The Sin of the Word 'Sin': The Etymological Fallacy in Theological Exegesis with a Linguistic Analysis of the Terms ἁμαρτία (hamartia) and חָטָא (chata)

Keywords: etymological fallacy, ἁμαρτία, hamartia, חָטָא, chata, semantic change, synchrony, diachrony, biblical exegesis, historical semantics, meaning change

Abstract

This paper examines the widespread practice in theological circles of deriving the meaning of ἁμαρτία (hamartia) in the New Testament from its alleged etymological origin as 'missing the mark.' Through a comprehensive linguistic analysis, it is demonstrated that this line of argument constitutes the so-called 'etymological fallacy' — an error in reasoning explicitly named and rejected in linguistics. The paper traces the actual development of meaning of hamartia from Homer (ca. 800 BCE) to the New Testament (1st century CE) and demonstrates, across this span of 900 years, the dramatic semantic shift the term underwent. Fundamental linguistic theories of meaning change are then presented, from Ferdinand de Saussure's foundational distinction between synchronic and diachronic analysis to modern concepts of historical semantics. Particular attention is given to explicit critics of the etymological fallacy such as Andrew L. Sihler, David Crystal, Steven Pinker, and R.L. Trask. Empirical case studies of radical semantic change (e.g. 'silly': blessed → foolish, over 800 years) illustrate how meanings can become completely detached from their etymology. The analysis extends to the Hebrew root חָטָא (chata) and shows how a single word in one language can cover a broad semantic field that in other languages is represented by several distinct lexemes. The paper concludes with methodological recommendations for biblical exegesis: the meaning of a word in a given period must be determined through synchronic corpus analysis of usage patterns in that specific time period — not by recourse to etymological origins from centuries earlier.

Introduction

In sermons and theological articles it is frequently claimed that ἁμαρτία (hamartia) in ancient Greek means 'missing the mark,' and that this etymological origin reveals the 'true nature' of sin in the Christian context. This argument appears superficially plausible, since hamartia in archaic Greek in Homer does in fact refer to a spear that misses its target. The present paper examines this widespread exegetical practice from a strictly linguistic perspective and demonstrates that it commits a fundamental methodological error: the so-called 'etymological fallacy.'

The etymological fallacy denotes in linguistics the mistaken assumption that the etymological or historical meaning of a word is its 'true' or 'correct' contemporary meaning. This assumption contradicts fundamental findings of historical semantics and descriptive linguistics, which have empirically demonstrated for over a century that meanings can change radically and unpredictably over time.

The paper is structured in three main parts: First, the actual development of meaning of ἁμαρτία from Homer (ca. 800 BCE) to the New Testament (1st century CE) is traced through textual evidence from various periods. The second part presents the linguistic theory of meaning change, from Ferdinand de Saussure's founding of modern linguistics to contemporary analyses of the etymological fallacy. The third part extends the analysis to the Hebrew root חָטָא (chata) and demonstrates through comparative linguistics how a single word in one language can cover a broad semantic field that in other languages is represented by several distinct lexemes.

The Development of Meaning of ἁμαρτία (hamartia)

A synchronic corpus analysis of Greek literature from the archaic to the New Testament period reveals a dramatic semantic shift in the term hamartia over a period of 900 years.

Archaic Greek (Homer, ca. 800 BCE)

The original meaning of hamartanein is 'to miss the mark' — in Homer the word is used, for example, for a thrown spear that fails to hit its target or falls short. This is the concrete, physical meaning from the context of archery and spear-throwing. This usage is specific and describes a physical event without moral connotation.

Classical Greek (5th–4th century BCE)

In the classical period, the meaning evolved from physical to figurative use. In the tragedians (Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides) the verb is used more broadly for someone who misses their goal or goes astray, now with a sense of moral disapproval for someone who does wrong or sins.

In Aristotle (Poetics, ca. 335 BCE), the term acquires a specific dramaturgical meaning. Aristotle describes the tragic hero as someone of noble rank and character whose misfortune is caused not by wickedness but by a hamartia — a 'misjudgment.' The interpretation of hamartia in this context is contested, but a careful reading of the chapter strongly suggests it should be understood as 'error' or 'mistake' — a fault for which the hero cannot be blamed and which does not necessarily point to a character flaw.

