The "Word"

[Ormly]

Sorry, I disagree completely.

That is what discussions are for, right? You say you completely disagree. I find that hard to believe coming from a Christian. Can you narrow it down to a particular or do you wish to leave as, complete disagreement?

 

[Vasileios]

I'm sorry if I came off as rude, that was not my intention. However, you started by separating Christ's humanity with his Divinity. Particularly:

Christ was not the Son of God

...this, is completely unacceptable and I'm thinking this has to do with our respective traditions. I do not think we can resolve this with a simple discussion. We have a completely different Christology. My experience is that when the differences are that monumental (and from my POV, they are), discussions tend to go in circles.

 

[Ormly]

I'm sorry if I came off as rude, that was not my intention. However, you started by separating Christ's humanity with his Divinity. Particularly:
...this, is completely unacceptable and I'm thinking this has to do with our respective traditions. I do not think we can resolve this with a simple discussion. We have a completely different Christology. My experience is that when the differences are that monumental (and from my POV, they are), discussions tend to go in circles.

If it was intended by me to have it stand without qualification, you would have some reason to complain or question, HOWEVER, you purposely have omitted the rest of what I wrote to make point that doesn't need to be made.

 

[Vasileios]

But I am not complaining. I just explained myself why I think the fruitful thing to do would be to confess that I think I know already that we completely disagree. The rest of your text, containing your qualification and reasoning simply confirms my initial suspicion, which was triggered by that phrase I quoted.

Simply put, under no circumstances I will accept the phrase "Christ was not the Son of God", be it as a distinction to his title "the Son of Man", and especially by a declaration by Peter, no matter how spiritually it stands on "the Word" (which is Christ, so rather a tautology there).

I think I'm saving us both some time. I am not contending your belief. I merely say I have a different one, which is unnegotiable.

 

[Rhamiel]

I think “Word” is kinda a bad translation of the Greek Logos, a better translation would be “Organizing thought”. Like the Tao in Eastern Philosophy. The Word is Jesus, when St. John says “in the beginning” he is not referring to Creation but rather to God who is timeless. The Word is God, that means it could not have started with creation because God was before creation. Logos does not refer to the Bible, it is referring to Jesus.

 

[Ormly]

I think “Word” is kinda a bad translation of the Greek Logos, a better translation would be “Organizing thought”. Like the Tao in Eastern Philosophy. The Word is Jesus, when St. John says “in the beginning” he is not referring to Creation but rather to God who is timeless. The Word is God, that means it could not have started with creation because God was before creation. Logos does not refer to the Bible, it is referring to Jesus.

How about viewing the Word as "Expressed Thought"? Wouldn't that be more accurate and sever it from the Tao agenda? Lets take it a step further by declaring it to be the "Expressed Heart" of God.

 

[artybloke]

John 1

1IN THE beginning [before all time] was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [b]Himself.(A)

2He was present originally with God.
3All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.
4In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men.
5And the Light shines on in the darkness, for the darkness has never overpowered it [put it out or absorbed it or appropriated it, and is unreceptive to it].
6There came a man sent from God, whose name was John.(B)
7This man came to witness, that he might testify of the Light, that all men might believe in it [adhere to it, trust it, and rely upon it] through him.
8He was not the Light himself, but came that he might bear witness regarding the Light.
9There it was--the true Light [was then] coming into the world [the genuine, perfect, steadfast Light] that illumines every person.(C) 10He came into the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him [did not know Him].


okay, we all know this passage, and we all know that in a way it references back to Genesis 1 (or it wouldn't say "In the beginning" )... Anyway...

What do you think "the Word" means? What is it referencing? Just Christ? The bible? Some combination? God? What does it mean to you and you need to share the reason for your belief and what consequences your belief has... what does your belief cause you to do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

 

[Yekcidmij]

okay, we all know this passage, and we all know that in a way it references back to Genesis 1 (or it wouldn't say "In the beginning" )... Anyway...

What do you think "the Word" means? What is it referencing? Just Christ? The bible? Some combination? God? What does it mean to you and you need to share the reason for your belief and what consequences your belief has... what does your belief cause you to do?

The "Word" is a Jewish concept and John got the idea from Jesus' actions and the Old Testament. Another Jew, Philo, from the same time period had similiar, not the exact same, ideas about the "word".

