Conceptual metaphors in the Pentateuch texts of English Bible (new King James version)

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

National Pedagogical Dragomanov University

Conceptual metaphors in the pentateuch texts of english bible (new king james version)

Ganna V. Izyumtseva

Kyiv, Ukraine

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.

Keywords: theolinguistics, the Pentateuch, conceptual metaphor, concept, image-schema, metaphorical expansion.

Àíîòàö³ÿ

Ó ñòàòò³ ðîçãëÿäàþòüñÿ êîíöåïòóàëüí³ ìåòàôîðè, ÿê³ óìîæëèâëþþòü îñìèñëåííÿ ìåòàô³çè÷íî¿ (ñàêðàëüíî¿) ðåàëüíîñò³ Ï'ÿòèêíèææÿ; õàðàêòåðèçóþòüñÿ âàæëèâ³ äëÿ ¿¿ êîíöåïòóàë³çàö³¿ êîãí³òèâí³ ñòðóêòóðè. Çàêîíîì³ðíîñò³ ìåòàôîðè÷íî¿ åêñïàíñ³¿ ç³ ñôåðè-äæåðåëà ô³çè÷íî¿ ðåàëüíîñò³ íà ñôåðó-ö³ëü ìåòàô³çè÷íî¿ ðåàëüíîñò³ àíàë³çóþòüñÿ ó ðàìêàõ ³íòåãðàòèâíî¿ òåîë³íãâ³ñòè÷íî¿ äèñöèïë³íè. Óñòàíîâëåíî, ùî ìåòàôîðè÷íå ñòðóêòóðóâàííÿ ñàêðàëüíî¿ ðåàëüíîñò³ çä³éñíþºòüñÿ øëÿõîì ìåòàôîðè÷íî¿ åêñïàíñ³¿ ç³ ñôåðè-äæåðåëà 1) òðèâèì³ðíèé ïðîñò³ð (âåðòèêàëüí³ñòü, öåíòð-ïåðèôåð³ÿ, â³äñòàíü, îá'ºêòè òîùî); 2) ëþäèíà (ô³çè÷í³, ô³ç³îëîã³÷í³, ïñèõ³÷í³, äóøåâí³ âëàñòèâîñò³); 3) ì³æîñîáèñò³ñí³ â³äíîøåííÿ (ñ³ìåéí³ ñòîñóíêè, ñîö³àëüí³ ðîë³ òîùî) íà ñôåðó-ö³ëü - ìåòàô³çè÷íå / òðàíñöåíäåíòíå (Áîã, Àíãåëè). Âèÿâëåíî, ùî ðîçóì³ííÿ ìåòàô³çè÷íî¿ ðåàëüíîñò³ ñòðóêòóðîâàíî íàñòóïíèìè êîíöåïòóàëüíèìè ìåòàôîðàìè: 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.

ϳäòâåðäæåíî åôåêòèâí³ñòü çàñòîñóâàííÿ òåîë³íãâ³ñòè÷íîãî ï³äõîäó äëÿ äîñë³äæåííÿ ìåòàô³çè÷íèõ ðåàë³é ³ç ïåðñïåêòèâîþ ðîçêðèòòÿ ãëèáèííîãî ðîçóì³ííÿ âñ³õ àñïåêò³â áóòòÿ ëþäèíè.

Êëþ÷îâ³ ñëîâà: òåîë³íãâ³ñòèêà, Ï'ÿòèêíèææÿ, êîíöåïòóàëüíà ìåòàôîðà, êîíöåïò, îáðàç- ñõåìà, ìåòàôîðè÷íà åêñïàíñ³ÿ.

Introduction

Essential for modern anthropocentric linguistics pursuit of integral knowledge motivates researchers to investigate linguistic reality through prism of interaction of secular and religious worldviews. Such tendency brings into view the need to re-examine linguistic heritage in the light of the approaches allowing investigation of language in strong connection with principle aspects of human existence (Postovalova 2012, 2016). Theolinguistics (theological linguistics), which has emerged as the theology, religious anthropology and linguistics overlap, is one of such advanced approaches (D. Crystal, O. Gadomsky, E. Kucharska-Drayss, N. Mechkovska, J. P. van Noppen, V. I. Postovalova and others). According to Postovalova, homo loquens religious as a peculiar type of a language personality is the focus of its research. Within the more general framework of investigation, it is transempirical communication (Postovalova 2016: 200). At present, theolinguistics continues developing its research vocabulary and methodological basis. Theolinguists already use both linguistic and theological toolkit to conduct linguistic investigation of religious language. Although responses to some issues as, for instance, the Athos dispute on God's name interpretation, may never be found, this science holds much promise. It forms the basis for researchers to explain a number of theolinguistic issues by implementing scientific theoretical and empirical methods that allow meticulous structuring of all without exception human experience.

Among available methods (hermeneutic, comparative-historical, discursive, cognitive etc.), preference is given to methods of cognitive linguistics. Firstly, because cognitive linguistics allows searching the subconscious (Kubryakova 1996: 90) at the level of sense formation, that is at the conceptual level. In addition, religious concepts do not constitute an autonomous type; and thus, can be studied against other concepts (Boyer 2001). Secondly, since metaphysical (sacred) realities are abstract, one of main ways of their realization is metaphorisation. This process is the interaction of knowledge structures of a conceptual source-domain (perceptual experience) and target-domain (abstract), whereby conceptualization of metaphysical (sacred) in terms of perceptual experience is achieved (Lakoff 2008; Chudinov, Budaev 2007). In this way, metaphysical realities are expressed with the help of conceptual metaphor that becomes a cognitive mechanism of their modeling and comprehension.

