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

Another crucial aspect of transcendental God become evident through conceptualization of morality as cleanliness in the texts of the Pentateuch. Following scholars Wolden, Douglas, Milgrom's reasoning, we recognize that the core category of Israelites' moral conscience is the category of PURE / IMPURE (Ì. Douglas), the more complex variant of which is the category of HOLY / COMMON and PURE / IMPURE (Milgrom) (Wolden, 2009: 207-210). This compound category reflects, shapes and orders a system of values of Israelites, accordingly, their life in the context of provisions on purification, distinguishing between clean and unclean, holy and common / profane (Duet. 29:37; 30:29-37; 31: 14, 15; 35:19; 39:1, 30, 41; 40:13; Lev. 5; 6:18; 11-16; òà ³í.) etc.

Interesting observations Milgrom made with regard to four states reflected by the category of HOLY / COMMON and PURE / IMPURE and conceptualized as HOLY, COMMON, PURE, IMPURE. In fact, the state of purity is interpreted as absence of impurity, while commonness is understood as absence of holiness; both states can simultaneously coexist. Everything considered to be holy must be kept separately from what is profane or impure. Such view, according to Milgrom (1991), leads to understanding the fact that concepts HOLY and IMPURE function as antonyms, and are linked, though not directly, by relation of opposition (p. 731).

Similarly, our lexicographical study has proved that concepts HOLY and PURE function as synonyms. Indeed, Cambridge Dictionary interprets HOLY as very religious or pure. Collins Dictionary defines the it as “spiritually perfect” or “pure”; “untainted by evil or sin”. Confirmation of above ideas is also found in Dictionaries of synonyms (Oxford, Synonyms and Antonyms of Words, The Synonym Finder, Webster's New Dictionary and Thesaurus). KJV Dictionary Definition points out that the concept HOLY means “pure in heart”. Such view of the concept is metaphorical. The heart is conceptualized as a centre of a man. Therefore, its purity assumes overall purity of a man. In fact, Apostle Matthew emphasizes that only people with pure heart shall see God (Mtt. 5:8).

Thus, our lexicographical interpretation shows that concepts PURE and HOLY are, though indirectly, related as synonyms. This conclusion is essential for our investigation, because the synonymic relation between concepts PURE and HOLY allows us in the context of the Pentateuch to reformulate, evolved on the basis of correlation between purity and cleanliness, metaphor PURITY IS CLEANLINESS (Lakoff, Johnson 1999: 307) in HOLINESS IS CLEANLINESS. In addition, taking in consideration definition of a common impurity as dirt (Ibid.), following M. Douglas' view of clean and unclean (Douglas 1966: 741), we come to understanding that perception of an object as impure / unclean, not always is associated with dirt. Douglas generalises that classification of objects as clean / unclean is relative. What is sacred / clean for one person (or culture) can be unclean or common for another. Admittedly, classifications like this are culturally conditioned means of creating and maintaining symbolic order in the world. “Clean” is everything that fits the pattern maintained; uncleanness refuse to be fitted in established symbolic order; thus, uncleanness is the “matter out of place” (Douglas 1966: 41).

Ontological metaphor HOLINESS IS CLEANLINESS allows conceptualisation of abstract concept HOLINESS, which reflects the nature of YHWH (Isaiah 6:3; 57:15; Joshua 24:19). Concept CLEANLINESS incorporates one of the most significant domains of life experience of a man. From early childhood every individual is taught the rules of personal hygiene, keep clean your clothes, the place where you live etc. In this way, natural is the analogical and associative link arising between inner and outward cleanness of a person (Lev. 6-16), cleanness of the living place (Deut. 23:14). It helps a person to comprehend what holiness is and that it is possible to be holy; to learn that everything that penetrates into a person from outside with what they hear, see or eat draw them nearer to God or lead to opposite from God direction. As we observe, much of Leviticus and Deuteronomy is taken up with teaching what is clean and what is unclean. Attainment of holiness by God's people is conceptualised as attainment of “cleanliness”; “cleanliness” of people is objectified as the condition and guarantee of their holiness, whereby ensuring in the context of the Pentateuch implicit presence of conceptual metaphor CLEAN PEOPLE IS HOLY PEOPLE.

