The understanding of Heart and Mind during Apostolic times.

[Twilight]

All three authors use dianoia, but two of them realize there is more to this Hebrew word than mental activity, so they attempt to include some idea of strength in the context. If any passages demonstrate that the Gospels are translations of Hebrew into Greek, this is one of those. It’s apparent that the various authors stumble around trying to capture a word that has no direct Greek equivalent.

Why did they choose dianoia? First, we should contrast dianoia with nous. Dianoia is the mind at work. http://skipmoen.com/tag/matthew-2237/

There are two assumptions in this argument:

1. That the Gospels are translations of spoken Hebrew into written Greek.

2. That it is the authors themselves the insert the word "mind" and that Jesus did not use that word.

Therefore this removes the word "mind" from Jesus in effect, placing it as an insertion by the Gospel writers.

Which ignores one simple point.

If Jesus wanted to say "heart and mind" in the Hebrew, He could have done.

It is just as valid to assume that Jesus did actually use the Hebrew words (if He spoke it in Hebrew), that they then quoted in the Greek.

If Jesus spoke of just "heart" then they would not have had this great difficulty with translating that, that this author is claiming.

So this argument falls down as "evidence" very quickly.

It is an expressed opinion of someone, without any evidence that their foundational argument actually is correct.

How could the author know that the "writers" inserted this word?

He cannot.

Mark :-)

[pnattmbtc]

p:Even in the same language, Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic, there were differences in the expressions.

T:Can you supply examples of this?

[Twilight]

I have noticed that both your and Teresa's arguments so far have been focused on removing the responsibility for the change in the scripture from Jesus.

From it being a deliberate change by Jesus, a specific point that was being made.

To something that had nothing to do with Jesus' intention...

[Twilight]

Teresa and Pnat, do you allow the possibility that Jesus used these words very deliberately and that they mean something specifically?

Or do you totally dismiss this as a possibility?

Neither of you have answered this point?

[Twilight]

Update:

So let us examine the arguments against this being a distinction so far:

1. We have no way of knowing Jesus' exact words.

2. It is an idiom.

3. It is a figure of speech.

4. Jesus never said those specific words, the disciples inserted them when they wrote out the gospels.

All of these arguments could be used to undermine many a text in the bible.

We need more than this if we are to state it is not a distinction Jesus was making.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

There are two assumptions in this argument:

1. That the Gospels are translations of spoken Hebrew into written Greek.

You misread what was written. This was not an assumption. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the New Testament knows this isn't true.

Quote:

2. That it is the authors themselves the insert the word "mind" and that Jesus did not use that word.

The assumption is that Jesus quoted the Shema. As the author stated:

Quote:

Forgetting the Shema is like forgetting your name. Unless Yeshua had a total collapse of mental faculties, it is simply impossible that He would have used some other word except me’od.

Quote:

Therefore this removes the word "mind" from Jesus in effect, placing it as an insertion by the Gospel writers.

Which ignores one simple point.

If Jesus wanted to say "heart and mind" in the Hebrew, He could have done.

The author's point is that Jesus did this very thing. He quoted the Shema.

Quote:

It is just as valid to assume that Jesus did actually use the Hebrew words (if He spoke it in Hebrew), that they then quoted in the Greek.

Jesus spoke in Aramaic. The Shema was something extremely well known by Jews. The Gospels were written in Greek (and Aramaic). There is a difference in the Greek of Matthew, and the Hebrew that Jesus quoted. The author is explaining that it is inconceivable that Jesus quoted the Shema incorrectly. Therefore the difference is due to a translation issue.

Quote:

If Jesus spoke of just "heart" then they would not have had this great difficulty with translating that, that this author is claiming.

Jesus quoted the Shema.

Quote:

So this argument falls down as "evidence" very quickly.

It doesn't appear that you understood the argument.

Quote:

It is an expressed opinion of someone, without any evidence that their foundational argument actually is correct.

It doesn't appear that you understood the argument. The argument is that:

1.Jesus quoted the Shema.

2.It's inconceivable that He did so incorrectly.

3.Therefore the difference in the translation to the Greek is due to language considerations, as explained here:

Quote:

If I attempt to capture a foreign concept in another language, I am often stuck with thought forms that don’t quite fit. I have two choices. I can choose the closest compatible expression or I can try to make up a new one. Paul often chooses the latter. Matthew, Mark and Luke seem to have chosen the former.

