Why does the BSL use two different senses for "heart" with the same definition?

Graham Criddle

The BSL has the following two entries

They both have the same definition.

The first only applies to OT words and is shown as an "abstraction"
The second only applies to NT works and is shown as part of a person's self

Why are these not treated the same and linked to the same anchor?

Thanks, Graham

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

Sean Boisen

While we tried hard to integrate senses across the OT and NT, we had different staff doing the annotation, and there are a number of areas where their decisions didn't quite coincide. I'll pass this along to the team to review and correct as needed.

Graham Criddle

Thanks Sean

I wondered if it was something like that.

Appreciated, Graham

David Thomas

They both have the same definition.

The first only applies to OT words and is shown as an "abstraction"

The second only applies to NT works and is shown as part of a person's self

Why are these not treated the same and linked to the same anchor?

Thanks, Graham

Graham,

You've given me a new appreciation for Sean and his team. I've been mulling the difference between and Ancient Hebrews anthropology and the Hellenistic understanding of man. Where is the seat of man's conscience? "bowels of compassion" (Col 3:12)? "as a man thinks in his heart" (Ps 10:11)? Mind - Mark 12:30 vs. Deut 6:5? Perhaps there is solid reasoning why two teams would assign different senses.

Graham Criddle

Hi David

You've given me a new appreciation for Sean and his team

They do an amazing job.

Where is the seat of man's conscience? "bowels of compassion" (Col 3:12)? "

Although different translations treat this differently - NIV has "compassionate hearts"

Mind - Mark 12:30 vs. Deut 6:5

But here they both seem to be saying the same thing but the two different senses I mentioned above are shown.

Perhaps there is solid reasoning why two teams would assign different senses.

Absolutely - and that was the other option. I was keen to see which it was!

One of my motives was that sometimes I would find it helpful if senses spanned Testaments more than they do - so if there is a legitimate reason for them to do so it's worth exploring.

Sean Boisen

...

Perhaps there is solid reasoning why two teams would assign different senses.

Absolutely - and that was the other option. I was keen to see which it was!

One of my motives was that sometimes I would find it helpful if senses spanned Testaments more than they do - so if there is a legitimate reason for them to do so it's worth exploring.

Our intention was certainly to combine senses across the testaments when it was justified: that's a major advantage of the Bible Sense Lexicon for those who want to study the meaning of the biblical text but don't have facility in the source languages. But we've annotated something like 250k lemmas of biblical text, with an inventory of 15k senses, so consistency is quite a challenge. And in some cases, the Hebrew conception is different enough that it didn't seem appropriate to combine senses (see https://ref.ly/logos4/Senses?KeyId=ws.small+moving+thing.n.01, which is selective about which NT instances it includes).

By all means, please point out cases like this where you think the data might be improved.