To illustrate the above metaphor, we will use the texts teaching the Dietary law rules given to Israelites through Moses are stated in terms of clean and unclean, and are based on clear separation between clean and unclean animals, along with admonition not to eat “unclean” food. Violation of the law had serious spiritual consequences. By eating unclean person makes himself unclean, that is to say defiles himself. Thus, falls into a state incompatible with God's holiness. According to the law, a beast that is clean chews the cud, and its hooves are divided. Also “whatsoever hath fins and scales [...] in the seas and in the rivers” is clean and therefore edible (Lev. 11:9). The list then continues with other edible creatures, but, we should remember that it is given just to exemplify the case. The purpose of the author was by no means to give the exhausted list. The point was to express the idea of exquisiteness of relation with holy God and significance of spiritual purity of His people.

There appears to be different views regarding why some birds, beasts are classifying as unclean. As we have already seen, M. Douglass points out that it results from culturally conditioned symbolic ordering of the world (Douglas 1966: 41). For instance, the camel is unclean because though chewing the cud, its hooves are not divided. Maimonides, the theologist and philosopher, explains the dietary rules proceeding from moral and hygienic reasons (Maimonides 2002: 328). Furthermore, in “The Letter of Aristeas” Moses' rules are interpreted symbolically. They embrace the allegorical sense: “Eleazar's allegorical interpretation of the dietary laws focuses on their moral meanings, which depend on recognizing the inherent character of the animals that are either permitted or forbidden” (Wright 2015: 285). The Bible does not provide the direct explanation why the OT Dietary law had to be stated in terms of “clean” or “unclean” (although the separation of clean from unclean is found in the beginning in Genesis). However, its texts not ambiguously reemphasise that by eating “unclean” food Israelites become spiritually unclean (Deut. 14, Lev. 11), and only giving heed to the law, following it, abstaining from “unclean” a person as well as all people could be clean and sanctify themselves to fit God's holiness.

In addition, the Dietary law rules, afore-established metaphor HOLINESS IS CLEANLINESS is implicitly present in the texts that regulate family-related, interpersonal relations, actions and behaviour in social and cult aspects. (These commandments are covered in the second part of the Book of Exodus and all Book of Leviticus). The man defiles himself by worshiping other gods: do not commit any of these abominable customs [...], and that you do not defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God (Lev. 18:30); make practice of forbidden things: `Give no regard to mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God (Lev. 19:31); consciously or unconsciously: human uncleanness -- whatever uncleanness with which a man may be defiled (Lev 5:2).

Importantly, conceptualisation of human “uncleanness” (conscious or unconscious) takes place in close connection with such notions as the “guilt for committed sin”, necessity of “sin confession and purification” to meet the requirements of “holiness”. The vector of evolving correlating senses “defilement”, “guilt”, “sin”, “purification / cleansing” and “holiness”, in addition, points out that all “uncleanness”, about which God admonishes in His instructions, leads to spiritual defilement and therefore requires spiritual purification. The man admitting his uncleanness was expected to bring sin offering. It is interesting that in Hebrew the notions sin and sin offering are rendered by the same word “hatta't” (Heart of Torah 2017: 37). The notion sin offering is used with the meaning of uncleanness, impurity, pollution itself, as well as with the meaning of means of purification sin offering. Uncleanness breaks the relations with God; relations can be restored by means of sin offering. So, a priest by following the ritual through sin offering purified the sinner restoring him to the state of cleanness, a required condition of his holiness, 5 `And it shall be, when he is guilty in any of these matters, that he shall confess that he has sinned in that thing; 6 and he shall bring his trespass offering to the LORD for his sin which he has committed, [...] 10 So the priest shall make atonement on his behalf for his sin which he has committed, and it shall be forgiven him (Lev 5: 5-6,10).