In her research “YAHWH is the Husband of His People: Analysis of a Biblical Metaphor with Special Reference to Translation”, Stienstra (1993) points out that structuring the divine based on our limited perceptual experience is never complete. Therefore, anything we say about transcendental essence is a matter of partially structuring the concept, in other words is partially true. As the researcher stresses, on the one hand, the “use of metaphors to `describe' God has inherent danger as God is `totally different' from our physical world” (p. 51). However, on the other hand, metaphor and analogical language is the only possible way of expressing the divine (Ibid.).

Generalizing from the aforesaid, it should be noted that it is theolinguistic investigations that offer promising way to reconcile the issue. The discipline not only employs the methodological framework of conceptual metaphor to disclose the hidden knowledge about human experiences, but it also adds the theological dimension to investigations that will secure the truthful understanding of vital truth and without which expanding of our world view horizon is impossible.

Literature Review

Over the last decades, the volumes of publications have appeared testifying about active investigations of Biblical and the Bible-related material. Here are some of them “Metaphor and God-talk” (1999), “The Bible through Metaphor and Translation” (2003), Lieven Boeve, Kurt Freyaerts (Ed.); “Job 28: Cognition in Context” (Biblical Interpretation Series) (2003), E. Van Wolde (Ed.); “Cognitive Linguistic Explorations in Biblical Studies” (2014), Howe Bonnie, B. Joel (Ed.); “Religion, Language, and the Human Mind” (2017), Paul Chilton and Monika Kopytowska (Ed.) and others.

As the analysis of publications have shown, the most attractive spheres of investigations are the study of conceptual field (T. P. Vilchinska (2010, 2011, 2013, 2014), P. V. Matskiv (2006, 2014, 2016), Ì. V. Skab (2008, 2009, 2015, 2018), À. Barcelona (1999), A. Basson (2006), O. Jakel (1999), Ph. King (2012), Lam (2012), T. R. Wardlaw (2008, 2010), E. van Wolde (2006, 2008, 2009, 2013), K. Zacharias (2004) and the study of metaphors (R. Bischops (2018), M. Th. DesCamp (2005, 2014), H. Hecke (2019), K. Marcin (2018), À. Somov (2014), P. M. Shitikov (2013), N. Stienstra (1993), J. Steen (1997), E. E. Sweetser (2014)).

Investigations of Alpatov, Boldyrev (2008), Korolyova, Cherkhava (2017) employ cognitive-matrix analysis that provides the gateway to different cognitive contexts in a course of analysis of religious texts. It is noteworthy to mention here the method of a cognitive relational approach developed by Ellen van Wolde based on the theory of Ronald Langacker (Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition and Context, 2009). Her method allows analysis of cognitive structures emerging as a result of interaction of Biblical words, texts and historical complexes in the light of massive concrete as well as metaphysical social and cultural contexts.

In their works Kovecses (The Biblical Story Retold; A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective, 2011) and Sweetser, Descamp (Motivating Biblical Metaphors for God Refining the Cognitive Model, 2014) re-examine major cognitive models characterizing Divinehuman relationship. Kovecses reestablishes a fact that conceptualisation of main Christian truth does not require special “sacred” conceptual device, but it is provided by our everyday conceptual system (Kovecses 2011: 325-354). In the light of their earlier investigations, Sweetser and Descamp demonstrate that, like the rest of metaphors falling beyond of scope of religious sphere, the Divine-human relationship metaphors are motivated by embodied human experience (Sweetser, Descamp 2014). The findings of these researchers are of special value for us as once again they prove that it is appropriate to use cognitive methods for analysing metaphysical realities with the outlook for obtaining deeper understanding of all versatility of human being (existence).

The Old Testament scholars McClellan, Wolde, Wolde, Hecke, Der Merwe, Moore and other researchers developed new perspectives on Hebrew Biblical texts. Wolde offered a new insight into creation of the world act described in Genesis by means of interpretation of ancient Hebrew root ÊÏÇ “to create” in Genesis 1:1-2:4a as “to spatially separate” (Why the Verb ÊÏÇ Does Not Mean `To Create' in Genesis 1.1-2.4a, 2009). The concept of the scholar has kindled the active discussion that finds its reflection in a number of publications (B. Becking, M. C. A. Korpel (2010), E. Wolde, R. Rezetko (2011), E. Wolde (2017)).

Thus, the language of a sacred sphere draws attention of many researchers. However, the metaphorics of the Bible in general, and in particular of the Pentateuch remains underexplored. There is no need to go into detail about the value and complexity of such investigation. Suffice it to say that for the particular contingent of the globe this Book is considered to be the Vox Dei - the Word of God. Therefore, without understanding the deep knowledge it contains, there is no way to obtain the integral knowledge about a man, pursuit of which, as Postovalova emphasises, is a distinctive characteristics of modern science (Postovalova, 2016).

Aim and Objectives

The aim of the article is to elicit conceptual metaphors that allow understanding of metaphysical (sacred) reality of the Pentateuch, and to describe essential for its conceptualization cognitive structures.

Objectives:

to describe methodological foundations of the investigation;

-to analyse the consistent patterns of metaphorical expansion from source-domain “physical reality” onto target-domain “metaphysical reality”;

to characterise conceptual metaphors that allow understanding the metaphysical (sacred) reality of the Pentateuch.

