The Shema (New Testament version)
And He said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.” Matthew 22:37
Mind – If you remember (and I hope you do), the word in the Hebrew passage is not “mind.” It is me’od – greatness, very, much, exceedingly. Somehow the Matthew version of Yeshua’s quotation from Deuteronomy 6:5 shifts me’od to the Greek word dianoia and the Greek dianoia seems to have very little to do with an adverb about lots of stuff. What are we to make of this? Did Yeshua forget what the Hebrew text says?
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. Therefore, the problem has to be in the translation from Hebrew to Greek, not in the actual words Yeshua spoke. We can see more evidence of a translation problem when we look at this same event recorded in Mark and Luke. Mark’s version is “with all your mind and with all your strength.” Apparently, the translator of Mark realized that me’od had a connection to “strength” so he added this, but he still left in the surprising Greek word dianoia. Luke keeps both of Mark’s phrases, but reverses their order (“with all your strength, and with all your mind”). How are we to understand this linguistic sleight-of-hand?
It’s very clear that Yeshua recited the Deuteronomy passage as it is written in Hebrew. It’s also very clear that the Greek gospels have a great deal of trouble trying to capture the Hebrew meaning of me’od. 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. It includes thinking, feeling and understanding, but it is the active function of the mind, not simply the mental storage compartment. At least this approaches a Hebrew point of view. Whatever the translators thought, they knew that the Hebrew expression was about action and purpose, not a state of being. But why use any expression that seems to divide man into component parts? The answer requires a deeper reflection on translation issues. 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. Dianoia is as close as they could get to me’od, but at least Mark and Luke realized that me’od needed the additional support of ischus (strength – mental, moral and physical).
What we have in the Gospels is a translation of concept, not a transfer of exact words. You might think of the Gospels as a paraphrase of Yeshua’s actual words. We get the point, but the actual words He used are hidden behind the translation. One thing we know for sure: Yeshua did not consider loving God as a mental state of being. It was not about a storehouse of correct theological information or a treasury of the right propositions. Loving God is about actions, even if sometimes the best way to describe them requires us to use marginal concepts like dianoia.
What’s the lesson? First, translations make a big difference. Be careful how you read. Second, never let the current culture dictate what the text means. Look to the original audience for understanding. And finally, remember that loving God is not what you think. It’s what you do with the mind awake to Him.
Topical Index: mind, dianoia, Mark 12:30, Matthew 22:37, Luke 10:27
As a teacher, I see this mindset (that it’s what you know, not what you do) perpetuated everywhere and saturating the educational arena. One of my biggest struggles is to take my students from a point where they are waiting for me to feed them facts and stuff things into their heads (which is what most of them have come to expect after years of being told to memorize facts for a standardized test), to a point where they DO something with information. One of my favorite quotes is by Plutarch (yes, he’s Greek, I think) that says the mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be kindled. Fires rage and consume and MOVE. Water in a cup just sits there and eventually becomes stale. Perhaps the way we teach students in school promotes this idea that God is about what I know and faith is about what I know and love is about what I feel, instead of it all being about action and movement and flow. Maybe that’s why I get so frustrated when students come to me bored and hating school and expecting yet another class of facts. Maybe that’s what we’ve done to Christianity. Facts are boring unless you understand what to do with them and understand why they’re important. But above all, you must DO something.
Sorry for a bit of a rant! This post sparked that frustration I feel about the way things work in society, and it’s reflected in how we understand Yeshua and YHWH. Scary. Sad.
Ah..Amanda- a true “teacher!”. Thank you for expressing the burden upon your heart- for true “teaching” is not the transference of “facts” from my notebook into yours but a tranformed (new) heart leading to a transformed lifestyle. Two recommended books for you- “Seven Laws of the Teacher” and Seven Laws of the Learner”. (of course, in Hebrew, teach and learn are the same word!- lol!) – wouldn’t you know it!
Yes, brother Skip I am fully convinced “the mind of Yeshua” (which we now have) is a Hebrew mind. “What’s in it for me?” must be “replaced” with “how may I serve my community?” EGO has been exposed by the light of G-d’s Word as “Edge G-d Out.” Yes, (and amen), He must increase but I must decrease.
But, (always a big/little word!), I am not quite ready to “toss out” the section of my Bible written in Greek. As YHWH is Sovereign, (and He is- right?), He had/has a plan that the Brit Chadashah (New Covenant Scriptures) should be written in Greek. I believe the Greek language has linguistic value. Perhaps not as refined or defined as the (exact) Hebrew, yet it is not without value, even when taken at “face” value. (Hebrew is always for those who wish to “dig a little deeper!”)
One thing I have learned from this community and will always cherish: “our Bible is a gold mine when you dig with a Hebrew shovel.”
Thank you for revealing the Hebrew hidden behind the Greek. Greek for “style and shape” – Hebrew for “substance and structure?” lol! -Glory!-
p.s. (what are the two words for glory?)
Don’t worry. I don’t intend to toss out the Greek either. Paul wrote in Greek. Peter wrote in Greek. John wrote in Greek. I just want to be sure that I don’t overlook the translation of thought forms from Hebrew to Greek, especially since a great deal of “Christian” theology seems to be convinced that everything that matters is in Greek.
Did John really write in Greek? Have you ever looked at John ch 1 in Hebrew? It reads like Hebrew poetry. It has a flow and structure to it that I’m sure isn’t the same in Greek. But was it originally Greek or Hebrew? I’d love someone to do an in depth investigation of that.
Josephus tells us that “obtaining the learning of the Greeks” was not all that common (mainly only by the very well educated) and somewhat frowned upon in his time (being a contemporary of Yeshua). I wouldn’t have thought that Peter and John would fall into this category.