According to Law given through Moses, it was priests' responsibility to distinguish between holy and profane, clean and unclean (Lev 10:10). It is worth noting that a priest who was conceptualized as embodiment of holiness required inner and outward purification as any other person of Israel community (Le 16:4, 6). Only after ritual purification he (a priest) was considered to be “clean” to perform the ceremony of cleansing impurity. Moreover, the tabernacle (God's abode) itself required purification as it was kept in the midst of Israelites' uncleanness, both physical and spiritual. It had to be purged once a year (on the Day of Atonement): he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israeli (Lev 16:16).

Important aspect of conceptualizing the foundation of the ritual of purification from sin is hidden within expression atoning blood. “Although, the exact meaning and derivation of the Hebrew word kipper, “to make atonement” (Lev. 4:20a), is still disputable, following J. Sprinkle, it can arguably be understood as a derivation of the noun koper (“ransom, gift”), with an original meaning of “placate”, “mollify”, “satisfy,” or “appease” an offended party by means of gifts" (Sprinkle 2015: 30-31). Dwelling on such interpretation of the term “to atone”, we conceptualise atoning blood, as “the blood given as a gift”. In this way, ATONING BLOOD IS GIFT. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul (Lev. 17:11). ATONING BLOOD IS GIFT is an ontological metaphor and at the same time is a structural one as assumes a giver of the gift (God) and a receiver of the gift (PeoPle)).

Thus, to become ritually closer to God or anything that was considered to be sanctified, every person, regardless of the status, had to be purified inwardly and outwardly. Those who failed to follow the Law brought over themselves divine punishment (Ex. 30:38; 31:14, 15; Lev. 7:20). Suffice it to recollect the fourth Commandment regarding remembering the Sabbath day. This Day was sanctified, thus it was sin to do any profane work (Ex. 20: 8). Another good example Leviticus 10:1 provides. It describes as “Aaron's sons Nadab and Abihu were punished with death for brining before the Lord profane fire” (the one God did not command).

Investigation of the texts that lay the moral foundation of both the Old and New Testament society testify that HOLINESS of God, as well as HOLINESS of people, is perceived on the basis of one of the most important life domains, namely CLEANLINESS. The moral law, realized in the Pentateuch texts through conceptual oppositions purity / impurity, holy / common (profane), constitutes the foundation for implicit presence of ontological conceptual metaphor CLEANLINESS IS HOLINESS, and whereby A CLEAN PEOPLE IS A HOLY PEOPLE. conceptual metaphor expansion

Conducted analysis allowed us also to conclude that attainment of cleanness, and that is holiness, is nearing to holy God. Contrary to this, uncleanness / impurity defiles, that is to say moves us away from God. In other words, if actions, way of living of a person or people are characterized by “purity” he / they can live near holy God; whereas in contrast, “impurity” or “profanity” moves them away from God. “When Israel' behaviour is characterised by PURITY, it means that it is fit to live in proximity to YHWH. Conversely, IMPURITY implies that Israelites are not fit to live in YAHWH's proximity”. Thus, HOLINESS possesses a “spatial component” (Milgrom 1991: 48) and in the context of the Pentateuch can be conceptualised as PROXIMITY TO GOD; therefore, HOLINESS IS PROXIMITY TO GOD. The following text exemplify above-stated thought: worship to God (it always assumes glorifying and prayer) is metaphorically conceptualised as proximity to Him: By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy (Lev. 10:3). By serving to God with the talents and skills, a person comes near to God: to bring you near to Himself, to do the work of the tabernacle of the LORD (Nu. 16:9). Dwelling God among people reduces the distance between God and man and therefore assumes proximity: the LORD is among them (Nu. 16:3). For the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, [...]; therefore, your camp shall be holy (Deut. 23:15).

In the light of this discussion, it is worth noting that, no one could approach YHWH close enough to see His face and remain alive. As the Bible asserts even God's closest prophet Moses, who was called God's friend was shown only God's back when His glory passed by (Ex. 30:20-21). The cases of epiphany such as the "burning bush" and Mount Sinai events demonstrate that God emanates holiness, thus everything around Him is sanctified, therefore nearing to Him is forbidden: Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground (Ex 3:4-5). In addition, every sanctified thing acquired specific status: nothing impure could approach Him: who goes near the holy things which the children of Israel dedicate to the LORD, while he has uncleanness upon him, that person shall be cut off from My presence: I am the LORD (Lev. 22:3).