Methodology

To analyse the metaphorics of the Pentateuch texts, the Conceptual Metaphors Theory (CMT) developed by Lakoff and Jonson is applied (Metaphors we live by, 1980). The CMT, since its introduction, has been constantly enriched by way of critical comments (À. N. Baranov, J. Grady, Yu. M. Karaulov, Z. Kovecses, S. Coulson, Ì. Terner, G. Fauconnier, A. P. Chudinov and others); its postulates are being reconsidered and revised (Ì. Jonson, G. Lakoff, Å. Mac Cormak, J. Steen, J. Zinken and others). As Gibbs (2014) aptly notes, like any other theory the CMT suffers from some problems; but “no single theory may be capable of explaining all aspects of the complex phenomena that are metaphorical language and thought” (p. 32). Thus, regardless of questions the critics have raised, major tenets of the CMT remain valid and elicit cognitive mechanism of metaphorisation (Ibid.).

In the context of exploration of religious metaphor, noteworthy is that within his doctrine of essences, Aristotle considered the metaphors inadequate tools for analysing or describing the ultimate, transcendent category, Being. The logic of philosopher is clear. Metaphor is based on grasping and transferring the similarities between categories. However, metaphors “fail to make such a transfer work in case of the category Being”, because "there are no literal similarities between the category Being and the other categories" (Howe 2006: 25-26). Nevertheless, interestingly, based on investigations of Edvin Mahon, Anne Moore, demonstrates that it is in Aristotelian “Rethorics” that the roots of modern CMT is found (Moore 2009: 36-37).

The Conceptual Metaphor Theory presents the essence of metaphor through mechanism of understanding and experiencing one phenomenon in terms of another (Lakoff, Johnson, 2003). For our investigation, it is significant that in a course of metaphorisation: 1) by means of interaction between the source-domain (perceptual experience) and targetdomain (abstract), the objectification of abstract is achieved; 2) one and the same conceptual space can be presented by more than one conceptual metaphor; 3) metaphorical mapping or cognitive mapping takes place as if one conceptual domain overlaps another one giving rise to some type of metaphorical concept (V. A. Maslova (2012), G. Lakoff, M. Turner (1989), A. Potts, E. Semino (2019), E. Semino, Z. Demjen, J. E. Demmen (2018), Steen (2011, 2013), E. Sweetser, M. Descamp (2014), P. H. Thibodeau, L. Boroditsky (2011)). Such overlapping generates fussiness of terms “conceptual metaphor” and “metaphorical concept”. Within the framework of semantic-cognitive approach, metaphorical concepts are defined as specific mental constructs that reflect figurative analogy and associative relations between realities and all together constitute metaphorical conceptual sphere of nation (Kravtsova 2013: 150).

Another essential point we find significant for our investigation is that metaphors as language / verbal expressions are possible (available) only because human conceptual system is metaphorical by nature. Noteworthy is that it is concepts formed within the consciousness of a man, not meanings of words or objective categories that constitute the foundation of metaphor. Thus, they are conceptual, not linguistic, in nature (Lakoff, 1993, 2003).

In a process of metaphorical conceptualization, categorization of the word occurs by simple, grounded in physical experience, cognitive structures image schemas such as UP- DOWN, CONTAINER, CENTER-PERIPHERY etc. (Lakoff, 1980). Hence, metaphorical mapping is understood as correspondence of whole structures. The speaker as if selectively transfer significant for him features of entities of a source domain onto conceptual target domain. However, “metaphorical mappings preserve the cognitive topology (that is, the image-schema structure) of the source domain, in a way consistent with the inherent structure of the target domain” (Lakoff, 1993: 215). (Invariance principle).

Categorisation of the world by image schemas determines the typology of basic (master) conceptual metaphors. Although the number of such metaphors is not big, it grows by means of their combinability. As a result, the number of their linguistic realizations can be unlimited (Lakoff, Turner, 1989: 26). There are among basic conceptual metaphors: 1) orientational metaphors that reflect an idea of spatial orientation (the Spirit come down from heaven (John 1:32)); 2) ontological metaphors, the “ways of viewing events, activities, emotions, ideas, etc., as entities and substances” (Lakoff 1980: 25) (if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come) (2 Corinth. 5:17); 3) structural metaphors, presenting one complex concept in terms of another (God is Father (Deut. 32:6)).

Within Lakoff and Johnson's initial theoretical framework, function of conceptual metaphor was reduced to the sphere of everyday communication. However, the bulk of studies have proved that it organizes spheres of feelings, reasoning, emotions, morality (Teliya, 1988: 195), spheres that require conceptualisation of realities of “invisible world” (Oparina 1988: 66-67), and therefore metaphysical world.

Because models of conceptual metaphors correspond to metaphorical schema with underlying verbalized concepts of source and target domains, the construction of cognitive model is done by means of conceptual analysis of its domains (Belekhova 2002: 158-159). However, in our opinion, such analysis ought to take into account the origins of a concept kernel organization. Korolyova, who has thoroughly analysed available approaches to a concept structure, has identified the genetic foundation of a concept, that is, in the opinion of the scholar, “etymology of a concept name as well as its representatives, their implicit form that allows a researcher to trace how the concept meaning has changed over time, and consequently, to establish semantic regularities revealing themselves in a process of categorization and conceptualization of a segment of reality named by this particular concept” (Korolyova 2011: 57). On this premise, the concept structure ought to be viewed within the framework of the diachronic-synchronic approach to analysis. The structural elements ought to be established “via correlation between original (primary) information of its names (historical and etymological) and such that is represented within a concept at the present stage (actual information)” (Korolyova 2011: 54).