Quote:

How could the author know that the "writers" inserted this word?

He cannot.

The alternative would be that Jesus quoted the Shema wrong. The author dismissed this possibility.

[Twilight]

If the disciples were supplying the added word "mind" to expand the meaning of heart, then they would have done that in other places, when quoting Christ.

But they didn't.

They used "heart" without any translation difficulty elsewhere, as well as "mind".

In both these instances, they were very specific in their usage:

Mat 5:8 Blessed [are] the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Luk 12:29 And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.

They quoted Jesus and did not need to add anything to convey the use of the words, beyond the immediate usage.

Unless we are saying that we cannot trust these words either, to be from Jesus?

[Twilight]

Quote:

There are two assumptions in this argument:

1. That the Gospels are translations of spoken Hebrew into written Greek.

You misread what was written. This was not an assumption. Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the New Testament knows this isn't true.

Quote:

2. That it is the authors themselves the insert the word "mind" and that Jesus did not use that word.

The assumption is that Jesus quoted the Shema. As the author stated:

Quote:

Forgetting the Shema is like forgetting your name. Unless Yeshua had a total collapse of mental faculties, it is simply impossible that He would have used some other word except me’od.

Quote:

Therefore this removes the word "mind" from Jesus in effect, placing it as an insertion by the Gospel writers.

Which ignores one simple point.

If Jesus wanted to say "heart and mind" in the Hebrew, He could have done.

The author's point is that Jesus did this very thing. He quoted the Shema.

Quote:

It is just as valid to assume that Jesus did actually use the Hebrew words (if He spoke it in Hebrew), that they then quoted in the Greek.

Jesus spoke in Aramaic. The Shema was something extremely well known by Jews. The Gospels were written in Greek (and Aramaic). There is a difference in the Greek of Matthew, and the Hebrew that Jesus quoted. The author is explaining that it is inconceivable that Jesus quoted the Shema incorrectly. Therefore the difference is due to a translation issue.

Quote:

If Jesus spoke of just "heart" then they would not have had this great difficulty with translating that, that this author is claiming.

Jesus quoted the Shema.

Quote:

So this argument falls down as "evidence" very quickly.

It doesn't appear that you understood the argument.

Quote:

It is an expressed opinion of someone, without any evidence that their foundational argument actually is correct.

It doesn't appear that you understood the argument. The argument is that:

1.Jesus quoted the Shema.

2.It's inconceivable that He did so incorrectly.

3.Therefore the difference in the translation to the Greek is due to language considerations, as explained here:

Quote:

If I attempt to capture a foreign concept in another language, I am often stuck with thought forms that don’t quite fit. I have two choices. I can choose the closest compatible expression or I can try to make up a new one. Paul often chooses the latter. Matthew, Mark and Luke seem to have chosen the former.

Quote:

How could the author know that the "writers" inserted this word?

He cannot.

The alternative would be that Jesus quoted the Shema wrong. The author dismissed this possibility.

This does not make sense Pnat.

I have understood the argument that the scholar you are quoting is making.

He is assuming that Jesus did NOT change the words, that the disciples did it for Him when translating the "Aramaic" as he claims into Greek.

This also assumes that the disciples would have been comfortable changing the words, when they were perfectly aware what the OT Commandment stated.

They would not have done that.

They would have used the Greek to translate the original Hebrew perfectly, even if it was ran through Aramaic.

They would have had the words to hand to bring that fully across into the Greek.

Why?

Because they used those words in other places quite comfortably.

This author is clearly starting from the assumption that Jesus would not change the words, because Jesus would have to be quoting and would not do anything else.

That is quite an assumption...

[Twilight]

But what you have done here Pnat, is bring a "scholars" assumption into the discussion.

Now if we do not allow SOP, I do not think we should be using a scholar's assumptions as a basis for an argument.

Because all we are going to do now, is argue about the scholar's assumptions, that are predicated on this point that Jesus "would not" have changed the wording.

Which introduces an outside bias into the scripture.

Now we could choose to "believe" that the scholar is correct, but we cannot prove it.

