How do different traditions define courage?

Aristotle, in the Nicomachean Ethics, treats courage (andreia) as a trained disposition sitting at the mean between two vices: cowardice, which flees danger worth facing, and recklessness, which rushes at danger not worth facing. He writes that acting “at the right times, about the right things, towards the right people, for the right end, and in the right way, is the intermediate and best condition, and this is proper to virtue” — courage means feeling the right amount of fear about the right things, not feeling none at all. The Bhagavad Gita takes a different route. In 16.1–3, Krishna lists abhayam — fearlessness — first among the divine qualities (daivi sampad) that mark a person moving toward liberation, treating it less as a skill built through habituation and more as a quality that surfaces naturally once fear of loss, death, and outcome loosens its grip. The Hebrew Bible frames courage differently still: in Joshua 1:9, God commands Joshua directly, “Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go” — courage here is less a trait to cultivate alone than a response grounded in relationship and trust that one is not facing danger unaccompanied. Put side by side, the three traditions agree courage isn't the absence of fear, but they disagree on where it comes from: habituated judgment for Aristotle, spiritual realization for the Gita, covenantal trust for the Bible. Knowing which model you're actually operating from changes what you practice when you're afraid.