To summarise it should be point out that conceptual metaphors are capable of structuring any aspect of human being. The basis of conceptual metaphors is laid by simple stereotypical models of cognitive nature. They structure our experience, “capture” prototypical knowledge about all aspects of our existence, and construct a logical system grounded on universal principles. Because metaphysical realities are abstract, they obtain their actualization through the prism of concrete realities that is by means of conceptual metaphors that are mirrored by linguistic metaphorical expressions. Therefore, by examining metaphors of the Pentateuch texts, it is possible to reveal the conceptual metaphors and uncover the cognitive frame of the knowledge, without which our understanding of the world is fragmentary.

Results. Discussion

As the results of the previous semantic and cognitive analysis of metaphors have shown, metaphysic (sacred) reality of the Pentateuch is conceived within the framework of the following mega-models: 1) Human ^ Transcendental essence; 2) Inorganic realm ^ Transcendental essence; 3) Society (socium) ^ Transcendental essence (transcendental essences are presented by God and Angels) (Izyumtseva, 2017). Within the framework of the current investigation, onto transcendental (metaphysical, 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.).

Let us start with metaphorical expansion from a source-domain tri-dimensional space (verticality, centre-periphery, distance, place, object, container, etc.) onto the metaphysical / transcendental.

Within Biblical framework for describing the origin of the world, from the very “beginning” transcendental God is conceptualised as the one that is above all things to be created or “separated” (using the term of E. van Wolde) from primordial matter (Wolde, van 2009). Genesis 1:2 points out that “God's spirit was hovering over the face of the waters”. (By God's spirit is meant one of three Divine Persons of one God). Thus, God's location is associated with the place UP. Typically, this place is understood as heaven. The Book of Deuteronomy indicates that “heavens and the highest heavens belong to the Lord your God” (Deut. 10:14); “Out of heaven He let you hear His voice (Deut. 4:46), “You have seen that I have talked with you from heaven” (Ex. 20:22), “There is no one like God of Jeshurum, who rides the heavens to help you and in His excellency in the clouds” (Deut. 33:26), and also: “He looks down from His holy habitation, from heaven” (Deut. 26:15). The Genesis text assumes the same idea in the story about the Tower of Babel: “the Lord came down” (Gn. 11:5); “Come let us go down” (Gn. 11:7). Thus, the Old Testament God speaks out and comes down to His creation from His supreme place, place of His habitation, that is to say, from above.

We observe also that the heaven is a place of habitation of other transcendental entities. However, among all of them God's position is obviously the highest. To confirm this, suffice it to recall Jacob's dream during his escape-journey to his uncle Laban after stealing the blessing from his brother Esaw. Jacob dreamed about a ladder that “was set up on the earth, and its top reached to heaven; and there the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. And behold, the Lord stood above it” (Gen. 28 10-13). Thus, in a true vertical order we find, first, the heavens over the earth, which is over people; then there are angels above people, and, finally, we find God Jehovah on the very top.

Apart from already mentioned, other texts confirm the idea of spatial UP-location of God describing Him as “Most High” (Gn. 4:18, 21); unique and supreme: “the Lord Himself is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other (Deut. 4:39). Finally, we find that the UP-pole correlates with the very essence of God: He is “upright” (Deut. 32: 4).

In a context of Th. J. White's commentaries, it was only because Moses did keep the Lord's commandments, that Israelites were able to win in a battle against Amalek (Ex. 15:13). During the battle following YHWH's instruction, Moses stood on the top of the hill with the rod of God in his hand UP. Not once the author of the Pentateuch texts emphasizes that it was the position of Moses' hands (with YAHWH's rod UP) that was a decisive factor in the outcome of the battle. The Bible says that “Moses held up his hand, that Israel prevailed; and when he let down his hand, Amalek prevailed” (Deut. 15:11-13). Significantly, in contrast to the Egyptian pharaoh magicians, Moses' actions were exclusive manifestation of God's mightiness in response to Moses' obedience. The obedience of this kind is submission to performance of the certain action with the belief that only under the condition of its performance the power of sacrament reveals itself. For Israelites (and Moses himself) the UP-position of Moses hands became a sign of and condition for God's empowerment. Thus, such sign-actions as if unite spiritual and material worlds providing the conduit for God's grace to descend upon the faithful ones from above. According to T. White, the New Testament Church considers sacraments such as Baptism, Holy Unction, the Eucharist, Confession (penance), Holy Orders, Marriage, and Funeral to be such signactions. Until they are observed, the Church is undefeatable. Analogically, until there is obedience to God's commandments, spiritual enemy embodied in a figure of Amalek will fail (White, 2016).

At this point it is reasonable to conclude that all foregoing passages strongly suggest the presence of an orientational metaphor that reflects societal structure based on spatial relationship UP-DOWN. In the UP-DOWN orientational metaphor the value of objects is determined by their vertical spatial location or distance between these objects (their position) on an imaginative vertical line. The up-pole is mapped onto positive concepts, while the opposite pole DOWN is mapped onto negative concepts. In Biblical times as well as in many societies today, the value of people as social entities is equated with being up. Consequently, a person with higher status is conceptualized as being above; in this way: STATUS IS UP, LAW STATUS IS DOWN (Lakoff, Espenson, Schwartz, 1991). From analyzed Biblical texts, it is quite clear that God is depicted as such that is located on the very top of UP- DOWN axis pole. It is that that defines His supreme UP-status and allows us to paraphrase the above-stated metaphorical ideas as GOD'S STATUS IS UP.