Take this passage for example:

(NRSV)
Gen 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, "Do not be afraid, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great."
15:2 But Abram said, "O Adonai YHWH, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?"
15:3 And Abram said, "You have given me no offspring, and so a slave born in my house is to be my heir."
15:4 But the word of the LORD came to him, "This man shall not be your heir; no one but your very own issue shall be your heir."
15:5 He brought him outside and said, "Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your descendants be."
15:6 Abram believed the Lord, and the Lord considered his response of faith as proof of genuine loyalty.

A couple of odd things are there that I highlighted.
How does the "word" appear in a vision?
Is it the "word" telling Abraham that he will be the shield?
How does the "word" bring Abram outside?
Is Abram seeing something?

It gets even more interesting when we consider how this was read among Jews. If we look at the Targum, an Aramaic version of the bible read in synagogues in Jesus' time, the picture is even more shocking:

Targum Jonathan Gen 15:1-6

Thereupon was the word of the Lord with Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not; for if these men should gather together in legions and come against thee, My Word will be thy shield: and also if these fall before thee in this world, the reward of thy good works shall be kept, and be prepared before Me in the world to come, great exceedingly.
And Abram said, Lord God, great blessings hast Thou given me, and great (are they which it is) before Thee to give me: nevertheless, what profit is to me, when I pass from the world without children, and Eliezer the manager (bar pharnasath, the son of sustenance) of my house, by whose hands signs were wrought for (or to) me in Darmasek, expects to be my heir? And Abram said, Behold, to me Thou hast not given a son; and, behold, the manager of my house will be my heir. And, behold, a word from before the Lord was to him, saying, He shall not be thine heir; but a son whom thou wilt beget shall be thy heir. And He brought him forth without, and said, Look up now to the heavens, and number the stars, if thou art able to number them: and he said, So will be thy sons. And he believed in the Lord, and had faith in the Word of the Lord, and He reckoned it to him for righteousness

This kind of thing happens over and over. Take this passage for example:


Here is the NRSV:

16:7 The angel of YHWH found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur.
16:8 And he said, "Hagar, slave-girl of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?" She said, "I am running away from my mistress Sarai."
16:9 The angel of YHWH said to her, "Return to your mistress, and submit to her."
16:10 The angel of YHWH also said to her, "I will so greatly multiply your offspring that they cannot be counted for multitude."
16:11 And the angel of the LORD said to her, "Now you have conceived and shall bear a son; you shall call him Ishmael, for the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
16:12 He shall be a wild ass of a man, with his hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him; and he shall live at odds with all his kin."
16:13 So she named YHWH who spoke to her, "You are El-roi"; for she said, "Have I really seen God and remained alive after seeing him?"

How was such a passage read in the Targum?

Targum Jonathan

And the Angel of the Lord found her at the fountain of waters in the desert; at the fountain of waters which is in the way to Chagra. [JERUSALEM. Chalitza.] And He said, Hagar, handmaid of Sara, whence comest thou, and whither does thou go? And she said, From before Sara my mistress I have escaped.And the Angel of the Lord said to her, Return to thy mistress, and be subject under her hand. And the Angel of the Lord said to her, MultiplyingI will multiply thy sons, and they shall not be numbered for multitude. And the Angel of the Lord said to her, Behold, thou art with child, and thou wilt bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Ishmael, because thy affliction is revealed before the Lord. And he shall be like the wild ass among men: his hands shall take vengeance of his adversaries, and the hands of his adversaries be put forth to do him evil; and in the presence of all his brethren shall he be commingled, (yitharbeb, Arabized,) and shall dwell. And she gave thanks before the Lord whose Word spake to her, and thus said, Thou art He who livest and art eternal; who seest, but art not seen! · for she said, For, behold, here is revealed the glory of the Shekina of the Lord after a vision. (JERUSALEM. And Hagar gave thanks, and prayed in the Name of the Word of the Lord, who had been manifested to her, saying, Blessed be Thou, Eloha, the Living One of all Ages, who hast looked upon my affliction. For she said, Behold, Thou art manifested also unto me, even as Thou wast manifested to Sara my mistress.]

