[Unified Topic] definitions of the authent- words

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
1

It may seem rather audacious of me to question the work of such auspicious scholars as Strong, Thayer, Liddell, Scott. Jones, MacKenzie, Vine et.al., yet what they have provided has not always aided a straightforward or semantically homogenous understanding of the uses and meanings of these words. In fact, the semantic family with the authent- stem have become notoriously difficult to rationalise across the range of literature which contain them.

Most lexica are honest enough to admit the origin of the words is uncertain. The choice is to have auto (self) with either entea (arms/amour) or with hentes (an obsolete word probably meaning worker). But there is a strong preference towards the hentes (worker) cognate option. This bias may be the result of Thayer’s and Strong’s definition of authentein which included the phrase “by his own hand” - obviously implying being a doer or worker, “by hand,” even when the “doing” is murder or suicide in its earlier uses.

This is from Middle Liddell of 1889

αὐθέντης
The part -έντης is of uncertain deriv. contr. for αὐθοέντης
1.One who does anything with his own hand, an actual murderer, Hdt., Eur., etc.:—more loosely, one of a murderer’s family, id=Eur.
2.an absolute master, autocrat, id=Eur.
IIas adj., αὐθέντης φόνος, αὐθένται θάνατοι murder by one of the same family, Aesch.

Thayer’s expanded edition of 1890, using Strong’s entry, also includes:

a. according to earlier usage, one who with his own hand kills either others or himself."

Is this phrase, “with his own hand” meant to signify the “auto” cognate … or is it directly taken from the Douay Rheims translation of Wisdom of Solomon 12:6, describing the murderous parents as authentas? Can its inclusion be justified? Does any other ancient version do this, as well?

LXX_WH(i) 6καὶ αὐθέντας γονεῖς ψυχῶν ἀβοηθήτων ἐβουλήθης ἀπολέσαι διὰ χειρῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν

Clementine_Vulgate(i) 6et auctores parentes animarum inauxiliatarum, perdere voluisti per manus parentum nostrorum:

Wycliffe(i) 6and deuowreris of blood; and bi the hondis of oure fadris thou woldist leese fro thi myddil sacrament fadris and modris, autours of soulis vnhelpid;

Geneva(i) 6And the fathers were the chiefe murtherers of the soules, destitute of all helpe, whome thou wouldest destroy by the hands of our fathers,

Bishops(i) 6And the fathers were the chiefe murderers of the soules destitute of helpe, [these doers] thou wouldest destroy by the handes of our fathers:

Douay Rheims(i) 6And those parents sacrificing WITH THEIR OWN HANDS helpless souls, it was thy will to destroy by the hands of our parents.

As, can be seen, it is merely a literary invention of the Douay Rheims Bible to insert that phrase, “with their own hands” as a sort of poetic irony. But it is NOT in the text! Yet for some unknown reason, it is the Douay Rheims version which Strong, Thayer Scott and Liddell use for their lexicon entries for authentein.

Semantic progression also seems somewhat contrived in order to steer the route to a presumably unquestioned established later meaning from the given earlier definitions. For instance, the semantic route into a later definition of authentein as an exercise of an ecclesiastical or domestic authority - some say aggressively - appears to be mere guesswork. Some use the “own hands” connotation from the hentes cognate: others from the entea. The rationale is typified by the HelpsBible.com commentary on authentein.

831 authentéō (from 846 /autós, “self” and entea, “arms, armor”) – properly, to unilaterally take up arms, i.e. acting as an autocrat – literally, self-appointed (acting without submission).

Although superficially logical, it actually is not at all supported from the extra-Biblical literature of around the first century either BC or AD.

Something does not compute!

Are we encountering, here, a not entirely successful attempt to unify the ideas of slaying, working, dominating and originating - the latter being the strong connotation of the adjective, authentikos from which or word “authentic" comes? Where the context clearly indicates something other than murder, does this inclusion of “own hand" in these definitions from the favoured lexica of most researchers and translators, explain why there has been this emphasis of self-action or self-authorisation or self-origination in much of their translation work. Is it the right approach?