Unexpectedly, the presence of the metaphor GOD'S STATUS IS UP reveals itself through unique (it used only once in the Bible) name YHWH Nissi. From Exodus 17:15 we learn that to commemorate the fact of YHWH's victory in the combat against Amalek at Rephidim, Moses built the altar and gave it a metaphorical name The Lord is My Banner that is God's name YHWH Nissi. To make clear the course of our thoughts as far as to conceptual metaphors that structure the domain of meaning of Yahweh Nissi, we will dwell in short on reasons why the victory over Amalek was of such importance. The Amalekites were nomadic tribes - descendants of Esau who sold his firstborn right to his brother Jacob for a bowl of stew and as a result lost his father-patriarch's blessing. Since that event the conflict between two brothers and their clans (Amalekites and Israelites) had never ended. On the road from Egypt, the encounter of the Israelites (descendants of Jacob) with the Amalekites took place near the Mount of Sinai. The attack was unprovoked; Israelites were defeated. On the one hand, the attack was a sort of the massacre of the weak who were slow and exhausted. On the other hand, it was the very first time that people who were under protection of God of Exodus were defeated. Thus, the battle against Amalek became both spiritual and physical answer of YHWH Himself. It had serious spiritual consequences for future Amalek's descendants engraved as the name of the altar that Moses erected “The Lord is my Banner”. We will generalize the sense of this metaphorical name referring to C. Houtman. According to the scholar, The Lord is my Banner is the “confession” (recognition of God's supremacy and power) (Houtman 1996: 390).

Our further survey of interpretation of metaphor embracing YHWH Nissi has yielded valuable linguistic insights in above-given theological commentary. In the Vulgate version of the Bible by Jerome the sense of the name of the altar is embedded in expression The Lord is my exaltation (The Latin Vulgate Old Testament Bible). According to Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Moses Mimonides), famous Hebrew Talmudist and philosopher, a verb “to exalt” means “to lift up” (vertical UP-direction move). In his study the scholar points out that in Hebrew texts in relation to the Lord with the meanings to exalt and to lift up two homonymic roots nasa “to lift up” and ram “high” are used. Both roots are used with the meaning “move UP”, as well as with the meaning “to exalt”, elevate in “space, rank and dignity” (Maimonides 2002: 29). For instance, “And the ark was lifted up (va-tarom) above the earth” (Gen. 7:17); “I have exalted (harimoti) one chosen out of the people” (Ps. 89:19). “And his kingdom will be exalted” (ve-tinnase) (Num. 24:7) or “Thus saith the High (ram) and Exalted (nissa) One” (Isa. 57:15). However, as the Talmudist observes, in respect to God the root ram is used exclusively with the second meaning: “Be exalted (rumah), O God, above heavens” (Ps. 57:5). Unlike it, the root nasa “to lift up” is used for rendition both senses, as well as for conveying the meaning “to carry”, “to move” something from one place to another with a special emphasis on the fact that this kind of move assumes lifting the thing up (vertical UP-direction move) at first. “And his kingdom will be exalted” (ve-tinnase) (Num. 24:7) or “Thus saith the High (ram) and Exalted (nissa) One” (Isa. 57:15) (Mimonides 2002: 29-30). The above root analysis strongly suggests that metaphoric expression The Lord is my exaltation can be paraphrased as The Lord is my lifting up and implies the idea of it as a special case of the conceptual metaphor GOD'S STATUS IS UP.

Such a view allows a parallel of meanings that arises between metaphoric phrases expressing the Name YHWH Nissi, namely: the Lord is my Banner, the Lord is my exaltation, and added variant the Lord is my lifting up whereby the homonymity of these expressions and their embracement by a field of the metaphor GOD'S STATUS IS UP is rendered. Thus, like its variants expression the Lord is my Banner is covered by a field of GOD'S STATUS IS UP metaphor, which rests on experiencing God as the Supreme One, that is to say unconquerable. Such view enlarges our understanding of meaning of name YHWH Nissi, and linguistically confirms the afore-suggested theological interpretation of metaphorical expression the Lord is my Banner.

It should be noted, that viewing YHWH as a banner provides also ground for ontological metaphor GOD IS OBJECT. The lexicographical analysis of a name of BANNER has shown, that in the context of Exodus 17:15 it is not understood as a military standard, but it is an ensign (ness), a signal, “a figure or device of some kind elevated on a pole” (Peloubet 1947: 179-180). (Such interpretation evokes the image of the banner (nes) with a figure of Nehushtan, a copper serpent that Moses had to lift up that everyone bitten by a serpent saraph, could look at it and recover by faith (Nu 21:4-9)).

In this light we conclude that a metaphoric expression The Lord is my Banner implicates the peculiar perspective on transcendental reality, namely GOD'S STATUS IS UP, and GOD IS OBJECT.