I can believe that Sha’ul may have been schooled in Greek, and may have written some of his letters in Greek (depending on the native language of his intended audience), and certainly Luke was fluent in Greek as well as Hebrew, but I’m not convinced about Peter and John. Unfortunately, though, we have no hard evidence of any Hebrew originals – any that did exist were almost certainly destroyed long ago. Is there any linguistic evidence or hints of the Greek text being translated as there certainly are with Matthew (and I suspect John)?
I know- my ideas may be unconventional and go against the vast consensus of academic opinion to date, but if I don’t ask I’ll never find the answer. 🙂
Shalom,
“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.”
If as Skip declares the misuse of one word would indicate that Yeshua had lost his mental faculties, how do we then address a teaching/doctrine that claims Yeshua nullified the mitzvot, mishpatim and chukkot by filling up Torah with HIS glorious Earthly ministry? One would have to say that IF Yeshua had done so, HE would not be Mashiach but instead anti-Mashiach!
A house divided against itself will fall! Does YHVH fight against HIMSELF?
What then will be the fate of any institution, system, adherents, et. al. which, in the form of doctrine and behavior, claims YHVH has nullified HIS WORD?
Woe to this world and to Babylon … despite our joy in HIM how can we not mourn those that are cut-off … those that can not hear!
You are in good form today, Drew. And you are right. The implications are astounding. How did we get so far away from the obvious?
“How did we get so far away from the obvious?” And the answer is?
At first a huge influx of untrained Gentiles into the faith at a time when foundational leaders were under continuous onslaught … resulting in a leadership vacuum …
then a continued split amongst the Jewish people …
then a general disdain for the Jewish people and their ways amongst the predominatly Gentile church …
then the official establishment of “replacement theology” …
then the forced integration of “the way” into Roman paganism …
then the establishment of Catholic orthodoxy by the edge of the sword …
then the embedding of Greek philosophy into mainline theological thought …
then the continued consolidation of ecclesiastical power …
then the complete integration of the church into the secular political and social spheres of society …
then a revolt – which rather than forcing a correction resulted in a widespread definition of multiple orthodoxies …
then social, political and personal enlightenment – bringing to new heights the individual and cementing the Greek ideology;
then the final drum roll of spiritual apathy, ear-tickling doctrines of toleration and cheap grace and material centricity – which we call the modern age
Now of course these causes can not be viewed as one contiguous Gantt style time-line … clearly the dynamic was more complex than depicted herein. However … Skip asked a fairly simple question and I thought to keep the answer fairly simple accordingly … at the risk of over simplifying matters! 🙂
And within all of this chaos … a faithful remnant survives … a remnant that is driven by passion, truth and a relationship with G_D … through Ruach HaKodesh by the power of Yeshua! … All for HIS NAME’s sake and glory alone!
One could only hope that the sleepers arise in great numbers … after all a remnant could still mean a large number of souls when all is said and done! And of course our concern is for those blinded by Babylon and not Babylon herself …. we already know her end … she does not survive!
So the bigger question Skip is not how we got so far away from the obvious … but rather what do we do now … knowing how far we are away from the obvious?
The historical record is clear … the doctrinal record is clear … the ability to get to these records for most people, of even modest means, is relatively simple … so why aren’t huge numbers of believers challenging the status quo … why aren’t huge numbers of believers up in arms about what has happened to the heritage handed down by YHVH?
Sadly I believe we all know the answer!
In translating from the Hebrew into the Greek and having these problems of such great loss, what does “Was not” in Hebrew mean? In the Greek , it seems that everyone is translating that as NOT DYING. What is the Hebrew for these two words? I hope that someone can fill me in.
Hi Carol,
I would like to help, but I have no idea what verse you are talking about. “Not dying”? Where did that come from? Matthew 22:34-30 contains no equivalent phrase.
It was concerning Enoch. Enoch walked with G-d
( not sure why I am doing that G-d:respect but I do not know why)
that he was no more, because G-d took him away.
By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found because G-d had taken him away.
These were all commended for their faith, yet now of them received what had been promised
In the Greek, they tell me that he did not die/ taken or raptured/ but the Hebrews believed that a man lived , died and was buried and he stayed buried or dead.
Was not= died Does this make sense to you..? I believe Enoch awaits the same resurrection as Abraham and his children are waiting for but some believe that the partial resurrection has taken place because some are already in heaven…mmm ???
Gen. 5 and Hebrews 11
“with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.”
I’m wondering if “mind” is used because it has less “physical” connotation than “might”?
Heart has a physical connotation, soul does not.
Might might tip the scale toward the physical.
Mind does not.
Except that “might” isn’t correct either. See previous Today’s Word on the verses.
it really means is “great,” or “very,” or “exceedingly.” It is the what-ness of life, all the stuff we have on loan to do His bidding.
don’t mean to beat a “dead horse,” but back in the 50’s someone’s dad might say “hit those books,” or the bully across the street, with:
– everything you’ve got
– as much as you can
– all your might
and never quit 🙂
Correct me if I am wrong but the Shema in Deuteronomy in the LLX is: (starting with verse 5)
καὶ ἀγαπήσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς ψυχῆς σου καὶ ἐξ ὅλης τῆς δυνάμεώς σου.
This means the Greek translation is for me’od is τῆς δυνάμεώς σου isn’t it?
My interlinear agrees with you on διάνοια and says δυνάμεώς is ability.
I guess my question is that if the LLX was available to the authors and was translated as above why would they change it there or, as in Luke or Mark, feel it necessary to add strength? Makes an even further compelling argument that Yeshua wasn’t speaking Greek (for those that can’t get over that)