Is the traditional endeavor to unify all the words actually being confirmed by the cultural, historical and lexical contexts, through a detailed analysis of the translation of the literature in which they are found? Has this attempt to create a single semantic family across two nouns, a verb and an adjective, actually contributed a clear and unambiguous route to accurate translation … or added to the confusion? I am interested to know if others have had the same struggles when trying to rationalise these words and how they fit - or don’t - into the texts.

However, I will also address this further in my next post where I offer an alternative approach of etymology to understanding the authent- words. I will follow this by further posts of my own detailed analysis of several texts, highlighting many serious anomalies when attempting to use the current definitions.

I am not “an authority” in Greek, so I would greatly value the input and appraisal of textkit expertise as I go along.

2

Two earlier textkit threads that you may find interesting:

αὐθέντης in Alexander Rhetor.
ἢ παισὶν αὐθένταισι κοινωνῇ δόμων (Euripides)

You’ll see from my comments in the one thread that I knew very little Greek in 2013 – I had just started a month previously. I should add something to my signature to warn people off my old posts.

I take it that much of the excitement about this word is due to διδάσκειν δὲ γυναικὶ οὐκ ἐπιτρέπω, οὐδὲ αὐθεντεῖν ἀνδρός, ἀλλʼ εἶναι ἐν ἡσυχίᾳ?

3

Yes, you guessed right!

I have unearthed a lot of relevant historical cultural evidence of Roman Law, practices of the Megabyzoi prists of Artemis Ephesia, the incursion of ascetic Gnosticism, the type of meetings they held on the public forum of the Hall of Tyrannus, which all contribute to an understanding far removed from the ecclesial patriarchy that has been assumed.

The contemporary use of authentes by Diodurus Siculus and Josephus all make perfect sense of what I believe was the highly specific context for Paul’s writing to Timothy.

I’d like to save my thoughts on all that for later, though, if you don’t mind. I’m just laying a more coherent foundation before untangling the whole authentein debacle!! :slight_smile:

4

Btw, it was being linked to Andrews post about authentai in Alexander Rhetor which first drew my attention to the existence of textkit. In my next post, I will make my own offering on the understanding of authentai in this piece.

I had not encountered the other reference before, so shall read on and investigate it myself.

Thanks for the heads up

5

If you’re interested in lexicographical practice, I’d recommend Chadwick’s Lexicographica Graeca. The new Cambridge Lexicon (2018) claims to be based on his methodology.

You may also be interested in Frisk:

αὐθέντης, > -ου m. ‘Urheber, Ausführer, Selbstherr’, auch ‘Mörder’, vgl. unten (Hdt., Trag., Antipho, Thuk., Plb. usw.). – Ableitungen, alle nachklass. und spät: Fem. αὐθέντρια = κυρία (Lydien; zur Bildung Chantraine Formation 106); αὐθεντία ‘Machtvollkommenheit, Selbstherrschaft’ (LXX, Pap. usw.); αὐθεντικός ‘zuverlässig, richtig, authentisch’ (Pap. u.a.). Denominativa: 1. αὐθεντέω ‘Herr sein über etwas, zu etw. berechtigt sein’ (Pap., NT) mit αὐθέντημα· auctoramentum (Gloss.); 2. αὐθεντίζω trans. ‘etw. in seinem Machtbereich haben’ (BGU 103, 3).

Die Nebenform αὐτο-ἐντης (S. OT 107, nach den Sch. auch El. 272) ebenso wie das gleichgebildete συνέντης· συνεργός H. lassen auf ein Hinterglied *ἕντης schließen, das die Vollstufe der in ἁνύω ‘zustande bringen, vollbringen’ vorliegenden Wurzel enthalten kann; αὐθέντης wäre somit eine Zusammenbildung von αὐτός und dem betreffenden Verb mittels des Suffixes -της = ‘der selbst etw. vollbringt’. Die Bedeutung ‘Mörder’ kann entweder als Euphemismus erklärt werden oder durch Assoziation mit θείνω entstanden sein, s. Fraenkel Nom. ag. 1, 237ff., wo ausführlich über Bedeutungsgeschichte und Verbreitung. – Anders Kretschmer Glotta 3, 289ff. (s. auch 4, 340): in αὐθέντης seien zwei Wörter zusammengefallen, *αὐτο-θέντης zu θείνω (durch Haplologie) und *αὐτ-ἕντης mit unklarem Hinterglied. – Zur Geschichte von αὐθέντης im Neugr. und Türkischen s. auch Maidhof Glotta 10, 10 m. Lit.