It is worth noting that both recognition and denial of God's UP-status can also be demonstrated in terms of spatial UP-DOWN relations. For instance, bowing down (vertical DOWN-direction move) in worshiping God - a deliberate action on the part of a worshipper - is a sign of recognition of God's spiritual authority and supremacy (“the man bowed down his head and worshiped the Lord” (Gn. 24:26)). The Book of Genesis recorded God's visit of Abraham, when in his deep love and appreciation Abraham “fell on his face” (Gn. 17:3) before the Lord, taking in such a way the lowest vertical position DOWN that was possible for him. In such case the metaphor LAW STATUS IS DOWN can be paraphrased to express outlined above metaphorical idea as BOWING DOWN IS BEING SUBJECT TO CONTROL with positive connotation.

Unlike Abraham, Israelite people in general are characterised as stiff-necked (Deut. 9:6, 13; 31:27). The concept STIFF-NECKED reflects the spiritual state of Israelite people. Its name, according to Merriam-Webster dictionary, stiff-necked means “a proud or stubborn person: one with a haughty bearing”. Drawing on this definition and other investigations of the notions that form the sense of the given concept, we arrive to a conclusion, that obvious meaning of the concept STIFF-NECKED can be formulated as a following: the one who does not want to bow head (DOWN) in submission. Thinking spatially, STIFF-NECKED is the one who does not want to put himself in a position lower than the position of God; therefore, does not recognise His supremacy. Thus, in terms of UP-DOWN relations, the domain of meaning of the concept STIFF-NECKED can be presented by two primary metaphors LAW STATUS IS DOWN and BOWING DOWN IS BEING SUBJECT TO CONTROL (BOWING DOWN IS DOWN).

The example below is selected to demonstrate the pervasiveness of UP-DOWN conceptual metaphors within the Pentateuch reality. It is necessary for us to see that they not only conceptualize the adopted order of things in society but, they direct and govern people's actions. Texts Genesis 37:7-9 narrate about prophetic dreams of Joseph (the son of the third Biblical patriarch). In his one dream Joseph saw that when he with his brothers were binding sheaves in the field, his sheaf “arose” and “stood upright” (vertical UP-direction move), while his brothers' sheaves “bowed down” to his sheaf (vertical DOWN-direction move): Then behold, my sheaf arose and also stood upright; and indeed your sheaves stood all around and bowed down to my sheaf (Gn. 37:7). Besides, in his another dream Joseph dreamed that the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars “bowed down” (vertical DOWNdirection move) to him (Gn. 37:9). Obviously, these texts suggest the presence of the orientational metaphor STATUS IS UP, LAW STATUS IS DOWN, though it is not the only metaphor. Indeed, Joseph's dreams cast in his brothers the role of subjects on the steps of invisible social ladder. Moreover, Joseph's dominion meant their subjection. “Bowing down” was understood as “being subject to control”, that is “being down”. Interpretation of the dream becomes evident through their reaction: “Shall you indeed reign over us? Or shall you indeed have dominion over us?” (Gn. 37:8). This allows implication of another metaphor BOWING DOWN IS BEING SUBJECT TO CONTROL IS DOWN; that is BOWING DOWN IS DOWN. As the Bible tells the fact of the dream (“bowing down”) was taken as a serious offence. Brothers hated Joseph and planned to avenge their humiliation. They “sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver” (Gn. 37:28). Thus, the conceptual metaphors that allowed interpretation of the dreams also led Joseph's brothers to particular actions.

Among other orientational metaphors, the BLESSING IS UP metaphor is noteworthy. Though concept BLESSING is not objectified transcendence, though, as our analysis, it is directly connected to metaphysical aspect of reality. Etymological analysis of a word “blessing” conducted by Gruneberg, allows us to see that in Christian religion, as well as in a number of other religions (Islamic, Phoenician-Punic, Ugaritic etc.), blessing is connected to God (Gruneberg, 2003: 104-105). Moreover, blessing belongs to God, He is a prime-source of it, and it is from Him that it comes (Mowvley, 1965: 79).

Importantly, when analysing the senses of words translated as blessing or bless (pronounced by God or people) both in the OT and NT, it becomes evident that they associate with happiness and prosperity, well-being (Gruneberg, 2003; Mewvley, 1965). According to The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament as well as Merriam- Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, the word blessing means “a thing conducive to happiness or welfare” that is to everything that, when described metaphorically, are the UP-states (HAPPY IS UP, WELL-BEING IS UP (Lakoff, 1991)), allowing thus BLESSING IS UP conceptual metaphor.

Interesting observations can be made with regard to etymology of a Hebrew word berqkhqh used for “blessing” in the OT texts. Firstly, the meaning of its root brk centers around meanings “the knee”, “to kneel” and “to bless” (The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 1999: 279). If to visualize how a knee functions as a part of a human body, it is easy to see that this joint changes the vertical position of a body moving it DOWN and then returning it back to the UP-position. “Kneeling”, as Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines it, is “to position the body so that one or both knees rest on the floor”. This assumes vertical move DOWN with setting the body at the lowest position DOWN. Thus, “kneeling” as well as “to kneel” assumes vertical move DOWN. Secondly, as we aforementioned, etymological analysis shows, blessing is the Divine Provision. In acknowledgment of God's blessing people pray to God, thank and exalt Him. It is a way a person responds to God's blessing (Mowvley, 1965: 79). As previously we have grounded, the concept GOD is metaphorically being realized as GOD'S STATUS IS UP, and, accordingly exalting Him as well as thanking God or praying to Him assumes recognition of His supremacy and, if described metaphorically, suggests a LAW STATUS-POSITION of a petitioner or worshipper. At the same time, submission, expected from the one willing that the blessing be bestowed upon him, is, according to Deuteronomy 28, a decisive factor for receiving the blessing. God-submissive person, as we have discussed earlier in this study, willingly puts himself in a position lower than the position of God, because admits His supremacy. And it is this LAW STATUS-POSITION before the Lord that secures his maximal UP-POSITION on a vertical ladder: "And the Lord will make you the head and not the tail; you shall be above only, and not be beneath, if you (d) heed the commandments of the Lord your God" (Deut. 28:13). Based on above discussion, we see that the domain of meaning of the concept BLESSING in terms of spatial UP-DOWN relations gets extra dimension: the blessing is viewed as something UP that suggests a DOWN-position of a recipient of the blessing.