John's opening in his gospel is well grounded within Judaism. Now, what does it mean? It appears from these 2 passages, and there are more than these 2, that Abraham and Hagar are seeing something and they call it the "Word of the Lord". Interestingly, both Hagar and Abram call their vision, appearance, or manifestation (whatever you call it), YHWH, and both call this appearance - God. The Targum understands the Angel of YHWH to be somehow equated with the "Word".

In John's Gospel, John makes a short Jewish leap and says Jesus is the "Word". The big difference between the "Word" in John's gospel and the "Word" in the Old Testament, is that in John's gospel, the Word was born of a woman.

 

[spiritman]

Of course we agree that the Logos is Christ. But I have to disagree that it is a translation of another word or idea. And that it is not a good word.

First, St. John wrote in greek. And the phrasing he used to open his gospel is indeed carefully chosen. "In the beginning..." clearly ties the text with Genesis. So, God formed the earth. St. John takes it deeper: The Logos made everything, He is God, and further down he says these profound words: "and the Logos became flesh". So, we are clearly talking about Christ. And Christ is God. So what about the word Logos?

Logos, does not mean "written word" as you state in your opening post. The greek for that is "γραφή/graphi" (singular) or "γραφαί/graphe" (plural). Logos actually means a lot of things. And it can be translated in many ways, and as a personal comment "Word" is one of the least successful ones. Here is what Logos means:

1. Reason
This should be imho, the more accurate translation. Logos means first and foremost two things: The reason (as to why something has happened) and reason as intelligence, as we say reasoning capabilities of the mind. Logos is the root word of "logic" (and logic in ancient greek doesn't mean mathematics but employing the unique to human reasoning capabilities).

2. Speech
As in the words uttered by someone.

3. Word. As in the meaning of the words (but also tied to his reasoning, see 1), but also as in the phrase "he kept his word".

4. Wisdom or scholarship. Which is used even today: Theo-logy, cosmo-logy, astro-logy etc (that -logy is from the word "Logos"). The original meaning of the ancient greeks about that -logia was acquiring wisdom about the subject, or using our intelligence about it, or talking about it. (see how it all connects?)

St. John choses this word to use for Christ. And why? Because the Logos has become flesh and he is now preaching to the nations. And he is using now a language that has the sufficient vocabulary to convey the awesome mysteries of God and His incarnation. In the hellenistic culture of the time, which was *the* culture of the mediterrenean and middle-east, after Alexander the Great, the word "Logos" is not a mystery at all. It is a word heavily loaded and with very rich meaning, thanks to all the great ancient greek philosophers, like Heraclitus, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. They ALL used "Logos" as the defining principle of the cosmos. The reason for everything or the intelligence that started it all. Not everyone agreed about the Logos, but the word is that: Nothing short of the Prime Reason, Aristotle's immovable mover.

And St. John comes and says: The Logos is with God, and the Logos is God. The light of the world. Through him everything was made. And He became flesh. Because God so loved the world.

This awesomely profound declaration of St. John, which came AFTER the first three gospels were written, to explain, to speak deeper about God, is the definition of THEOLOGY. Because, in Orthodoxy a theologian is one who has achieved theosis, and has filled his nous (the core of the heart) with the Holy Spirit "that leads to all Truth". Theo-logy is wisdom about God, so by its very definition, it can only come from God, by revelation. And here is the gospel of St John (whom the Orthodox Church calls the Theologian, an extremely rare title) that gives a much broader and deeper insight of "...the beginning" and completes the picture of Genesis.

And then we begin the journey of true theology, guided by those who have the Holy Spirit in them to lead us away from errors: Who IS Christ? Eternally born from the Father, before Creation, God's Logos. You and I have also the Logos, our mind, our Reason, we are made in His image. And our minds cannot contain that what to us is one and the same thing, ourself, my mind, my thoughts, they are me, in God, the Logos is a separate person, and one who took on our nature as well.

O-USA, said it well: You are diving deep. These matters are profound mysteries because they deal with God's nature, which is uncreated, and thus alien to us, who are created. The only way we know God is through Christ, because He became like us, took on the created nature, so we may understand, so we may be reconciled, so we may be lifted again, amen.

Rest assured, that the word "Logos" is extremely well chosen. I have never come across something better.

Greetings Friend,

Enjoyed your explanation from the Greek perspective.

I would like to ask a question regarding a word that I have studied and would appreciate any input on it.