6

Semantic progression also seems somewhat contrived in order to steer the route to a presumably unquestioned established later meaning from the given earlier definitions. For instance, the semantic route into a later definition of authentein as an exercise of an ecclesiastical or domestic authority - some say aggressively - appears to be mere guesswork.

Agenda driven lexical semantics is generally bad. People who get some respect at SBL meetings by reading papers year after year, when they get embroiled in exegetical battles over contemporary social issues, the quality of the scholarship suffers.

Lexical semantics is a complex discipline and as with all branches of linguistics you need to first identify the different frameworks and do your research within one of those frameworks. The kind of lexical semantics you find in the discussions of hot topics is often chaotically eclectic with no evidence of adherence to any known system of semantics.

7

Agenda driven lexical semantics is generally bad.

Take for example the papers and books written in the last 25 years about ἀρσενοκοῖται.

1Cor. 6:9 Ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

8

Yes, agreed the “Ecclesiastical scholars” invariably have some sort of axe to grind and an agenda to prove. That is why I MUCH prefer the independent and theologically disinterested witness of the writings of the common Greek merchant or orator, etc, form which to follow the semantics.

9

You don’t refer to any etymological dictionaries in your post, nor to the 9th edition of LS (with additions and corrections in the ’96 supplement). I suggest you read the entry αὐθέντης in Chantraine’s etymological dictionary. Note that of this word-family the word αὐθέντης is clearly the oldest (attested since Herodotus). Everything else, including αὐθεντεῖν, is “post-classical and late”, as Frisk writes above (quoted by Joel). They are all derived from αὐθέντης.

Citing translations will only help you to understand how the word was understood later, not what it meant in the original text.

10

Here is the Chantraine entry for αὐθέντης.

11

Thanks Timothée and Jaidseth,

The Chantraine entry is very thorough - my French is more fluent than my Greek although both leave much to be desired!

I am more familiar with the TLG which omits all the papyri entries. Is there not also a difference in the colloquial and the Literary Greek of that period - just to complicate things a lot more?

I will be opening up some original texts later on. However, this is me just putting out feelers and noting that because the definitions seem somewhat hazy and to be an odd mixture of different semantic domains, I am merely raising questions.

I am unsure at this point to put up my second post where I make a proposal which attempts to answer many of these questions … or to wait on further comments on this one? I’m sure all your greater experience will help point out all the holes and flaws in my proposition .. but it’s still worth an airing, I guess before it hits the bin.

I don’t know how the forum traffic flows … and I’m a mere beginner, here - not with the magnetism of the established members to attract a lot of interest!


Thanks for yours, though - much appreciated :slight_smile:

12

From my own observations - which are bound to have covered insufficient material, it is becoming my suspicion that the attempts to unify all the possible αὐθέντ- words into one family is the cause of the failure to make consistent results. Two cognate pairs are proposed - so why can’t they BOTH be correct? In other words, might we actually be considering here, TWO ENTIRELY UNRELATED SEMANTIC FAMILIES? Just maybe, it is an unfortunate, lexically sabotaging coincidence that they both give rise to the same spelling!

A. THE HENTES FAMILY

Perhaps it is most justifiable only for the adjective αὐθέντικός to have had its derivation from έντης, since it effortlessly becomes “authentic” - “self-worked” - αὐτο-ἑνττικός.

