Conceptual Metaphors in the Pentateuch Texts of English Bible (New King James Version)

  • G. V. Izyumtseva
Keywords: theolinguistics, the Pentateuch, conceptual metaphor, concept, image-schema, metaphorical expansion

Abstract

The research study explored the Pentateuch texts to elicit conceptual metaphors that allow understanding of metaphysical (sacred) reality, and to characterize essential for its conceptualization cognitive structures. The analysis of the consistent patterns of metaphorical expansion from source-domain physical reality onto target-domain metaphysical reality of the Pentateuch was carried out within the framework of theolinguistics. It has revealed that onto transcendental (sacred) reality are metaphorically mapped as source domains: 1) tri-dimensional space (verticality, centre-periphery, distance, place, object, container, etc.); 2) human (physical, physiological, psychological features); 3) human interpersonal relationships (family relationships, social roles, status, authority, etc.). It has been proven that understanding of metaphysical reality is framed by the following conceptual metaphors: GOD’S STATUS IS UP, GOD IS OBJECT, BOWING DOWN IS BEING SUBJECT TO CONTROL, BOWING DOWN IS DOWN, BLESSING IS UP, STATUS IS UP, LAW STATUS IS DOWN, IMPORTANCE IS PRECEDENCE, THE TREE OF LIFE / THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE ARE CENTRAL / IMPORTANT, LEARNING IS EATING THE FRUIT, CROSS IS CENTRAL/IMPORTANT, GOD IS OUTSIDE TIME, GOD IS OUTSIDE CREATION, HOLINESS IS CLEANLINESS, CLEAN PEOPLE IS HOLY PEOPLE, HOLINESS IS PROXIMITY TO GOD, THE WORD OF GOD IS BREAD, ACCESSIBILITY TO GOD IS PROXIMITY, GOD’S COMMANDMENTS ARE CENTRAL, HEAVENS IS UP, HEAVENS IS THE PLACE, HEAVENS IS CONTAINER, ATONING BLOOD IS GIFT, GOD IS PERSON, GOD IS CREATOR, GOD IS KING, GOD IS FATHER, GOD IS JUDGE, GOD IS SHEPHERD, GOD IS THE MAN OF WAR, GOD IS HUSBAND OF HIS PEOPLE, GOD IS HELPER, GOD IS HEALER, GOD IS FRIEND, GOD IS THE LORD, GOD IS PROVIDER, GOD IS THE GUIDE, GOD IS THE SOJOURNER, COVENANT IS STRUCTURE, COVENANT IS OBJERCT, IDOLATRY IS ADULTERY, ANGEL IS PERSON, SINNING IS DEVIATING / SWIRLING FROM GOD’S WAY, GOD’S COMMENDMENDS ARE THE PATH, MORAL CHOICE IS CHOICE OF WAY, LEADING A MORAL LIFE IS MAKING A JOURNEY ON GOD’S WAY.
The results indicated high relevance of theolinguistics, which adds a theological dimension to the investigation and secures the proper understanding of religious texts under investigation.

References

Barcelona, A. (1999). The metaphorical and metonymic understanding of the trinitarian dogma. Metaphor and God-Talk. P. 187–213.

Becking, B., Korpel, M. C. A. (2010). To Create, to Separate or to Construct: An Alternative for a Recent Proposal as to the Interpretation of ברא‎ in Gen 1:1–2:4a. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 10 (3). P. 2–21.

Belekhova, L. I. (2002). Obraznyi prostir amerykanskoi poezii: lingvokognityvnyi aspekt [Image Space of the American Poetry: Linguistic and Cognitive Aspect]: PhD Thesis. К.

Bisschops, R. (2003). Are religious metaphors rooted in experience? On Ezekiel's wedding metaphors. The Bible through Metaphor and Translation. P. 113–151.

Boldyrev, N. N., Alpatov, V. V. (2008) Kognitivno-matrichnyj analiz anglijskih hristianskih toponimov [A Cognitive-Matrix Analysis of English Christian Place-Names]. Voprosy kognitivnoj lingvistiki. 4. P. 5–14.

Boldyrev, N. N. (2001). Kognitivnaya semantika: Kurs lektsiy po angliyskoy filologii [Cognitive Semantics: Course of Lectures in English Philology]. Tambov: Izd-vo Tamb. un-ta.

Boyer, P., Ramble, C. (2001). Cognitive Templates for Religious Concepts: Cross-cultural Evidence for Recall of Counter-Intuitive Representations. Cognitive Science, 25. P. 535–564.

Cherkhava, O. O. (2017). Rekonstruktsiia teolinhvistychnoi matrytsi relihiino-populiarnoho dyskursu (na materiali anhliiskoi, nimetskoi ta ukrainskoi mov) [Reconstruction of Theolinguistic Matrix of Religious Popular Discourse (Based on the English, German and Ukrainian Languages)]: Thesis. Kyiv.

