judge

Maybe maybe not.
The greeks seemed to "reason" in their minds while in semitic thought, the "reasoning" is done in the heart.

I'm not sure your "example" really cuts it from this perspective.

John A. Broussard

If I remember correctly, the Egyptians considered the mind to be in the heart. Embalmers simply threw the brain away, considering it to be something like a useless tumor. And, as you know, Egyptian beliefs had a widespread influence on the whole Middle East.

ichabod crane

An oath is a somewhat different thing; but in any case we could say that Aeschylus on this occasion sounds slightly semitic. Saying that something sounds semitic is not the same thing as saying that is actually is semitic. I only said that it sounded semitic. Whether the phrase in Luke actually is of semitic origin and derives from an Aramaic original version of the story, I do not know, and would have to do a lot of close examination of the text to even begin to find out, which I don't have time for.

Alternatively, it could mean nothing at all, as the Aeschylus quote illustrates.

But the general point remains: the Hebrews did not just associate some or all kinds of thinking or functions of the mind with the heart. They had no word for mind. That is not true of Greek!

spin

An oath is something important, that you should feel strongly about and it is a strongly felt idea which is placed in one's heart.

I'm not detracting from the notion that dianoia has no equivalent in Hebrew, just pointing out that it is normal for strongly felt things to be put in one's heart in Greek.


spin