Modern scholarship reveals a complex interpretive history: while hamartia was long understood as the hero's moral guilt, research from the 1950s onward emphasized the intellectual aspect. More recent scholarship highlights the interweaving of moral guilt and intellectual error: hamartia is not necessarily tied to character and is neither mere mistake nor definitive subjective guilt. The semantic spectrum in classical texts thus encompasses 'sin,' 'error,' 'transgression,' and 'missing the mark' — a broad semantic field.

Septuagint (3rd–2nd century BCE)

The word hamartia appears 401 times in 366 verses in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament). There it was used to translate the Hebrew concept of sin/transgression (חָטָא, chata). This translation practice established hamartia as a theological term in Hellenistic Judaism.

New Testament (1st century CE)

Only in the New Testament does hamartia function as a weighty theological term — representing the full guilt of humanity before God. In the New Testament, hamartia is used exclusively in an ethical-religious sense, denoting the act of sinning, whether by omission or commission, in thought and feeling or in word and deed. Strong's defines it as 'a sin (properly abstract).' The King James Version regularly translates it as 'sin.'

Summary of Semantic Development

The diachronic analysis shows a clear development:

Period	Meaning
800 BCE (Homer)	Concrete: 'to miss the mark' (physical, archery/spear-throwing)
5th–4th c. BCE (Classical)	Figurative: 'to make an error,' 'mistake,' 'misjudgment,' 'moral transgression'
3rd–2nd c. BCE (Septuagint)	Translation for Hebrew חָטָא (sin/transgression)
1st c. CE (NT)	Theologically charged term for sin as an act against God

Critical assessment: It is true that one meaning of hamartia was 'missing the mark' around 800 BCE. To claim, however, that people in the 1st century CE understood hamartia as 'missing the mark' is, in linguistics, virtually a sin — or more precisely: a methodological error that contradicts the fundamental principles of historical semantics.

Linguistic Theories of Meaning Change and the Critique of the Etymological Fallacy

Linguistic research shows unequivocally: the etymological origin of a word does not determine its current meaning. This finding rests on over a century of linguistic theory, from Michel Bréal's founding of scientific semantics in 1897 and Ferdinand de Saussure's founding of modern linguistics to contemporary corpus linguistics.

Fundamental Theories of Semantic Change

3.1.1 Hermann Paul (1846–1921)
Already in Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte (1880), Hermann Paul emphasized the psychological processes of semantic change, arguing that meaning is a product of individual experience, not fixed by etymology.

Michel Bréal (1832–1915)

The systematic study of meaning change began with Michel Bréal, whose Essai de sémantique (1897) established semantics as a scientific discipline. Bréal argued against naturalistic conceptions of language and stressed that signs have value only through the meaning a speech community currently assigns to them — not through their historical origin. Meaning arises through present social convention, not etymological fixation.

Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913)

Ferdinand de Saussure provides, with his fundamental distinction between synchronic and diachronic analysis (Cours de linguistique générale, 1916), the methodological foundation for rejecting etymological arguments. His core thesis is: each stage of a language must be analyzed as an independent system whose meanings are determined by current usage — not by historical origins. Every synchronic state of language forms a self-contained system held together by 'a systematic equilibrium based on the interconnection of meaning and form.' Language change consists of 'a series of static points that are physically independent of the preceding stage' — like individual film frames, between which 'nothing but a lifeless frame' exists.

It follows necessarily: current meaning operates within a synchronic system of differences; etymology belongs to diachronic analysis, and the two must not be confused.

Original (Saussure 1916, Cours de linguistique générale, Part I, Ch. 3): « La linguistique synchronique s'occupera des rapports logiques et psychologiques reliant des termes coexistants et formant système, tels qu'ils sont aperçus par la même conscience collective. »

AI translation: “Synchronic linguistics will deal with the logical and psychological relations linking coexisting terms forming a system, as perceived by the same collective consciousness.”

Note: The formulations 'systematic equilibrium' and 'series of static points' used in the main text are paraphrases from the Saussure reception literature, not verbatim quotations from the Cours.

Antoine Meillet (1866–1936)

Antoine Meillet developed in 'Comment les Mots Changent de Sens' (1905–1906) a sociological approach showing that meaning is determined by social and historical forces in the present, not by etymological origins.

Leonard Bloomfield (1887–1949)

Leonard Bloomfield developed in Language (1933) the most influential classification of semantic change processes in the English-speaking world: narrowing, broadening, metaphor, metonymy, pejoration, and amelioration. His scientifically empirical approach emphasized that semantic change “...results unconsciously from the earlier use of the word and the dominant elements with which it is associated...” — independently of the etymological knowledge of speakers. Current meaning is established through 'dominant elements' in present usage, not through historical origins.