But we can prove that the writers of the Gospel had the greek words to express the commandment perfectly as they used them in many places.

So I suggest we move away from this scholars opinion, we can reason this out for ourselves.

:-)

[Twilight]

And could you please answer this question when you have a moment as I fear you are operating from a specific bias that is disabling you from considering this from all angles:

"Teresa and Pnat, do you allow the possibility that Jesus used these words very deliberately and that they mean something specifically?

Or do you totally dismiss this as a possibility? "

[Twilight]

Who said the text wasn't different? I've been giving a reason for the difference. If I didn't "admit" there was a difference, I wouldn't be giving a reason for it, would I?

I didn't say "different", I said "distinct".

[Twilight]

Now I could say that these "words" are just a representation of what Jesus said, and an inaccurate one at that, based on some prior assumption:

Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

But how is that an argument, that Jesus never said those words?

[pnattmbtc]

I have noticed that both your and Teresa's arguments so far have been focused on removing the responsibility for the change in the scripture from Jesus.

[pnattmbtc]

If the disciples were supplying the added word "mind" to expand the meaning of heart, then they would have done that in other places, when quoting Christ.

But they didn't.

They used "heart" without any translation difficulty elsewhere, as well as "mind".

In both these instances, they were very specific in their usage:

Mat 5:8 Blessed [are] the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

Luk 12:29 And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.

They quoted Jesus and did not need to add anything to convey the use of the words, beyond the immediate usage.

[pnattmbtc]

This does not make sense Pnat.

I have understood the argument that the scholar you are quoting is making.

[pnattmbtc]

But what you have done here Pnat, is bring a "scholars" assumption into the discussion.

Now if we do not allow SOP, I do not think we should be using a scholar's assumptions as a basis for an argument.

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Who said the text wasn't different? I've been giving a reason for the difference. If I didn't "admit" there was a difference, I wouldn't be giving a reason for it, would I?

I didn't say "different", I said "distinct".

What does this matter? Didn't you mean by saying "distinct" that there was a difference? I can make the same point this way:

Who said the text wasn't distinct? I've been giving a reason for it being distinct. If I didn't "admit" there was a distinction, I would be giving a reason for it, would I?

Why would you make the point that you said "distinct" instead of "different" (which doesn't seem germane), and not respond to that actual point that was made? (which surely is)

[teresaq]

Update:

So let us examine the arguments against this being a distinction so far:

1. We have no way of knowing Jesus' exact words.

2. It is an idiom.

3. It is a figure of speech.

4. Jesus never said those specific words, the disciples inserted them when they wrote out the gospels.

this is basically the same update you had a couple of pages back.

this is the text you presented.

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,

and with all thy soul,

and with all thy mind.

no one said that the "disciples" "inserted any words...what was said, was the bible writers wrote down what they remembered/understood to be said, several years after the fact, in fact, not at the time it was said.

the "evidence" that they recorded according to their memory/understanding is in the difference of the parallel texts.

Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,

and with all thy soul,

and with all thy mind,

and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

[Twilight]

How do you know that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic Pnat?

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

How do you know that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic Pnat?

General knowledge. Here's something I picked up at random from the internet.

Quote:

Question: "What language did Jesus speak?"

Answer: While Jesus very likely spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, Aramaic was likely the language Jesus spoke the most. The Gospels record Jesus speaking numerous Aramaic words: talitha koum (Mark 5:41); ephphatha (Mark 7:34); eloi eloi lama sabachthani (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34); abba (Mark 14:36). Historians, archaeologists, and cultural anthropologists are almost universally agreed that Aramaic was the common/colloquial language in Israel during Jesus’ time. Aramaic was very similar to Hebrew, but with many words/phrases that were borrowed from other languages/cultures, especially Babylonian.(http://www.gotquestions.org/language-Jesus-speak.html)

[Twilight]

Quote:

How do you know that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic Pnat?

General knowledge. Here's something I picked up at random from the internet.

Quote:

Question: "What language did Jesus speak?"