However, proximity to God, experiencing closeness to Him is an inseparable aspect of spiritual life of a Christian. This explains the need to partake in Eucharist, cross himself with a sign of the Holy Cross. Perhaps, longing for closeness to God explains the desire of a man to contemplate the object of worship, have icons, to wear close to a heart a Holy Crucifix; as if they by doing this, at the level of perception, a man can reduce the spiritual distance between him and invisible God to make Him near. Likewise, not once in the Holy Scriptures we find how God Himself reduces the distance between Him and a man by coming down to people from above, leading them on their way from Egypt in a form of cloud and fire pillar. Moreover, the passages telling about birth of God Himself in a human body (John 1:14; 14:9) and abiding in believers by the Holy Spirit (John14:16-17) can be interpreted as an act uniting (maximum possible for a mortal man reduction) corporal man and infinite God (Mtt. 18:20) and offering access to Him.

In the Pentateuch we find the metaphorical link between closeness of God to people allowing constant access to Him that provides a basis for metaphor ACCESS TO GOD IS PROXIMITY: “For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? (Deut. 4:7). I will dwell among the children of Israel and will be their God (Ex. 29:45). Moreover, according to God's instruction Israelites had to build the tabernacle of meeting (Ex. 29: 42), the place of meeting of God with His worshipers. It is a place of contact - maximum reduction of distance (meeting is understood as “an act or process of coming together” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)). It is the place where God speaks: “I will meet you to speak with you” (Ex. 29:43). At the same time, at the tabernacle of meeting, the Testimony (the Decalogue) was put in the ark and was kept at the heart of the Holy of Holies. When Israelites camped, Levites settled at the middle of the camps (Lev. 2:17). The tent of meeting was “at the centre of the camp with the priestly tribe of Levi immediately surrounding it. The Levites will be in the same position when the camp relocates and `set[s] out'” (Sprinkle, 2015:191). We can picture the camp, the tabernacle at the very centre surrounded by Levites. Within the Holy of Holies there is the ark with the Decalogue. And it is “from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are on the ark of the Testimony that God spoke to the children of Israel” (Ex. 25:22). The Decalogue (the covenant commandments) is found at the centre of the Divine-human fellowship. Thus, the interweaving of metaphorical ideas about closeness between God and His law, as well as centrality of God's commandments becomes evident, and it results in overlapping the metaphors ACCESS TO GOD IS PROXIMITY and GOD'S COMMANDMENTS ARE CENTRAL.

Bible scholar Patrick Miller expresses the same idea pointing out that in the context of Deuteronomy “the nearness of God and the righteous laws are closely related”. “For this commandment which I command you today is not [...] far off. It is not in heaven, [...]Nor is it beyond the sea, [...] But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it” (Deut. 30:11-14). “The righteous laws being written on the heart and being kept are in some sense a manifestation of the presence of God. God draws near in the law that God gives. Israel keeps God close by heeding God's word” (The Heart of Torah 2017: 218) and by living it: “[...] man shall not live by bread alone; but man lives by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord” (Deut. 8:2; Matt.4:4)). The last commandment invokes a chain of conceptual metaphors THE WORD OF GOD IS BREAD, WORD IS CHRIST, CHRIST IS BREAD OF LIFE whereby our understanding of the word as Christ Himself is framed. This explains why closeness to the Word of God is repeatedly stressed in the Pentateuch texts.

The above reasoning leads to conclusion about implicit presence of metaphor ACCESS TO GOD IS PROXIMITY. It is not possible to introduce all relevant contexts, but analysis does reveal, that this model is developed through a number of events, crucial for understanding the Bible (giving the Law, God's embodiment in Flesh and in the Word, descending as the Holy Spirit). This, we assume, underlines the centrality of this model for understanding our experience of transcendental in general and God in particular.