Several additional points should be made considering the order of pronouncing the blessing. The Book of Genesis 48:17-20 describes Patriarch Jacob giving blessings to his son Joseph's children: “...when Joseph saw his father put his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him; so he took hold of his father's hand to remove it from Ephraim's head to Manasseh's head”. However, Jacob insisted on bestowing the blessing first upon younger son (Ephraim before Manasseh). In the outlined passage the conceptual metaphor IMPORTANCE IS PRECEDENCE (Lakoff, Espenson, Schwartz, 1991) reveals itself. It determines the angle of view on events described and directs our attention to sequence of certain actions, namely the order of pronouncing the blessing. According to this tradition, a firstborn son gets father's blessing first. By insisting on a reverse order, Jacob showed that it was an act of an exceptional spiritual value, emphasizing the role of Ephraim for future generations.

Thus, the conceptual field BLESSING is organized by the spatial metaphors BLESSING IS UP, STATUS IS UP, LAW STATUS IS DOWN and IMPORTANCE IS PRECEDENCE.

In fact, the question arises in relation to the fact that why we do not observe the metaphor IMPORTANCE IS PRECEDENCE in the passages describing the act of creation of the world that is given in sequence. We read that the man - a pinnacle of creation - was created after God created all creation. Also the Bible says that on the seventh day God rested,

and it is that day not the very first one that God blessed and made holy. On this issue the only thing we can say that this question is a serious theological matter of God's creative act itself: whether all we read about in Genesis 1 was created simultaneously or it appeared in a specific order. However, the discussion of this issue is beyond limits of this paper.

Though it is not possible to discuss all relevant passages, however, based on above considered cases, we can conclude that the orientational metaphors establish valuable cognitive links revealing significant aspects of metaphysical reality incorporated in metaphorical canvas of the Pentateuch. We will now proceed to the CENTER-PERIFERY structures within narrative context of the Pentateuch. Nevertheless, as the further discussion shows, not once we will refer to the already discussed metaphors, as all the metaphors exist not in isolation but many of them are integrated in the inseparable conceptual whole.

Image schemata CENTER-PEERIFERY reflects valuable sensory-motor experience of humans. A person experiences himself as a centre of his sensory field. Distance between a person and the object determines its significance for a person. If understood metaphorically, the distance between a person and the object determines its significance for a person. That is to say, “whatever occupies the centre of the perceptual horizon tends to become more important than that which is peripheral” (Johnson, 1989: 112).

In the narrative context of Genesis, valuable entailment arises in regard to a metaphorical extension IMPORTANT IS CENTRAL - LESS IMPORTANT IS PERIPHERY (Lakoff, Espenson, Schwartz, 1991) of image schemata CENTER- PEERIFERY. To fully embrace it, the metaphor expansion ought to be studied in the context of all Holy Scriptures. On the one hand, this metaphor reveals itself through the centrality of the Tree of life and Tree of knowledge of good and evil, planted “in the middle of” the grand Garden, which will always be associated with a place of the highest but lost happiness (Gen. 2:9). It is logical to conclude that centrality of these Trees indicates their importance for men living in that place. Such reasoning leads us to metaphorical extension THE TREE OF LIFE AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE ARE CENTRAL / IMPORTANT. Generalising from exegetes Landy (1983) and Tsevart (1975), Van Wolde considers the meaning of these Trees in the Garden. The scholar makes a point that the Tree of immorality indicates the very essence of the garden. That is why it is in a centre of the garden. “The content of the tree of knowledge depends on the tree of life: “The Tree of knowledge is functionally the Tree of Death ... stylistically complementing the Tree of life” (Landy, 1983:12) [...]. In his opinion the knowledge of good and evil (these are inclusive terms) is the awareness of the universe divided as it is into good and evil; these two extremes determine existence. Knowing death is an essential part of the knowledge of evil” (Cited in: Wolde, Van, 1994: 34-35). Landy also views two Trees as Eros and Thanatos in man. Eros is connected with immorality and immutability. Thanatos is linked with experience and change, “he considers the desire for truth to be the basis of the tree” (Cited in: Wolde, Van, 1994: 35). Furthermore, disregarding the fact whether the first people ate from the tree of life, the Bible not once highlights the prohibition to eat from the tree of knowledge. As following text reveals eating from this specific tree will give them all knowledge in all its fullness? Providing the ground in this way for the conceptual metaphor LEARNING IS EATING (Lakoff 1994) and its contextual paraphrase LEARNING IS EATING THE FRUIT.

Because the men did eat the forbidden fruit, they were sent out of the Garden limits, unless they eat from the tree of life - the source of their life (Gen. 3: 22-24). How far they were sent out is not important; the point is that the men were sent out in a zone of spiritual periphery. With increasing distance between the men and the source of life, their complete spiritual decline started. It explains at the conceptual level why, as the Genesis 6 writes, that God saw the wickedness of people and became sorry for creating the man (Gen. 6:6).