Answer: While Jesus very likely spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek, Aramaic was likely the language Jesus spoke the most. The Gospels record Jesus speaking numerous Aramaic words: talitha koum (Mark 5:41); ephphatha (Mark 7:34); eloi eloi lama sabachthani (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34); abba (Mark 14:36). Historians, archaeologists, and cultural anthropologists are almost universally agreed that Aramaic was the common/colloquial language in Israel during Jesus’ time. Aramaic was very similar to Hebrew, but with many words/phrases that were borrowed from other languages/cultures, especially Babylonian.(http://www.gotquestions.org/language-Jesus-speak.html)

Are you appealing to "general knowledge" as the authority for your argument Pnat? :-)

It says in the quote you have supplied that Jesus very likely spoke all three languages.

So how do you "know" He spoke Aramaic at this point in time.

I do not see how you can know.

You can assume that, but you cannot "know it". :-)

[pnattmbtc]

Quote:

Are you appealing to "general knowledge" as the authority for your argument Pnat? :-)

You asked me how I knew Jesus spoke in Aramaic. I responded this is general knowledge, which it is. Did you not know this? It's hard to know if you're being serious or playing with me.

Quote:

It says in the quote you have supplied that Jesus very likely spoke all three languages.

Of course. Jesus was educated, and Greek was the lingua franca. Any Jew would have known Hebrew. Everybody spoke Aramaic. The common language was Aramaic. That was the language everybody knew, and the language that was commonly spoken.

Here's an example. Consider a Pole living in Poland, near the German border, during the reign of the Soviet Union. This person would certainly have known Russian, and possibly German. But what language would he have spoken in normal discourse? Polish, of course.

Quote:

So how do you "know" He spoke Aramaic at this point in time.

Because I've studied these things, Mark. I have a degree in Theology in the undergrad, and studied at the seminary, MDiv, as well.

Quote:

I do not see how you can know.

You can assume that, but you cannot "know it". :-)

Say somebody recorded something Mark Twain said in the nineteenth century. What language would that have been in? Say Mark Twain knew French and Latin. One would naturally assume he spoke in English. One could argue, "How do you know that? He could have been speaking French, or Latin." Sure, that's true, but what is likely? The likely thing is that he was speaking in English. Your question is like asking me how I knew Mark Twain was speaking in English.

At any rate, this seems to be off the subject. You said you wanted to present things from the mind of the first century perspective. Please do so. Please present whatever evidence you have regarding the point of view that you hold. You can present a chunk of it, and we could discuss the whole chunk, instead of going a sliver at a time. I think that might be less onerous.

[pnattmbtc]

Here's what Strong's says "heart" means:

Quote:

1) the heart

a) that organ in the animal body which is the centre of the circulation of the blood, and hence was regarded as the seat of physical life

denotes the centre of all physical and spiritual life

1) the vigour and sense of physical life

2) the centre and seat of spiritual life

a) the soul or mind, as it is the fountain and seat of the thoughts, passions, desires, appetites, affections, purposes, endeavours

of the understanding, the faculty and seat of the intelligence

c) of the will and character

d) of the soul so far as it is affected and stirred in a bad way or good, or of the soul as the seat of the sensibilities, affections, emotions, desires, appetites, passions

c) of the middle or central or inmost part of anything, even though inanimate

Mark, do you have any issues with this?

[pnattmbtc]

Here's what it says about "nous"("mind"):

Quote:

mind, understanding.

Probably from the base of ginosko; the intellect, i.e. Mind (divine or human; in thought, feeling, or will); by implication, meaning -- mind, understanding. Compare psuche.

Any issues with this?

[Twilight]

Pnat, you cannot possibly "know" that Jesus spoke Aramaic when speaking at that point.

You can "assume".

But you cannot "know".

How do you know He did not speak in Greek, how do you know He did not speak in Hebrew at that specific time?

I do not see how you can say you "know".

Because I've studied these things, Mark. I have a degree in Theology in the undergrad, and studied at the seminary, MDiv, as well.

How does this "prove" that Jesus spoke Aramaic at that specific point?

Many people roll out a bunch of PHD's and Diplomas as the basis for an argument, but those qualifications do not make them "right".

It seems that you are basing your authority for your argument on your education.

You have argued so far, "common sense" and "my education".

But we have drifted from the parameters of the study already.

As both these points rest on "opinion".

One on "general opinion".

One on "educated opinion".

We are not here to discuss opinion my friend, we are here to let the bible interpret itself and remove ourselves from that as much as possible.

Mark :-)