Interesting enough is the fact that the distance to God is understood as a distance to the Heaven. As we have already seen, the heaven is conceptualised as the dwelling place of God Himself, a place up there above (ontological and orientational metaphors): “Your holy habitation” (Deut. 26:15); the place of “hosts of heaven” (Deut. 4:19); the place of angels: “theAngel of God called [...] out of heaven” (Gn. 21:17; 22:15). Similarly to any other physical place, it has physical measurements (has limits): “from one end of heaven to the othef” (4:32); there is a centre within it: “the midst of heaven” (Deut. 4:11). Similarly to a house construction, it is conceptualised with windows: “the windows of heaven were opened” (Gn. 7:11) (container metaphor). It is the storage of unseen abundance (container metaphor): “The LORD will open the heavens, the storehouse of his bounty, to send rain on your land in season and to bless all the work of your hands” (Deut. 28:12). Interesting enough is the fact that in a course of His creative work, God creates the firmament to separate the waters above from the waters below. This firmament is nothing but what we used to refer to as heavens. The spectre of outlined meaning is extended through etymology of a word “heaven”. Ellen van Wolde explains that heaven in Genesis is the division between the waters. In Hebrew sha-mayim “heaven” “literary means `what relates to (sha) the waters (mayim)': heaven, sha-mayim, divides the mayim above from mayim below” (Walde, van 1997: 16). In Priestly creation account in Genesis 1-6 cosmological term raqia', that is “firmament” is found. Another term used to refer to heavens is derived from `gd and means bind together; basic meaning is bundle. The term is used uniquely in Amos 9:6 (“He who builds His layers in the sky”) to point out that “Israelites could imagine the vault of the sky not only as solid expanse (raqia'') but also as a kind of batched roof made of reeds covering the earth, after the manner of Sumerian houses with their characteristic barrel-shaped roofs” (The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 2006: 209). Surprisingly, but like hell (kel-), a terrible place of eternal punishment, heaven (kem-), a place that believers associate with the Paradise, final habitation, where no evil or sorrow can be find, derives from an IndoEuropean root meaning “to cover”. However, unlike kel- (to cover or conceal), kem- means “cover”. Kem- is from ak-men (stone, sharp stone tool) and is understood as a roof forming overarching, stony vault of the sky (Online Etymological Dictionary URL: https: //www.etymonline.com/). Metaphoric conceptualisation of heavens as God's realm, and conceptualization of distance from God as distance from heaven, a place opposite to hell becomes gradually regular practice; references to heaven as a special spiritual place became metaphoric (The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 2006: 204-237). Thus, the exploration of a concept HEAVENS revealed the entailments of the metaphors HEAVENS IS UP, HEAVENS IS THE PLACE and a container metaphor HEAVENS IS CONTAINER.

Our investigation also revealed that attainment of holiness imposes constant moral choice expressed within Pentateuch texts by one of basic metaphoric models LIFE IS JOURNEY. According Olaf Jakel, within religious discourse such metaphoric model assumes two-life-ways dichotomy - moral and unmoral one. Olaf Jakel considers this model in detail on the material of both the OT and NT texts (Jakel, 2003: 63). We will dwell on the Pentateuch texts within which LIFE IS JOURNEY structural metaphoric model is realized through conceptual metaphor LEADING A MORAL LIFE IS MAKING A JOURNEY ON GOD'S WAY: “walk in all the ways which the LORD your God has commanded you” (Deut. 6:32), “keep My ordinances, to walk in them” (Lev. 18 4-5); and also Deut. 8:6, 10:12; 11:22, Lev. 26: 3-5 and others. Such model involves a guide, travellers, path, destination, etc. Thus, on this way GOD IS THE GUIDE. He is “who went in the way before you to search out a place for you to pitch your tents, to show you the way you should go, in the fire by night and in the cloud by day” (Deut. 1:33); “the Lord your God is He who goes over before you” (Deut. 9:3), and other passages (Deut. 1:36; 13: 2-5; 26:16; 28:9, 14). Moreover, God is one of travellers: GOD IS THE SOJOURNER. This conceptual metaphor reveals itself in a passages as “for the LORD your God, He is the One who goes with you” (Deut. 31:6)). Moreover, He is the One who will keep going with you in any circumstances: “He is the One who goes before you. He will be with you, He will not leave you nor forsake you; do not fear nor be dismayed” (Deut. 31:6, 8). Importantly, that turning aside God's way is understood as committing sin (SINNING IS DEVIATING / SWIRLING FROM GOD'S WAY conceptual metaphor). At the same time, doing what is right is metaphorically conceptualized as keeping God's way: “They will keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness andjudgment” (Gn.18:19). In this way “the way” is nothing but God's commandments. The ontological metaphor GOD'S COMMENDMENDS ARE THE PATH reveals itself: “you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left” (Deut. 5:32; 17:20); “he may not turn aside from the commandment to the right hand or to the left” (Deut. 17:20); “you shall not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day, to the right or the left” (Deut. 28:14). To keep God's way is the imperative. However, it is a man that makes moral choice, and this moral choice is the choice of ways: MORAL CHOICE IS CHOICE OF WAY; it is death-or-life choice; only God's way leads to (eternal) life. “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, in that I command you today [...] to walk in His ways, [.] that you may live and multiply; [.] But if your heart turns away [.] that you shall surely perish” (Deut. 30:15-18); “And [...] you shall not prosper in your ways” (Deut. 28:29). “You shall walk in all the ways which the LORD your God has commanded you, that you may live” (Deut. 5:33).