How about a noun? We know that the noun, αὐθέντης is a murderer or instigator to violence or murder - not a ”worker.” Why should a noun, an “αὐθέντης” be needed to “make something authentic” as a “self-worker,” when ἐργάτης, τεχνίτης, δημιουργός, etc mean exactly that? However, an adjective that distinguishes something as genuinely authentic, as claimed, is indeed necessary.

Nevertheless, in the colloquial Greek of the papyri, there is the use of the noun, αὐθέντια to mean a “certificate of authentication,” regarding various wares for sale. Invariably, it appears in an easily distinguishable context and application, entirely different to the literary Greek descriptions using αὐθέντια … which I will discuss below.

Could there be a verb, “to authenticate,” describing the process of granting an αὐθέντια? If there were one in use verbally, it has not, so far, appeared in any papyri.

However, the words which I suggest can be verified as members of the αὐτο-ἑντης family, can be summarised in the following way:

αὐθέντικός, adj. authentic, genuine, original

αὐθέντια, n. f. Certificate of authentication


B. THE ENTEA FAMILY

Admittedly before much attention had been given to the papyri, in his 1879 7th edition of his Analytical Concordance to the Bible, Robert Young wrote his definition of αυθεντείν as simply “to use one’s own armour.” His was a derivation clearly from ἔντεα alone, but which has rather inexplicably, never been considered as a self-contained semantic family. My growing belief is that because of their connection to violence or killing, every reference with the two nouns, αὐθέντης and αὐθέντια (when αὐθέντια is not in the obvious “authentic” context) and the verb, αὐθεντέω should be derived exclusively with the cognate, ἔντεα, arms/amour/fighting equipment.

From this, if ALL Douay-Rheims Bible idea (see Post 1) of “by his own hand” is eliminated from the family derived from the ἔντεα cognates, also, the semantic domain kept in the arena of violence, murder or execution, and no connection attempted whatsoever with “authentic” or “original,” then does it not make a lot more sense in the passages where these words are used? YES IT DOES!!

To summarise, I propose that the verb and two different nouns can be simplified into a single stem meaning of “slay,” in the following way:

αὐθέντης n. m. “slayer” of oneself or of another, by one’s own action or through another (suitably persuaded or authorised). It can be through a criminal action (murder, suicide), or a judicial action (execution), because it is by an individual invested with …

αὐθέντια n. f. the “authorisation to slay” - through oneself, or another (judicial authority of execution). There is surely no more appropriate starting point for the semantic shift to “absolute sway or authority,” than to have the power of life or death over another!

αὐθεντέω v. to slay oneself or another, or to slay by means of another (suitably persuaded or authorised).

Does this seem feasible?

I have tested this approach on several of the anomalous texts where current translations seem to give no connection with violence and murder, and actually have found this approach gives consistent interpretations, especially when research reveals the associated historical and cultural context. Very often, a more semantically, lexically, grammatically and contextually correct translation is easily possible, and often far more so than the “official" translation.

For instance “οὔτε αὐθέντας ἔχει οὔτε κριτάς” in Alexander Rhetor appear in the same phrase, strongly implying that they are distinguished from each other. Two paragraphs above we have, ταῖς συμβουλαῖς αὐθένται, and readily translated as judges. May I suggest that the κριται are more like the barristers and prosecutors doing the cross examination and that the αὐθένται are those who “deliberate” and give the verdict - whether it is acquittal or punishment. They are thus named because they are authorised to hand out the DEATH PENALTY - because they have αὐθέντια - the “license to kill”?

Likewise, a papyrus fragment of Rhetorica, by Philodemus ca. 110 - 40/35 BC criticised the rhetors, maligning their audacity in that they will also pick arguments “syn authent(ou)sin an(axin).” This has been translated “with powerful dignitaries.” But would their impudence and brazenness, take on even more significance if that adjectival use of αὐθεντέω were describing the dignitaries as “having authority to put to death"? This seems a perfectly viable translation, in its context.

There are several more texts which I will look at in more detail - especially αὐθέντια in 3 Macc 2:29. In my view, both the Brenton translation and the NRSV have glaring anomalies, but the application of this new approach brings a simple, unforced and completely grammatically and textually valid solution to the text. But I will save that for later posts.