On the other hand, the men become more ego-centric as they have to provide for their own physical needs out of the Paradise limits. However, the principle incorporated by the schemata IMPORTANT IS CENTRAL - LESS IMPORTANT IS PERIPHERY remains unchanged, with the difference that now the centre of their life, and the spiritual things they enjoyed in God's presence are left so far away that access to them disappear completely. That God who walked in the Garden at a near distance is now practically beyond reach. The act of expelling Adam and Eve the Paradise, prohibition to eat from the trees in a centre of the Garden, with subsequent spreading around the globe seems to be the act of spiritual disintegration.

Drawing on the above delineated ideas in soteriological context generally and the event of crucifixion of Christ particularly, valuable implications can be made with regard to how the spiritual re-centering of men allows them to return a lost spiritual centre. Implementation of the conceptual blending theory of M. Turner and G. Fauconnier for interpretation of Christ's crucifixion based on the Gospel of Philip, allowed Lundhaug to demonstrate that at a conceptual level the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge are identified as the Cross that is the embodiment of the New Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge (CROSS IS NEW TREE OF LIFE AND TREE OF KNOWLEDGE). Moreover, Christ Himself arises as “the life-giving fruit of a new Tree of Knowledge, which is also identified as the Tree of Life” (Lundhaug 2014: 73-98). Nowadays, Christians partaking in Holy Eucharist eat this FRUIT. By doing this the partaker is being united with God whereby once lost spiritual integration is returned. Because distance between God and partaker becomes obliterated, the access to the center - the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge identified with the Cross - is regained. The above conclusions are essential for our investigation. Conceptualizing the CROSS as the NEW TREE OF LIFE AND TREE OF KNOWLEDGE allows paraphrasing the formulated afore-given metaphor THE TREE OF LIFE AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE ARE CENTRAL/IMPORTANT in CROSS IS CENTRAL/IMPORTANT.

As a matter of fact, the idea that Lundhaug disclosed at the conceptual level is confirmation of one of the core ideas stated long ago by key Apologists of Christianity. In his works John of Damascus defines centrality of the Cross and points out that the Tree of Life prefigures the Cross: “just as the four extremities of the Cross are held fast and bound together by the bolt in the middle, so also by God's power the height and the depth, the length and the breadth, that is, every creature visible and invisible, is maintained” (Schaff 2007: 80). Moreover, “The honourable Cross,” says St. John of Damascus, “was foreshadowed by the tree of life planted by God in the midst of Paradise; for as the fall and death came about through a tree, so it was fitting that through a tree life and resurrection should be given” (True Orthodox Christianity). The importance of the Cross is confirmed by all the NT and OT texts. The OT texts prefigure the Cross and the One who had to suffer on it. Next two examples are taken from the Book of Exodus. Moses prefigured the Cross to part and to return back the Red sea waters. First, he was said to lift up the rod, and stretch out his hand over the sea, and then, when Israelites were in a secure place, to stretch the hand over the sea (Deut. 14:16-21), in this way making the sign of the Cross. In Exodus 17:8-13 during the battle against Amalek, Moses prefigured not only the Cross but also the One who had to suffer on it (John of Damascus, J. Krondshtatsky, S. Yavorsky). Thus, the conceptual metaphor THE CROSS IS CENTRAL / IMPORTANT, in spite of absence of its surface and direct exhibition, is present in Biblical texts and constitutes, using the words of Mechkovskaya, “invariant knowledge (news, meaning, memory) about Jesus' death on the cross for the sake of people, and His resurrection” (Mechkovskaya 2004: 586).

Important aspect of transcendental God's essence is conceptualised by ontological metaphor TIME IS CONTAINER (Lakoff, 1994). The very first verses of the Bible describe God as such that exists before time. In human terms people exist IN TIME (in the beginning). That is the container of time is located in space, which itself is beyond time, that is in eternity. Thus, God that exists before "in the beginning" exists beyond time-container. In other words, He exists OUTSIDE CONTAINER, thus OUTSIDE TIME. So, He is conceptualized by metaphor GOD IS OUTSIDE TIME.

Further speculations about God's creative acts, their sequence (the first day, the second etc.; the evening and the morning were the such and such day) that is perceived as if a move through out space, make it clear that time is also conceptualized as a trajectory. In addition, the time itself is marks, landmarks on this trajectory. Such understanding is mirrored metaphorically TIME IS A LANDSCAPE WE MOVE THROUGH (Lakoff, Espenson, Schwartz, 1991), with the source - domain landscape and the target-domain time. In a context of God's creative work this metaphor gets extension TIME IS CREATION WE MOVE THROUGH. In this way, God IS OUTSIDE TIME where TIME IS CREATION WE MOVE THROUGH. Two metaphorical ideas brought together allow us to conceptualize God as following: GOD IS OUTSIDE CREATION WE MOVE THROUGH. Such conceptual metaphor undoubtedly reflects significant aspect of God's nature: He is the One who exists beyond both the time-space continuum and His creation. The logic behind this is simple: God cannot be experienced directly in His perfection but only through His creation or in moments of theophany. Thus, GOD IS OUTSIDE TIME and GOD IS OUTSIDE CREATION WE MOVE THROUGH. In short, GOD IS OUTSIDE TIME and GOD IS OUTSIDE CREATION.