You mentioned the word "nous" which is the word for mind. In Mark 12:30 there is the word mind but its dianoia. The root word is nous. Can you elaborate on the differences.

Comments from others also welcomed.

Thanks

 

[Ormly]

This is something I am working on:


Concerning the Word, Christ and Jesus

Word = the Expression of God

Christ = the Substance of the Word made real to the Soul of Jesus, the Substance of the Word. Jesus “actually” revealed to become the Ultimate personification of The Word. “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”

Jesus Christ = the Anointed One

The privilege we have in Him:

14 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
2 Corinthians 5:17 (KJV)

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Romans 8:9 (KJV)

12 Remember you were in those days outside Christ, aliens ……… and strangers to the …….. the Promise, devoid of hope and God within the world.
Ephesians 2:12 (MOFF)

Because of the shed Blood of Jesus we can now be IN Christ, in the same substance that was in His Soul; in whom the Word resided, and has union with the Father.

23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.
John 16:23 (KJV)

 

[Vasileios]

Actually, you are correct, "διάνοια/dianoia" is more accurately translated as "mind". But to clarify this it will take some explaining. Hopefully, I will not mess this up!

Bear in mind, that the theology behind this is purely eastern, based on the terminology used by the Early Church Fathers and especially by the Desert Fathers who practiced nepsis ("watchfullness").

"Nous", as used in St. Paul is what the later fathers distinguished as "dianoia". Dianoia, literally means "through the mind" or "with the mind", and it is referring to our thoughts, our reasoning, our mind, our intellect. In St. Paul the word nous is used instead. Nous is based on the verb "νοώ/noo", which in ancient times meant using your intellect. St. Paul is using that term and contrasts it with "πνεύμα", translated as spirit. Later, and through the discourse between Greek philosophers and the christian fathers of the east, the term "nous" shifted towards the philosophical greek meaning, esp. of Plato and partially of Aristotle. Plato contended that nous was an immortal part/function of the soul, which understands truth, reaches conclusions without need for explanations. This is quite similar to the concept of the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit after catharisis (purging of the passions), practiced by the fathers, so they used that term instead to clarify what really happens to the greek philosophers who sought them out. Consequently, in their writings this change is gradual, and sometimes the terms "dianoia" (intellect), "nous" (intellect OR core of the soul) and "pnevma" (spirit or as St. Paul used it, core of the soul) are interchangable and it can be confusing, especially at the first 300 years of Christian writings, later the terms are solidified: dianoia=intellect and nous=core of the soul.

So, to summarise:
We have two different things. 1. The intellect and 2. the core of the soul, which according to the Fathers, is the "deep heart", the nous, which is the organ that communicates with God, the place the Holy Spirit dwells, which after the Fall is clouded and we need to follow the narrow path of Christ to re-open.

What is interesting is that our intellect is not a brain function but a function of the soul, according to the Fathers and surprisingly to the ancient Greeks as well (mostly). Through the nous is how we think, how we examine, how we intellectually understand. The problem becomes when the dianoia and the heart are not in-tune so to speak.

Example. We say we believe in God, but the Fathers would say that this is an intellectual assertion. We intellectually accept that Christ is the Son of God, but in our hearts, nous, we *cannot be sure*. Which is why the Fathers distinguished between two kinds of faith. The faith of the dianoia and the "endiathetos" (the inner stance roughly) faith. An example of scripture for this would be the father of the boy to Christ: "Lord, I believe! Help my disbelief!", which on its face is an oxymoron, an antithesis. Yet, he says, I believe you are the Son of David but I need to BELIEVE it in me!" and this is a fine example of how it is God's gift, this true faith...

Anyway, I have drifted a bit and I am not sure if I haven't confused matters more. I would suggest reading someone more eloquent and versed in these matters (which I know more intellectually than experentially infortuantely). A modern Orthodox scholar who is very precise and clear, is bishop Hierotheos Vlachos, who was a student of the intellectual giant, Fr. Romanides. This essay deals a lot with the subject (including the Logos)

An even better suggestion perhaps, although not as academically prestigious, is the book The Way of the Pilgrim. It is a book that deals solely with the prayer of the heart, the practice of the Desert Fathers, and how it leads to illumination of the nous by the Holy Spirit. Written by an anonymous man, it is simply his narration of his journeys and quest for an answer to the scriptural "pray without ceasing" (I Thess. 5:17).