I welcome your comments, guys.

13

Alison, New ideas are always welcome, but I’m afraid this one won’t wash. If I understand you aright, you propose to deal with the semantic problems—which are undeniably real—by postulating two different etymologies, one of them involving ἐντεα. For this you rely on an off-the-wall 19th-century definition of αυθεντεῖν as “to use one’s own armour.” This is quite untenable, on multiple counts, and it’s no wonder that no-one has ever taken it seriously. It flies in the face of morphological behavior, as any philologist would tell you.

So I’m sorry, but this is a non-starter. I know that’s not the response you were hoping for, but it’s the truth.

14

Thanks for your interest, but I’m wondering if you had read my first post at all? I am relying on the majority of the lexical scholarship which proposes entea as a likely cognate. I know from them, that entea is armour/arms/fighting equipment.

For instance, one version of the birth of Athena is that she sprang from Zeus’s head with her complete entea. In another piece, the harness of horses is discussed and only that of chariot horses is described with entea. It is this connection with weaponry that the undeniable meaning of slay/murder/suicide is derived from the cognates of authentes. I merely quoted Robert Young HERE, because I had omitted him in my previous post which looks at many more lexica.

Please bear with me, since I wish to follow this thought through with dissecting and reconstructing several of the “problem passages”. It honestly will make a lot of very clear sense!

15

I am relying on the majority of the lexical scholarship which proposes entea as a likely cognate.

I don’t think that you can support this statement. Certainly you didn’t in the other post, where you only cited Strong’s concordance. That was published in 1890, and does not represent “the majority of the lexical scholarship” in any way.

For instance, one version of the birth of Athena is that she sprang from Zeus’s head with her complete entea. In another piece, the harness of horses is discussed and only that of chariot horses is described with entea. It is this connection with weaponry that the undeniable meaning of slay/murder/suicide is derived from the cognates of authentes.

“Armor is like weapon is like murder” isn’t a very scientific argument.

Please bear with me

If you want to contribute to our understanding of these words, maybe begin with the LSJ or Brill, and post all of their citations for this group of words. In Greek, not English. Translations would only produce garbage. You certainly couldn’t discuss the finer shades of meaning of a French word using English translations, could you? Greek is the same as any other language. It’s impossible to contribute without knowing the language.

16

Hi Jeidsath,

When I go to the LSJ for “meanings” of the words, it references the attempts of ENGLISH translations to interpret the Greek. In many instances, I recognise the attempt to squeeze into the text one or both of the predetermined definitions given by Strong. The whole is circular!

Nevertheless, two possible cognates are in play: entea - with its association with “violence/murder” and hentes with its association with “working”. Surely it is far too much of a semantic stretch to say that entea is to do with “working” and hentes with “violence”? What seems a desperation of fancy, to me, is that translators try to make a mixed marriage and also try to throw into the mix, Strong’s and Thayers’ refs to the Douay Rheims’s version of Wisdom of Solomon 12:6 … “own hand.” I believe it just simply is not justified and only complicates matters.

I am nearly finished preparing a third post, where I do go into the Greek in detail, and highlight how trying to force an odd hybrid definition in, contorts the text.

17

In Post 1, I made the observation over the uncertainty expressed in most lexica over the likely cognates and meanings of the αὐθέντης family of words. I followed this in Post 2, with a proposition for the recognition of two entirely separate semantic families and offered my own simplified definitions. In this post, I will begin to illustrate in a number of passages, why this simplification produces grammatically viable and consistent clarity.

A typical example of the confusion caused by “a mixed marriage" of the two families, is the translation of Cassius Dio Cocceianus, 155-235 AD whose single use of αὐθεντίᾳ is in his Historiae Romanae Book 30-35, Chap 102:

This is the text which is linked in the LSJ for a meaning of αὐθεντίᾳ as “with his own hand”. But DOES it mean that?