Original (Bloomfield 1933, Language, Ch. 24, pp. 425 ff.): “...semantic change results unconsciously from the earlier use of the word and the dominant elements with which it is associated...”

Stephen Ullmann (1914–1976)

Stephen Ullmann synthesized earlier approaches in his works The Principles of Semantics (1951) and Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning (1962) into a comprehensive functional system. His classification encompasses both the type of change (metaphor, metonymy, folk etymology, ellipsis) and the consequences (broadening, narrowing, amelioration, pejoration). Ullmann's functional approach demonstrates that meanings operate within current linguistic systems and can distance themselves from their origins due to functional pressures.

Gustaf Stern (1886–1954)

Gustaf Stern provided in Meaning and Change of Meaning (1931) a psychologically grounded, empirical approach with detailed case studies. His distinction between 'change' and 'fluctuation' of meaning, as well as his emphasis on 'permutation' (unintended shift through reinterpretation), shows how meanings can shift completely independently of etymological roots.

Explicit Critics of the Etymological Fallacy

The etymological fallacy is explicitly defined in linguistics as an error in reasoning: the assumption that the etymological or original meaning of a word is its 'true' or 'correct' meaning, when in fact the true meaning is the current usage.

Andrew L. Sihler

Andrew L. Sihler, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and specialist in historical and comparative linguistics, provides in Language History: An Introduction (2000, pp. 131–133) the most comprehensive scholarly treatment of the etymological fallacy. Sihler distinguishes between semantic and logical forms of the fallacy and warns explicitly: 'The fact that a word historically descends from some etymon may be interesting, but it cannot tell us the current meaning of the word.' His work is cited as the primary source in scholarly reference works on the etymological fallacy.

Original (Sihler 2000, Language History: An Introduction, pp. 131–133): “The fact that a word historically descends from some etymon may be interesting, but it cannot tell us the current meaning of the word.”

David Crystal

David Crystal, OBE, FBA, former Rupert Murdoch Professor at Oxford and author of over 120 books, uses in The English Language the term 'etymological fallacy' explicitly and argues: 'There is literally no limit to how far one can go back in etymology.' (Crystal 2002, p. 24) His example of 'nice' (Old English 'foolish,' Latin 'ignorant' → modern 'pleasant') illustrates the absurdity of using historical meanings for current usage.

Original (Crystal 2002, The English Language, p. 24): “There is literally no limit to how far one can go back in etymology.”

Steven Pinker

Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology at Harvard and leading psycholinguist, addresses in The Stuff of Thought (2007) the cognitive mechanisms of meaning change. His concept of the 'euphemism treadmill' empirically demonstrates how words change their meaning independently of origin. Pinker's psycholinguistic research shows: speakers use words successfully without knowing their etymology — proving that etymology is not part of linguistic competence.

R.L. (Larry) Trask (1944–2004)

R.L. Trask, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Sussex, argues in Historical Linguistics (1996) and The Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics (2000, entry 'etymological fallacy,' p. 111), that the current use of a word does not necessarily correspond to its historical use, since language is constantly changing. He emphasizes that linguists do not choose the 'correct' use of a word, but document and explain how language is actually used.
*The formulations previously placed in quotation marks are paraphrases of his argumentation, not verbatim citations.

Jean Aitchison (1937–2023)

Jean Aitchison, Emeritus Professor of Language and Communication at Oxford, argues in Language Change: Progress or Decay? (4th edition, 2012): 'Language change is natural and inevitable.' Her empirical research shows that synchronic analysis (current state) must take methodological precedence over diachronic (historical) analysis for understanding meaning. She emphasized that changes must be understood through the factors surrounding them, not through historical origins.

Further Important References

Further important references come from Robert J. Gula (Nonsense: A Handbook of Logical Fallacies, 2002), who treats the etymological fallacy as a formal logical error, and Kenneth G. Wilson (The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, 1993), who authored a standard reference entry on the subject.

Case Studies in Radical Meaning Change

The linguistic literature documents numerous cases in which words have radically changed their meaning over periods of 600–1000 years — comparable to the span between 800 BCE and the 1st century CE.

'Silly' (Old English sælig)

'Silly' shows the most dramatic documented shift: in Old English around 1200, sælig meant 'blessed, blissful' — today it means 'foolish, stupid.' The intermediate stages are well documented: late 13th century 'innocent,' early 14th century 'pitiable,' 14th–15th century 'weak' (physically), 15th century 'weak, ignorant' (intellectually). Over 800 years the meaning shifted from 'blessed' to its semantic opposite. This metonymic chain shows how completely a meaning can become detached from its etymology.