Hope that helps! It is a rather complex matter filled with definitions and it's a bit difficult to convey it in a small post.

 

[Ormly]

But I am not complaining. I just explained myself why I think the fruitful thing to do would be to confess that I think I know already that we completely disagree. The rest of your text, containing your qualification and reasoning simply confirms my initial suspicion, which was triggered by that phrase I quoted.

Simply put, under no circumstances I will accept the phrase "Christ was not the Son of God", be it as a distinction to his title "the Son of Man", and especially by a declaration by Peter, no matter how spiritually it stands on "the Word" (which is Christ, so rather a tautology there).

I think I'm saving us both some time. I am not contending your belief. I merely say I have a different one, which is unnegotiable.

Jesus was the only begotten Son of God. Christ, the manifestation of the Word; the anointing that was not born of God, was the Nature of His Son-ship. That is not arguable.

 

[spiritman]

Actually, you are correct, "διάνοια/dianoia" is more accurately translated as "mind". But to clarify this it will take some explaining. Hopefully, I will not mess this up!

Bear in mind, that the theology behind this is purely eastern, based on the terminology used by the Early Church Fathers and especially by the Desert Fathers who practiced nepsis ("watchfullness").

"Nous", as used in St. Paul is what the later fathers distinguished as "dianoia". Dianoia, literally means "through the mind" or "with the mind", and it is referring to our thoughts, our reasoning, our mind, our intellect. In St. Paul the word nous is used instead. Nous is based on the verb "νοώ/noo", which in ancient times meant using your intellect. St. Paul is using that term and contrasts it with "πνεύμα", translated as spirit. Later, and through the discourse between Greek philosophers and the christian fathers of the east, the term "nous" shifted towards the philosophical greek meaning, esp. of Plato and partially of Aristotle. Plato contended that nous was an immortal part/function of the soul, which understands truth, reaches conclusions without need for explanations. This is quite similar to the concept of the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit after catharisis (purging of the passions), practiced by the fathers, so they used that term instead to clarify what really happens to the greek philosophers who sought them out. Consequently, in their writings this change is gradual, and sometimes the terms "dianoia" (intellect), "nous" (intellect OR core of the soul) and "pnevma" (spirit or as St. Paul used it, core of the soul) are interchangable and it can be confusing, especially at the first 300 years of Christian writings, later the terms are solidified: dianoia=intellect and nous=core of the soul.

So, to summarise:
We have two different things. 1. The intellect and 2. the core of the soul, which according to the Fathers, is the "deep heart", the nous, which is the organ that communicates with God, the place the Holy Spirit dwells, which after the Fall is clouded and we need to follow the narrow path of Christ to re-open.

What is interesting is that our intellect is not a brain function but a function of the soul, according to the Fathers and surprisingly to the ancient Greeks as well (mostly). Through the nous is how we think, how we examine, how we intellectually understand. The problem becomes when the dianoia and the heart are not in-tune so to speak.

Example. We say we believe in God, but the Fathers would say that this is an intellectual assertion. We intellectually accept that Christ is the Son of God, but in our hearts, nous, we *cannot be sure*. Which is why the Fathers distinguished between two kinds of faith. The faith of the dianoia and the "endiathetos" (the inner stance roughly) faith. An example of scripture for this would be the father of the boy to Christ: "Lord, I believe! Help my disbelief!", which on its face is an oxymoron, an antithesis. Yet, he says, I believe you are the Son of David but I need to BELIEVE it in me!" and this is a fine example of how it is God's gift, this true faith...

Anyway, I have drifted a bit and I am not sure if I haven't confused matters more. I would suggest reading someone more eloquent and versed in these matters (which I know more intellectually than experentially infortuantely). A modern Orthodox scholar who is very precise and clear, is bishop Hierotheos Vlachos, who was a student of the intellectual giant, Fr. Romanides. This essay deals a lot with the subject (including the Logos)

An even better suggestion perhaps, although not as academically prestigious, is the book The Way of the Pilgrim. It is a book that deals solely with the prayer of the heart, the practice of the Desert Fathers, and how it leads to illumination of the nous by the Holy Spirit. Written by an anonymous man, it is simply his narration of his journeys and quest for an answer to the scriptural "pray without ceasing" (I Thess. 5:17).