ὁ υἱὸς Μαρίου δήμαρχόν τινα αὐθεντίᾳ ἀποκτείνας τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ τοῖς ὑπάτοις ἔπεμψε, καὶ ἄλλον ἀπὸ τοῦ Καπιτωλίου κατεκρήμνισεν.

Surprisingly, the “official” translation is also a clear example of how strong is the power of a predetermined definition (“slay with one’s own hand”) to force a violation of the text in order to make it fit. It reads:

“the son of Marius slew a tribune with his own hands and sent his head to the consuls, hurled another from the Capitol …”

Please note how many alterations to the grammar have been made to accomodate this “definition.” Here, αὐθεντίᾳ, a noun in the dative has been changed to a verb, “slew with his own hands”. Also, δήμαρχόν, “of the tribunes,” pl. gen. is changed to sg. acc. and also essential words are omitted (τινα, a “certain one" and ἀποκτείνας, the participle describing Marius’ son - “having put to death”). The only verb in this phrase is ἔπεμψε, “he sent”; there is no “he slew.”

Two illogicalities ensue:

First, if the aorist participle, ἀποκτείνας is not being used as the verb, but being ignored as superfluous, then αὐθεντίᾳ, although a noun, is wrongly being used as the verb: “he slew with his own hands.”

Secondly, if ἀποκτείνας is being used as the verb, then the only contribution from αὐθεντίᾳ is “with his own hands" - hence its entry as such in the LSJ. But, I drew attention in my Post 1 to the fact that it is a fabrication of the Douay Rheims Bible and does not belong! If Cassius had wanted to emphasise that the deed - slew (from the participle “having put to death") was done “with his own hands”, why use αὐθεντίᾳ, rather than a phrase such as ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσίν?

It seems the translator prefered to massacre the text, breaking many rules in order to force into it, Thayer’s/Strong’s Definition using both entea and hentes with the addition from the poetic invention of the Douay Rheims of WoS 12:6. Can this be really justified? Rather, should not the established definitions of the authent- family be urgently revised and separated out?

Working from my new approach, I offer this as an alternative translation:

“The son of Marius, by his authority to execute, (αὐθεντίᾳ, n.dat.f.sg.) having put to death a certain one of the tribunes, sent his head to the consuls, and another he hurled down from the Capitol …”

I have not omitted any words, all nouns are nouns, participles are participles, all cases are intact, the active verb is still in force, and all words fit the context. I believe αὐθεντίᾳ (n. dat. f. sg.) here should keep its lexical and grammatic integrity as “by authority,” but since the word chosen by Cassius is not the customary ἐξουσία, but a word from a semantic family which means “to slay,” it is entirely reasonable to say that this ἐξουσία is a very specific, highest judicial authority with the right of execution … a “license to kill"! In other words, when a person’s ἐξουσία is an investiture of the “absolute authority” of life and death, then it is known as αὐθεντία.

It’s use in this specific context eloquently supports this, to my mind. But does it seem plausible to anyone else?.

I believe the beginnings of the semantic shift towards “absolute power,” is discernible in an epistula by Basil of Caesarea.

He is discussing the merits and factors important in choosing “servants of the assembly” - deacons, but quite surprisingly, speaking of them in exactly the same way in which a householder would choose his domestic servants, both male and female. Commenting to his friend on choosing athletic girls to his own liking, he reminds him that he has BOTH ἐξουσίαν καὶ αὐθεντίαν. This surely means that they are not equivalent “rights” or “authorities”? What difference is there likely to be?

My suggestion that as the master, he has the ἐξουσία to expect obedience and the αὐθεντία, the “right to punish” disobedience. (By that time, it was illegal to kill the slaves who were displeasing, but having the right to punish brutally, was permitted.

Papyrus 9239,8 from AD 548 describes a woman who was dominated, cast aside, and suffered a lifethreatening blow as “αὐθεντίᾳ κ(αὶ) τυραννικ(ῷ). This again confirms the use of violence with αὐθεντία.

Some awkwardly translated attempts with αὐθεντία are found in 3 Maccabees 2:29. But I will look at both Brenton’s and the NRSV’s in subsequent posts, and also the interpretation by Freisen.