'Meat' (Old English mete)

'Meat' meant 'food' in general in Old English — today exclusively 'animal flesh as food.' The original meaning survives only in 'sweetmeat.' This is a classic example of semantic narrowing.

'Deer' (Old English dēor)

'Deer' referred to any animal in Old English, especially mammals — today only to members of family Cervidae. The cognates in German (Tier), Dutch (dier), and Norwegian (dyr) retain the broader meaning 'animal,' which dramatically illustrates the English narrowing.

'Very' (Old French verai)

'Very' derives from Old French verai 'true, genuine' (Latin verus). In Middle English, verray meant 'true, genuine' (e.g. 'a very knight' = 'a true knight'). Today it is a mere intensifier without truth meaning: 'very ugly,' 'very false' carry no implication of truth. Related words such as verify, veracity, veritable retain the truth meaning; French vrai still means 'true.' This change over approximately 700 years shows semantic bleaching through grammaticalization.

'Sinister' (Latin)

'Sinister' meant neutrally 'left, on the left side' in Latin — today 'evil, threatening,' through cultural associations with left-handedness. This shows how cultural factors can drive semantic change.

Conclusion: The case studies from the works of Traugott, Hollmann, and academic linguistics textbooks demonstrate: meanings can change so radically over centuries that they become completely detached from their etymology. The temporal span of these documented changes (typically 600–1000 years) equals or exceeds the 900 years between 800 BCE and the 1st century CE.

The Hebrew Root חָטָא (chata) and the Phenomenon of the Broad Semantic Field

The concept of sin in the Old Testament is based on the Hebrew חָטָא (chata), which occurs approximately 595–600 times in all variations (noun and verb). The verb alone appears 238 times. The analysis of this root reveals a fundamental linguistic phenomenon: a single word in one language can cover a broad semantic field that in other languages is represented by several distinct lexemes.

Synchronic Corpus Analysis of חָטָא in the Old Testament

A context-based analysis of the use of חָטָא shows four distinct semantic domains:

Physical-concrete	Miss the mark	Judges 20:16: 'They did not miss with the sling'	German: verfehlen, Latin: aberrare
Social-legal	Wrong someone	Genesis 42:22: 'Did you not sin against the boy?'	German: Unrecht tun, Latin: iniuriam facere
Religious-ethical	Sin morally	Genesis 39:9, Psalm 51:6: 'Against you alone have I sinned'	German: sündigen, Latin: peccare
Cultic-ritual	Sin offering	Leviticus 4:3: 'sin offering for his sin'	German: Sündopfer, Latin: hostia pro peccato

Important observation: In other languages these are expressed by different words. Hebrew has one word with a broad semantic field — other languages have multiple words! This is not a deficiency but reflects different conceptualizations of semantic spaces in different languages.

Theoretical Foundation: Semantic Arbitrariness and Context-Dependence

Core principle (Saussure 1916): Meaning arises through social convention in the current language system and is specified by context, not by historical origin. Consequence: words can have broad semantic fields, with context deciding which meaning is activated.

The Phenomenon: One Word with a Broad Semantic Field

This phenomenon is by no means limited to Hebrew. Comparable examples exist in numerous languages.

Example: German 'aufheben'

One word in German — three opposite meanings:

Physical	Pick up from the floor	'Ich hebe den Stift auf'
Legal	to abolish	to cancel	'Das Gesetz wurde aufgehoben'
Archive	to preserve, to keep	'Dokumente aufheben'

Three different meanings — in other languages three different words! In Latin: aufheben₁ (pick up) = tollere, levare; aufheben₂ (annul) = abrogare, abolere; aufheben₃ (preserve) = servare, conservare.

Further Examples: German 'Zug,' 'Steuer,' 'Schloss,' 'Bank'

German offers numerous further examples of words with broad semantic fields: 'Zug' (train, draft of air, chess move, facial feature, character trait, sip), 'Steuer' (steering wheel, tax), 'Schloss' (castle, lock), 'Bank' (bench, bank). In no case would one argue that one of these meanings is the 'true' or 'original' one from which all others must be derived.

What These Examples Show

These examples demonstrate four fundamental linguistic principles:
1. Languages carve up reality differently.
2. One word in one language can correspond to multiple words in other languages.
3. Context determines which meaning is activated.
4. One cannot infer from one meaning to all the others.