Chudinov, A. P., Budaev, E. V. (2007). Stanovlenie i evolyuciya kognitivnogo podhoda k metafore [Establishment and evolution of Cognitive approach to Metaphor]. Novyj filologicheskij vestnik,1(4). P. 8–27.

Gibbs, R. (2014). Why do some people dislike conceptual metaphor theory? Cognitive Semiotics, 5. P. 14–36.

Gruneberg, K. N. (2003). Abraham, blessing, and the nations: a philological and exegetical study of Genesis 12:3 in its narrative context. Walter de Gruyter. Vol. Bd. 332, 333.

Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Held, S. (2017). The Heart of Torah. Volume 2: Essays on the Weekly Torah Portion: Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The Jewish Publication Society.

Houtman, C. (1996). Historical Commentary on the Old Testament: Exodus. Vol. II. Chapters 8-19. Kampen: Kok Publishing House.

Howe, B. G. (2006). Because You Bear This Name. Conceptual Metaphor and the Moral Meaning of 1 Peter. Brill, Leiden, Boston.

Izyumtseva, G. V. (2017). Typy metaforychnykh modelei u sakralnykh tekstakh Piatyknyzhzhia anhlomovnoi Biblii [Types of Metaphorical Models in Sacred Pentateuch Texts of English Bible]. Naukovyi chasopys Natsionalnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu imeni M. P. Drahomanova. Seriia 9. Suchasni tendentsii rozvytku mov, 16. P. 102–113.

Jakel, O. (2003). How Can Moral Man Understand the Road He Travels? Prospects and Problems of the Cognitive Approach to Religious Metaphor. The Bible through Metaphor and Translation. P. 55–86.

Johnson, M. (1989). Image-Schematic Bases of Meaning. Researchers Semiotique Semiotic Inquiry, 9(1-2-3). P. 109–118.

Korolyova, A. V. (2011). Diakhronichnyi vektor doslidzhennia struktur svidomosti y myslennia [Diachronic vector of investigating the consciousness and cognition structures]. Visnyk KNLU. Seriia Filolohiia, 4(1). P. 52–58.

Kövecses, Z. (2011). The Biblical story retold. A cognitive linguistic perspective. In M. Brdar, S.T. Gries and M.Ž. Fuchs (eds.) Cognitive linguistics. Convergence and expansion. P. 325–354.

Kravtsova Yu. V. (2013). Metaforicheskaya kontseptualizatsiya mira v khudozhestvennom tekste [Metaphorical conceptualization of the world in artistic text]. Naukovyi chasopys Natsionalnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu imeni M. P. Drahomanova. Seriia 9. Suchasni tendentsii rozvytku mov, 10. P. 149–159.

Lakoff, G., Turner, M. (1989). More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to a Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphor and thought. P. 202–251.

Lakoff D., Dzhonson M. (2008). Metafory, kotorymi my zhivjom [Mataphors We Live by]. per. s angl.; pod red. i s predisl. A. N. Baranova. M.: LKI.

Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.

Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago press.

Lakoff, G., Espenson, J., Schwartz, A. (1991). Second Draft Copy. Master Metaphor List. Cognitive Linguistics Group. California: University of California at Berkeley. Retrieved from: https://meta-guide.com/data-processing/computational-metaphorics/master-metaphor-list

Lundhaug, H. (2014). The Fruit of the Tree of Life. Cognitive Linguistic Explorations in Biblical Studies. P. 73–98.

Maslova, V. A. (2012). Teoriya konceptualnoj metafory i eyo rol v sovremennyh lingvisticheskih issledovaniyah [Theory of Conceptual Metaphor and its Role in Modern Linguistic Investigations]. Linhvistyka. Linhvokulturolohiia. Retrieved from: http://lingvodnu.com.ua/arxiv-nomeriv/lingvistika-lingvokulturologiya-2012/teoriya-konceptualnoj-metafory-i-eyo-rol-v-sovremennyx-lingvisticheskix-issledovaniyax/

McFague, S. (1982). Metaphorical Theology: Models of God in Religious Language. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Mechkovskaya, N. B. (2004). Lavina semiozisa, chastichno fiksiruemaya yazykom: Po dannym analiza simvoliki kresta i motivirovannyh im znakov [Avalanche of semiosis partially fixed by a language. Based on analysis of symbolics of the cross and motivated by the cross signs]. Sokrovennye smysly: Slovo. Tekst. Kultura. P. 575–587.

Millgrom, J. (1991). Leviticus 1-16. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible 3. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Mimonides, M. (2002). The Guide for Perplexed. Translated from the original arabic text by M. Friedlдnder, ph.d. Skokie, Illinois, USA: Verda Books.

Moore, A. (2009). Moving Beyond Symbol and Myth: Understanding the Kingship of God of the Hebrew Bible through Metaphor. Studies in Biblical Literature, 99. New York: Peter Lang.

Mowvley, H. (1965). The Concept and Content of “Blessing” in the Old Testament. BT, 16(2). P. 74–80.

Oparina, E. O. (1988). Konceptualnaya metafora [Conceptual Metaphor]. Metafora v yazyke i tekste. P. 65–77.