In sum, structuring of sacred reality of the Pentateuch by means of metaphorical expansion from a source domain tri-dimensional space onto a target-domain metaphysical reality is accomplished via a number of mappings (conceptual metaphors), namely: GOD'S STATUS IS UP, HEAVENS IS THE PLACE, HEAVENS IS UP, HEAVENS IS CONTAINER, BEING SUBJECT TO CONTROL IS DOWN, BOWING DOWN IS DOWN, GOD IS OBJECT, GOD IS THE MAN OF WAR, BLESSING IS UP, IMPORTANCE IS PRECEDENCE, CROSS IS CENTRAL, GOD IS OUTSIDE TIME, GOD IS OUTSIDE CREATION, HOLINESS IS CLEANLINESS, CLEAN PEOPLE IS HOLY PEOPLE, ATONING BLOOD IS GIFT, THE WORD OF GOD IS BREAD, HOLINESS IS PROXIMITY TO GOD, ACCESSIBILITY TO GOD IS PROXIMITY, GOD'S COMMANDMENTS ARE CENTRAL, GOD IS THE GUIDE, GOD IS THE SOJOURNER, 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.

Let us dwell now on metaphorical expansion from source-domains “human” (physical, physiological, psychological features) and “human interpersonal relationships” (family relationships, social roles, status, authority, etc.) onto the metaphysical / transcendental (God, Angels).

Metaphorical mappings with a source-domain human (physical, physiological, psychological features) occupy special place among the rest. Conceptualization of God in terms of HUMAN allows us to imagine His as having a body and possessing supra-natural cognitive abilities, omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing) and omnipresent (is present everywhere), eternal and unchangeable. Although, such image of God is collective. It means that He never appears as an embodied person. However, cognitive metaphor allows the reader to think up lacking links to obtain the person-like gestalt. It is such metaphor that provides bridging ontological gap between limited human reason and transcendental God. Collectively, the sources of metaphorical mappings are:

physical features of a man: a) parts of human body: Your right hand (Ex. 15:6); I will stretch forth My hand (Ex. 9:14; 33:22); Under His feet was, as it were, a paved work of sapphire stone (Ex. 24:10); Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back (Ex. 33:23); I will set My face against that soul (Lv. 17:10); the Lord lift up His countenance (Nm. 26:6); Your face (Gn. 4:18) etc.; b) physical actions (action / motion): God divided (Gn. 1:7); Heformed (Gn. 2:7); God walking (Gn. 3:8); went up (Gn. 35:13); stood (Gn. 28:13); c) physical states: He rested (Gn. 2:2); d) language / voice: they heard the voice of the Lord God (Gn. 2:8); the Lord God called Adam and said to him (Gn. 2:9); I heard Your voice (Gn. 3:10); etc.

physiological features of a man: a) physiological processes: God saw the light (Gn. 1:4); looked upon the earth (Gn. 6:12); smelled sweet aroma (Gn. 6:21); God [...] breathed (Gn. 2:7); etc.

psychic features of a man: a) memory, reasoning / intellect: God remembered (Gn. 8:1); God thought (Gn. 6:21); God knows (Gn. 3:5); He thought this over (Gn. 6:6); etc.

soul-driven features of a man: a) moral virtues faithful, trustworthy (Gn. 22:12); longsuffering (Gn. 6:3; 15: 16); loving (Gn. 17:7); graceful (Gn. 6:8); righteous,just (Gn. 18:26); etc. b) feelings: God was grieved (Gn. 6:6); delighted (Gn. 1); etc.