Hope that helps! It is a rather complex matter filled with definitions and it's a bit difficult to convey it in a small post.

You did a fine job and I appreciate the time you took to explain it for me.

Its interesting to me that the early fathers and Greeks believed that nous/mind was not a part of the brain but of the heart. This is what I found in my study a few years ago. I could not find any reference to the brain as being the source or location of the mind in OT or NT.

So in the context of St Mark 12:30 Jesus is talking about loving God with all your mind/dianoia would it read more like through the mind or with the mind. Is this the way you would read it?

Also what ancient Greek text do you use for your Bible?

What do you think of the Textus Receptus?

Thanks

 

[Ormly]

You did a fine job and I appreciate the time you took to explain it for me.

Its interesting to me that the early fathers and Greeks believed that nous/mind was not a part of the brain but of the heart. This is what I found in my study a few years ago. I could not find any reference to the brain as being the source or location of the mind in OT or NT.

So in the context of St Mark 12:30 Jesus is talking about loving God with all your mind/dianoia would it read more like through the mind or with the mind. Is this the way you would read it?

Also what ancient Greek text do you use for your Bible?

What do you think of the Textus Receptus?

Thanks

I have a question: Why should we rely upon a bunch of desert fathers who are intellualizing things of the Spirit that we might understand better? I ask, Understand what better?

 

[spiritman]

I have a question: Why should we rely upon a bunch of desert fathers who are intellualizing things of the Spirit that we might understand better? I ask, Understand what better?

I appreciate your concern but my purpose is to gather info on the language and word usage. Some of the thinking and source behind it is also helpful. The people that best understand the Greek language would be those that are Greek.

Although I do understand that there is a differece between ancient and modern Greek I believe he has a good understanding of the ancient Greek as well.

 

[Ormly]

I appreciate your concern but my purpose is to gather info on the language and word usage. Some of the thinking and source behind it is also helpful. The people that best understand the Greek language would be those that are Greek.

Although I do understand that there is a differece between ancient and modern Greek I believe he has a good understanding of the ancient Greek as well.

And which ancient Greek text should be relied upon to make the points Paul wished to convey?

 

[spiritman]

And which ancient Greek text should be relied upon to make the points Paul wished to convey?

May I defer my view at a later time? But you do ask a very important question that we should know. May I ask do you know?

 

[Ormly]

May I defer my view at a later time? But you do ask a very important question that we should know. May I ask do you know?

Not in the least. I have found that those who rely wholly upon the intellect miss God. That which is without cannot be known without the deposit of God made within. When that happens, a "birthing" takes place that allows the teaching of the Holy Spirit to reveal the Lord and the understanding of His ultimate intention from the writings given us. The taking in by the intellect then becomes a confirmation. . . . ))

 

[spiritman]

Not in the least. I have found that those who rely wholly upon the intellect miss God. That which is without cannot be known without the deposit of God made within. When that happens, a "birthing" takes place that allows the teaching of the Holy Spirit to reveal the Lord and the understanding of His ultimate intention from the writings given us. The taking in by the intellect then becomes a confirmation. . . . ))

I agree.

 

[Vasileios]

I read the koine Greek, the original. As for the Old Testament I read the Septuagint (also in koine Greek), which is quoted in the NT, so I am fine with it.

It's easier than ancient Greek so any Greek, with little training can pick up on it. Studying Ancient Greek makes it much, much easier and precise...

And yes, loving your heart with all your dianoia, would mean with/through your mind, with your intellect. Which, as we see it means, focus all your intellect on God, since the center of the mind is the soul, it basically says that every part of your soul should be towards God. In a sense, the phrase (all your heart and all your soul and all your mind) repeats three times the same thing, all your being should be love towards God. It is how the heart opens and receives the Holy Spirit.

As for why the desert fathers, at least from my POV, they are not being intellectual. They are conveying through finer words what they already know, to those who want to know, who want to understand. And more usually, to clarify and battle heresies. Thankfully, the greek language is rich enough to serve that purpose, because many words and concepts have been enriched by hundreds of years of philosophy. You can know God and receive Him in your heart even if you are illiterate or even mentally handicapped. One does not exclude the other.