Postovalova, V. I. (2012). Teolingvistika v sovremennom gumanitarnom poznanii: istoki, osnovnye idei i napravleniya [Theolinguistics in Modern Humanities: Origins, Basic Ideas and Trends]. Magister Dixit, 4 (12). Retrieved from: http://md.islu.ru/.

Postovalova, V. I. (2016). Nauka o yazyke v svete ideala celnogo znaniya: V poiskah integralnyh paradigm [Science about Language in the Light of the Integral Knowledge Ideal: In the pursuit of Integrative Paradigm]. M.: LENAND. (Istoriya lingvofilosofskoj mysli).

Potts, A., Semino, E. (2019). Cancer as a metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 34 (2). P. 81–95.

Schaff, Ph. (2007). Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series. Vol. IX. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus. Cosimo, Inc.

Semino, E., Demjen, Z., Demmen, J. E. (2018). An integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, discourse and practice, with an application to metaphors for cancer. Applied Linguistics, 39(5). P. 625–645.

Sprinkle, J. M. (2015). Leviticus and Numbers (Teach the Text Commentary Series). Baker Books.

Steen, G. (2011). The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor – now new and improved! Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1). P. 26–64.

Stienstra, N. (1993). YHVH is the Husband of His People: Analysis of a Biblical Metaphor with Special Reference to Translation. Kampen, the Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House.

“Summa Theologiae” by Thomas Aquinas. Retrieved from: https://arcdigital.media/summa-theologiae-by-thomas-aquinas-fbf190e03e1c

Sweetser, E., Descamp, M. T. (2014). Motivating biblical metaphors for God: Refining the cognitive model. Cognitive Linguistic Explorations in Biblical Studies. P. 7–23.

The Holy Bible. Containing the Old and New Testament. New King James Version. (1980). Thomas Nelson Publishers.

The Latin Vulgate Old Testament Bible. Exodus – Chapter 17. Retrieved from: http://vulgate.org/ot/exodus_17.htm

The Orthodox Christianity. Old Testament Prototypes of the Cross of the Lord. Retrieved from: https://www.trueorthodoxy.info/pat_old_testament_prototypes_cross.shtml

Thibodeau, P. H., Boroditsky, L. (201). ‘Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS Vol. 6. № 2: e16782. Retrieved from: http://lera.ucsd.edu/papers/crime-metaphors.pdf

Teliya, V. N. (1988). Metaforizaciya i eyo rol v sozdanii yazykovoj kartiny mira [Metaphorisation and Its Role in Creating the Picture of the World]. Rol chelovecheskogo faktora v yazyke. Yazyk i kartina mira. P. 173–207.

White, Th. J. (2016). Exodus (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible). Brazos Press.

Wolde, E. van. (1994). Words become worlds: semantic studies of Genesis 1–11. Biblical interpretation series, 6. Leiden: Brill.

Wolde, E. J. van. (1997). Stories of the Beginning. Genesis 1–11 and Other Creation Stories. Ridgefield: Morehouse Publishing.

Wolde, E. J. van. (2009). Why the Verb ברא‎ Does Not Mean ‘to Create’ in Genesis 1.1–2.4a. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 34 (1). P. 3–*23.

Wolde E. J. van. (2009). Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns.

Wolde, E. J. van, Rezetko, R. (2011). Semantics and the Semantics of ברא‎: A Rejoinder to the Arguments Advanced by B. Becking and M. Korpel. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 11(9). P. 2–39.

Wolde, E. J. van. (2017). Separation and Creation in Genesis 1 and Psalm 104: A Continuation of the Discussion of the Verb ברא‎. Vetus Testamentum, 67(4). P. 611–647.

Wright, B. G. (2015). Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. The Letter of Aristeas. ‘Aristeas to Philocrates’ or ‘On the Translation of the Law of the Jews’. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

List of Lexicographic Sources

Collins English Dictionary (2011). 6th ed. Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers.

Kubryakova, Ye. S. (1997). Kratkiy slovar kognitivnykh terminov [Concise dictionary of cognitive terms]. eds Ye. S. Kubryakova, V. Z. Demyankov, Yu. G. Pankrats, L. G. Luzina. pod obshchey red. Ye. S. Kubryakovoy. M.: Filol. f-t MGU im. M. V. Lomonosova.

Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved from: https: //www.etymonline.com/

Peloubet. F. N. (1947). Peloubet's Bible dictionary. Chicago: The J.C. Winston company in Philadelphia.

The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. ed. G. J. Botterweck. Eerdmands, 1999. Vol. 2.

The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. ed. G. J. Botterweck. Eerdmands, 2006. Vol. 15.
Published
2020-01-12
How to Cite
Izyumtseva, G. (2020, January 12). Conceptual Metaphors in the Pentateuch Texts of English Bible (New King James Version). Scientific Journal of National Pedagogical Dragomanov University. Series 9. Current Trends in Language Development, (19), 47-73. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31392/NPU-nc.series9.2019.19.04