Linguistic Refutation of the Etymological Argument

5.1 Error 1: Etymological Fallacy
Problem: The argument takes a meaning from a specific context (archery) and claims it is the 'true' or 'original' meaning for all contexts.

Analogy with 'Zug': Imagine someone argues: 'The German word Zug originally means train, because it is used that way in "Der Zug fährt ab." This original meaning shows us the essence of the word: a Zug is always a means of transport.' Then one would have to conclude: 'Ein Zug am Fenster' (a draught at the window) = a train is passing the window? 'Ein guter Zug im Schach' (a good move in chess) = moving a train? 'Die Züge seines Gesichts' (the features of his face) = trains in his face? This is obviously absurd!

The same applies to חָטָא: חָטָא in Judges 20:16 (archery context) = 'to miss the mark.' Fallacious conclusion: therefore חָטָא in Genesis 39:9 (moral-religious context) also just means 'to miss the mark.' This ignores the context entirely.

Error 2: Ignoring Context-Dependence

The correct analysis: context determines meaning — not the word alone! Judges 20:16 (physical context: description of archers) activates the meaning 'to physically miss the mark,' while Genesis 39:9 (moral context: Joseph to Potiphar's wife about adultery) activates the meaning 'to sin against God.'

Error 3: Arbitrary Selection of the 'Original' Meaning

Problem: Why should the physical meaning (Judges 20:16) be the 'original' or 'true' one? In the Book of Judges itself, חָטָא appears 3–4 times, yet in other contexts and is translated differently. The selection of a specific meaning as 'original' is methodologically arbitrary and linguistically unjustified.

The Correct Linguistic Analysis

6.1 Synchronic Determination of Meaning
Method: The correct methodological procedure requires: (1) collecting all instances of חָטָא in the entire Old Testament, (2) classifying contexts, (3) mapping the semantic field, (4) not judging which meaning is 'more original' or 'truer.'

Result: חָטָא has a broad semantic field in biblical Hebrew with four coexisting meanings: (1) Physical-concrete: to miss the mark (Judges 20:16), (2) Social-legal: to wrong someone (Genesis 42:22), (3) Religious-ethical: to sin against God (Genesis 39:9, Psalm 51), (4) Cultic-ritual: sin offering, purification (Leviticus 4). These four meanings coexist in the same language system. Context determines which one is activated.

Comparison with Latin

The structure is identical: the Hebrew חָטָא behaves in relation to Latin analogously to the German examples 'Zug' or 'aufheben.' No one would say: 'Because peccare can sometimes also mean aberrare (to miss), peccare contra Deum (to sin against God) really means "missing the divine target in archery"!' This argument would be linguistically untenable.

Conclusion and Methodological Recommendations

7.1 The Linguistic Principle
Languages organize meaning differently. A word can have multiple meanings (polysemy or broad semantic field), context determines which meaning is activated, different languages carve up semantic spaces differently, and one cannot infer from one contextual meaning to all the others. These principles are not matters of opinion but empirically established findings of descriptive linguistics.

Methodological Argument

Argument 1: Methodological (synchrony priority)
Thesis: To determine meaning, one must examine the current state of the language. Justification: From Saussure's distinction between synchronic and diachronic analysis it follows that current meaning is determined by synchronic usage patterns, not by diachronic etymology. Consequence: etymology is methodologically irrelevant for determining meaning.

Argument 2: Empirical (universal change)

Thesis: Meanings change radically and unpredictably over time. Justification: The arbitrariness of the linguistic sign (Saussure) plus numerous documented cases (silly, meat, deer, very, sinister). Consequence: historical meaning cannot be projected onto the present.

Specific Application to ἁμαρτία in the New Testament

For the concrete question of the meaning of ἁμαρτία in the New Testament, linguistics provides a clear answer: the use of the word in the 8th century BCE is linguistically irrelevant for the meaning in the 1st century CE. As Saussure, Bloomfield, Ullmann, Sihler, Crystal, Pinker, Trask, and Aitchison unanimously argue: meaning is determined by synchronic usage patterns in the target period, not by etymological origins.

The methodologically correct procedure requires: (1) analysis of texts from the 1st century CE, (2) examination of collocations and usage patterns in this specific period, (3) treatment of this period as an independent linguistic system with its own 'systematic equilibrium' (Saussure), and (4) avoidance of anachronism through importing meanings from earlier or later periods.