18

Joel didn’t suggest that. You can use large dictionaries like the LS for collecting loci.

Did you read the Chantraine entry? He explains (or at the very least proposes a plausible explanation) how the differring senses developed. Only after you’ve read it are you free to disagree with it as long as you give some grounds for it.

19

ThanksTimothée,

I will reread as best I can in my reasonable knowledge of French …

I know I’m no “expert”, just working through a hunch and bringing it for your consideration. I’m aware I am coming from a different perspective, but which actually WORKS effortlessy in all the texts I’ve managed to work through, so far.

Thanks for your engagement, though.

20

It’s clear that the word αὐθεντία to some degree is troublesome for translation, which it has in common with a lot of Greek words. I would agree with you that it is a stretch to translate αὐθεντίᾳ as “with his own hand”, if there are no other examples where it is clearer that the word is used in that sense. I have skimmed through a lemma search on TLG of the word, and so far I have not seen any examples where the word needs to mean anything else than “authority”, “power”, “self determination” or “status”. Of course, I have only looked at a few of the 1888 examples, so there is a fair chance that the example needed exists somewhere.

You should really read Frisk’s etymology on αὐθέντης, since I think he gives a very credible account of it, and he also thinks the meanings of the word comes from more than one source, but his theory is quite different from yours.

You should also consider that the people who write Greek dictionaries have devoted their whole lives to the Greek language and its texts, and that their decisions on which definitions to give to words are based on a background which is far beyond what even most scholars can ever attain. Therefore you need a very good reason to doubt the validity of their work. Never is it justified to use terms as “predetermined”, “massacre”, “violation of the text”, or “breaking many rules”, even if you think you have found a new and interesting way of explaining a word. I’m saying this because I think we owe a certain degree of humility and gratitude to the people who have brought such useful gifts into the world. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be critical and question everything, and to try and test any statement no matter how obvious it seems, and I commend you for doing that.

There is also the problem with dictionary entries, that they only take you so far when it comes to understanding a text. Every word has to be understood in its context, and there is no end to contexts. You also need to have a deep feeling for the language, something which takes a lot of time and effort for a language with no native speakers. If you want to discuss alternative understandings of specific Greek words, you have to know Greek first if you expect anyone to want to participate in the discussion. With a few years of hard work, keeping your critical approach, and adding some humility, you will be able to discuss the matters with some weight.

I will comment on a short paragraph you have written, since I find it bewildering, and I think you will understand why I suggest you must learn the language before attacking dictionary entries.

The translation is fine. Even if we agree that “with his own hands” is a stretch, none of the alterations you suggest would have accommodated that meaning.

When you translate from Greek to English, you have to use idiomatic English. Further down you seem to have understood the construction of the sentence with the aorist participle. If you translate every participle into an English participle, you get unreadable English, as your translation exemplifies. It is absurd to think the translator has mistaken a noun for a verb and then missed the verb. A participle still functions as a verb, just not a finite one. It is translated as a finite verb because that makes it readable in English. This is something you will learn during the first weeks of any proper Greek course.

I am very puzzled about this. Is it possible that you think δήμαρχον is pl.gen? That would mean that you know no Greek at all. δήμαρχον is sg.acc. The pl. gen. is δημάρχων. I must only suppose that you suggest that the text has been emended through textual criticism in order to support the proposed translation. The problem is that this wouldn’t change the sense of the sentence much at all, and doesn’t affect the meaning of αὐθεντίᾳ in any way.

τις is one of those words which you have to translate according to context. Here the translator has chosen to translate it into an English indefinite article, since including “a certain” doesn’t make sense here, or at least it doesn’t contribute anything meaningful. The translator can do this because he/she knows Greek, and therefore understands the actual sense of the whole, and not only the grammatical function of the words by themselves. You can guess what my comment to the rest of the last quote would be.

I have written these comments, not to put you down, but to encourage you to study Greek even more eagerly, although with somewhat more humility. Without the people who did all the work before us, it would have been impossible to understand anything.