaphysical or emphatic contexts.

in ancient Greek, αὐτό—specifically the neuter singular form of αὐτός—is the only appropriate and attested lexical item to express the metaphysical concept of "the self", especially in Platonic and post-Platonic philosophical discourse.

1. Philosophical Usage:

   • In Plato and later authors, expressions like τὸ αὐτό ("the selfsame") or αὐτὸ τὸ ὄν ("being itself") represent the essence or pure identity of a thing, distinct from its accidents or manifestations.

   • Notably, in Plato's dialogues, constructions such as:

     • αὐτὸ τὸ ἀγαθόν – “the Good itself”

     • αὐτὸ τὸ καλόν – “the Beautiful itself”
       are paradigmatic examples of Forms or Ideas, i.e., entities existing in themselves and through themselves — the metaphysical “Selves” of their kind.

2. Semantic Range:

   • While αὐτός generally functions as a third-person pronoun or intensifier, its neuter form, especially when used absolutely or with the definite article, becomes substantive and ontologically loaded:

     • τὸ αὐτό = "the same", "the selfsame", "the self (in essence)"

     • αὐτῷ "to self" (dative neuter is identical to dative masculine)

   • This contrasts with ἑαυτοῦ, which is grammatically reflexive and bound to a subject, not abstract or metaphysical.

3. Terminological Precedence:

   • Later philosophical traditions (Neoplatonic, Stoic, etc.) frequently use forms of αὐτός to express inner identity, core being, or metaphysical selfhood.

(cf. LSJ αὐτός)

Strong's #2223, ζώνη, properly the lower girdle worn by women just above the hips. 

ζώνη is not the normal word used for a man’s belt. The more typical term for a man's belt, especially in martial or practical contexts, is ζωστήρ.

Key Differences:

1. ζώνη:

   • Commonly refers to a woman’s belt or girdle, particularly the lower girdle worn around the hips.
   • It is associated with women’s attire, marriage, childbirth, and sometimes metaphorical or symbolic uses (e.g., in phrases related to conception or waist regions).
   • When used for men, it often describes non-martial belts or metaphorical uses (e.g., the belt of Orion, zones of the Earth).

2. ζωστήρ:

   • The primary term for a man’s belt, especially in military contexts.
   • It denotes the functional girdle worn over armor or clothing, often securing weapons or equipment.
   • Found in epic poetry (e.g., Homer), where it is regularly associated with warriors and their battle gear.

Supporting Examples:

• ζώνη in Homer (e.g., Od. 5.231) clearly describes the girdle of women, emphasizing its use as part of feminine attire.
• ζωστήρ in the Iliad frequently appears in martial contexts, describing the belts of male warriors: e.g., ζωστῆρες ἕαττο ("they put on their belts," Il. 3.332).

While ζώνη can occasionally refer to a man’s belt, such usage is less common and tends to occur in non-martial or figurative contexts. For example:

• In Xenophon (Anabasis 1.6.10), ζώνη refers to the belt of barbarians, which held daggers, showing it could describe a practical belt worn by men, but it is secondary to ζωστήρ for Greek contexts.

Thus, ζώνη is primarily associated with women, while ζωστήρ is the standard term for a man’s belt, especially in contexts involving warriors or formal attire.

The Hebrew root נָצַר (nāṣar) primarily means “to watch, guard, preserve, keep” (cf. Deut. 32:10; Ps. 25:21; Prov. 2:8; Isa. 42:6; 49:8). Its Nifal participle נְצוּרה denotes “that which is guarded or enclosed” and, in a military or urban context, conveys the idea of a city under siege or blockaded. In Isaiah 1:8, the phrase עִיר נְצוּרָה — “a city besieged” — evokes the image of a city entirely surrounded, guarded, or confined, emphasizing vulnerability while under watch (cf. LXX: ὡς πόλις πολιορκουμένη).

The same root appears in place-names, most notably Ναζαρέτ (Nazaret) in the Greek NT, derived from נָצְרַת in Hebrew/Aramaic. While the etymology of נָצְרַת is debated, a plausible interpretation is “watchtower” or “guarded place”, linking the sense of נָצַר as “to guard or watch” with the topographical or strategic function of the settlement. Thus, both Isa. 1:8 and the toponym Νάζαρέτ share the semantic field of “guarded, watched, or enclosed”, whether metaphorically (besieged city) or literally (settlement on a hill or lookout).

To Fish in the Realm of Humans

The Greek noun ἁλιεῖς is a nominative plural form of ἁλιεύς, meaning "fisherman" or "seaman." It is not a verbal form. The verb ἁλιεύω, meaning "to fish," does not occur in this phrase. If the intention were to express the traditional interpretation—"those who fish for men"—the expected Greek construction would be οἱ ἀλιεύοντες, the articular present participle, meaning “the ones who are fishing” or “those who fish.” This participial form is attested in sources such as the Perseus corpus (Cf. Perseus ἀλιεύοντες):

οἱ ἀλιεύοντες ἀνθρώπους
“those who fish for men,”
with ἀνθρώπους in the accusative, indicating the direct object of the action.

The common rendering of ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων as "fishers of men" reflects an English idiomatic translation rather than a precise grammatical equivalence. In Greek, ἀνθρώπων is genitive plural, which typically denotes possession, origin, or association—not direct object. Therefore, the phrase grammatically suggests “fishers belonging to men” or “fishers associated with men,” not “fishers who fish for men.”

The traditional interpretation thus imposes an accusative sense onto a genitive construction by exploiting an ambiguity in English. In English, the preposition "of" can sometimes imply agency or object, allowing a phrase like "fishers of men" to be understood as "those who fish for men." But in Greek, the genitive case does not serve this function unless the construction demands it—e.g., with partitive, possessive, or certain objective genitives in specific lexical contexts.

To express the idea "those who fish for men" in clear and grammatical Greek, one would expect either:

• a verbal construction: οἱ ἀλιεύοντες ἀνθρώπους, or

• a noun phrase with an accusative: ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπους.

In both cases, ἀνθρώπους (accusative plural) correctly serves as the direct object of the action implied by ἁλιεύειν. Conversely, ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων, with ἀνθρώπων in the genitive, cannot grammatically bear the meaning “fishers for men” without significant theological or interpretive presumption.

In short, the phrase ἁλιεῖς ἀνθρώπων has been theologically or interpretively shaped to mean “those who fish for men,” but strictly speaking, this reading is not supported by the grammar of the Greek text. The traditional rendering is a case of interpretive license rather than syntactic fidelity.

The verb φωνέω phóneó, meaning "to make a sound," is used to describe the crowing of a rooster. While φωνέω has broad applications, including human and animal sounds, Greek does not have a distinct verb solely for "to crow." It is derived from φωνή phóné meaning "voice" or "sound." The closest would be κικκαβαῦ, "onomatop., a cry in imitation of the screechowlʼs note, toowhit, toowhoo, Ar." (cf. Middell Liddel κικκαβαῦ)

λέπρα, ας (ἡ) lèpre, skin disease characterized by scaly patches, Herodotus 1.138; Hippocrates, Aphorisms 1248; Theophrastus, Suda 13, etc.; Plutarch, Moralia 353f, 670f; in the plural, Hippocrates 114. || Ionic variant λέπρη, Herodotus, loc. cit.; Hippocrates, Aphorisms 1248. Etymology: from λέπω (lepo), meaning "to peel" or "to scale."

λέπρα (lépra) in ancient Greek could refer to any sort of skin disease that caused scaly, flaky, or rough patches on the skin. The term was used broadly to describe various skin conditions, not necessarily the specific disease we know as leprosy today.

(cf. Logeion λέπρα)