Over 900 years — as the documented cases of 'silly' (blessed → foolish), 'deer' (animal → deer), 'meat' (food → flesh), 'very' (true → intensifier) and others show — meanings can change so radically that they become completely detached from their etymology.

Final Conclusion

The central insight of modern linguistics is: etymology informs us about history; current usage determines meaning. Everything else is the etymological fallacy — an error in reasoning explicitly named and rejected in linguistics.

The argument that ἁμαρτία means 'missing the mark' in the 1st century CE because it was used that way 900 years earlier violates fundamental principles of historical semantics, descriptive linguistics, and synchronic language analysis. It ignores the empirically demonstrated fact that semantic change over such periods is radical and unpredictable, and conflates diachronic etymology with synchronic meaning determination — exactly the error that linguists have been criticizing for over a century.

For biblical exegesis this entails a clear methodological requirement: the meaning of a word in a given period must be determined through synchronic corpus analysis of usage patterns in that specific time period — not by recourse to etymological origins from centuries earlier. Only thus can one avoid what in linguistics is called the etymological fallacy: the mistaken assumption that the historical meaning of a word reveals its true contemporary meaning.

Bibliography

Theoretical Foundations
Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.
Fillmore, Charles J. (1982). 'Frame Semantics.' In: Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 111–137.
Cruse, D. Alan (2011). Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lyons, John (1977). Semantics, 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hebrew Lexicography

Koehler, Ludwig & Walter Baumgartner (1994–2000). The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), 5 vols. Leiden: Brill.
Knierim, Rolf (1965). Die Hauptbegriffe für Sünde im Alten Testament. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.
Koch, Klaus (1956). 'חטא ḥṭ' verfehlen.' In: Ernst Jenni & Claus Westermann (eds.), Theologisches Handwörterbuch zum Alten Testament, vol. 1. Munich: Chr. Kaiser, pp. 541–549.

Primary Sources: Classical Works on Semantics and Meaning Change

Aristotle (ca. 335 BCE). Poetics. Trans. Anthony Preus. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1999.
Bloomfield, Leonard (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Bréal, Michel (1897). Essai de sémantique: Science des significations. Paris: Hachette.
Paul, Hermann (1880). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. Paris: Payot.
Stern, Gustaf (1931). Meaning and Change of Meaning, with Special Reference to the English Language. Göteborg: Wettergren & Kerber.
Ullmann, Stephen (1951). The Principles of Semantics. Glasgow: Jackson; Oxford: Blackwell.
Ullmann, Stephen (1962). Semantics: An Introduction to the Science of Meaning. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Secondary Literature: Semantic Change and Historical Linguistics

Aitchison, Jean (2012). Language Change: Progress or Decay? 4th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bremer, Jan Maarten (1969). Hamartia: Tragic Error in the Poetics of Aristotle and in Greek Tragedy. Dissertation. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert.
Crystal, David (2003). The English Language: A Guided Tour of the Language. 2nd ed. London: Penguin Books.
Geeraerts, Dirk (1997). Diachronic Prototype Semantics: A Contribution to Historical Lexicology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hollmann, Willem B. (2013). 'Semantic Change.' In: The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 525–543.
Meillet, Antoine (1905–1906). 'Comment les mots changent de sens.' Année sociologique 9: 1–38.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (2017). 'Semantic Change.' In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

The Etymological Fallacy

Crystal, David (1995). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gula, Robert J. (2002). Nonsense: A Handbook of Logical Fallacies. Mount Jackson, VA: Axios Press.
Pinker, Steven (2007). The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. New York: Viking/Penguin.
Sihler, Andrew L. (2000). Language History: An Introduction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 131–133.
Trask, R.L. (Larry) (1996). Historical Linguistics. London: Arnold.
Trask, R.L. (Larry) (2000). The Dictionary of Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Wilson, Kenneth G. (1993). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. New York: Columbia University Press.

Greek Lexicography and Hamartia

Liddell, Henry George & Robert Scott (1940). A Greek-English Lexicon. Rev. Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Strong, James (1890). The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon. [Strong's G266 for ἁμαρτία]
Thayer, Joseph Henry (1889). A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. New York: American Book Company.

Online Resources

Blue Letter Bible (n.d.). 'Strong's G266 – hamartia.' https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/g266/
Britannica (1998). 'Hamartia.' https://www.britannica.com/art/hamartia
Merriam-Webster Dictionary (n.d.). 'Hamartia.' https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hamartia