This article ("Hebrews 5:14 And ἝΞΙΣ : A History Of Misunderstanding" By John A.L. Lee) explains why using just a single lexicon is not enough (whether one is working with biblical or with secular texts). The original intent of 16th century lexicons was openly declared by Calvinists to be the education of the public at large to translate Greek and Latin so to read the Bible for themselves. Although slanted in this way, their work is both voluminous and thorough. Modern lexicons are based upon this earlier work, but do not supersede it. Corporations and special interest groups have taken over classical studies, just like they have hijacked everything else in the modern age. Too often we think that Brill Publishing, the Perseus Project, the Oxford dictionaries, and even the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon are the "be all and end all" of scholarship. But without knowledge of the lexicography of the past a distorted semantics of Greek language ensues. As classical studies goes forward, comparing modern lexicography to that of the past *must* become an important part of any classical scholar's skill set. This is due to technical reasons, but also due to mind-set. Lee's article gives an excellent example of a technical reason but there are many more. For instance, entries for post, póst, and pòst in Thesaurus linguae Latinae of Robert Estienne (1573) clearly distinguish the import of these three disparate words. Genuine understanding of the full breadth of Latin as used by Henri Estienne in his Thesaurus Graecae Linguae requires knowledge of the diacritic markings that differentiate Latin sememes. However, many distinct lexical entities appear in later Latin lexicons since Thesaurus linguae Latinae (the printing of 1740) under a single spelling, e.g. "post." Naturally, this causes confusion. Beyond such technical reasons, though, one must consider that an era's world-view predisposes one to interpret language according to subtle changes of mind-set with which a reader has grown up . Slowly over time, humanity's outlook develops perspectives that are tendentious in ways inconceivable to those who lived prior. For example, despite authors of former days working at the cutting edge of classical studies, they labored prior to what would become the all-pervasive influence of modernist thinking typified by Charles Sanders Pierce and his philosophy of Logical Positivism. Without such prejudice, their writings preserve much more of Greece's spirit of the age. In comparison to the post-modern era, their mind-set might be characterized as artless in that its perspective is unsullied by reductionism. Artlessness is not to be conflated with naïveté, however. Practically all that we understand about the human psyche, about the way people behave in groups, and how they respond to influences for good or bad, still depends on a knowledge of the classics. Even understanding of the subconscious/unconscious, so key to advertising and propaganda, is to be found in the Greek's use of the middle voice. And yet our modern minds are a long way from ancient Greece. Just discounting the tendentious modernism of intervening ages is not enough to compensate for our outlook; the ancient mindset is just too different from the modern. By engaging with works prior to modernism, though, some vestige might shine through of what subtleties ancient Greek authors instilled in their works in the distant past.