Transcendent essences other than God undergo personification too. Among them there are Angels. They are “a race of spiritual beings of a nature exalted far above that of man, infinitely removed from that of God - whose office is `to do him service in heaven, and by his appointment to succour and defend men on the earth'” (Peloubet, 1947: 34). They are major representatives of God. However, some of them have fallen apart from God and counteract Him. Destination and role of angels is explained within the heavenly hierarchy of Cyril of Jerusalem (IVc.), three Epistles of Apostle Paul (approximately 48/58 BC), in the Commentary “Regulations of Saint Apostles” of the theologian or Gregory Nazianzen (approximately 394), as well as Dionysius the Areopagite's “Celestial Hierarchy” (V c.). According to St. Thomas Aquinas, an angel is conceived as the bodiless substance, and “is said to be in a corporeal place by application of the angelic power in any manner whatever to any place” (“Summa Theologiae” by Thomas Aquinas, v.2. Q. 52, Article 1).

As our analysis has shown, in the Pentateuch texts ANGEL IS PERSON conceptual metaphor emerges through a number of entailments. There are some of them: the Angel of the Lord found her by a spring (Gn. 16:7); The Angel of the Lord then said to her (Gn. 16:9); Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening (Gn. 19:1); the angels urged Lot to hurry (Gn. 19:15); the Angel of God called to Hagar (Gn. 21:17); Then the Angel of the Lord called to Abraham (Gn. 22:15); etc.

Moreover, metaphorical mapping of a source-domain human interpersonal relationships (family relationships, social roles, status, authority, etc.) to target-domain metaphysical and physical reality leads us back to conceptual metaphor GOD IS PERSON that allows considering God-human relationships by means of their metaphorical conceptualization as 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 PROVIDER, GOD IS HEALER, GOD IS FRIEND, GOD IS THE LORD. Different aspects of given conceptual metaphors gained a detail analysis in the works of a number of scholars (D. Aaron, A. Basson, Ralf Bisschops, G. B. Caird, S. Dille, A. Moore, N. Perrin, P. van Hecke, S. McFague, E. E. Sweetser, M. Th. DesCamp, M. Z. Brettler, J. M. Soskice, N. Stienstra, M. Lind, Z. Kovecses, L. J. Derdue, M. Tryggve, R. L. Platzner, E. J. van Wolde and many others). Importantly, those metaphorical extensions of a model GOD IS PERSON structure God-human relationships and are conceptually inseparable. Generalizing from the investigation of the afore-mentioned scholars, within the Pentateuch texts God is modelled as a mature adult, allpowerful, active and strong, protector, provides the Law, leaders, freedom, special relations with Self to Israel as “first born son”; His children in their turn must honour and obey Him, give heed to His voice and follow Him (Deut. 2:4; 3:3, 18, 22; 4:1, 30; 7:6; 7:8;9, 10; 8:5, 20; 9: 23; 11:2; 21:16,17; 31:22-23, 26; 32:5-9, 15, 19-20, 36, 41-45, 48, 51; 33: 21, 27-29; etc.).

In her investigation, Sally McFague sees more sense in using metaphor GOD IS MOTHER instead of such basic metaphor as GOD IS FATHER. Discussion of such shift is beyond the limits of this paper. We willjust point out that conceiving one and the same divinity as both father and mother is a peculiar characteristic of ancient Near Eastern culture (gods Ptah, Osiris, Amon etc.), since attribution of both-gender epithets to a divinity highlighted his function of a creator (The Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament 2006: 3). However, as far as the model offered by Sally McFague, we support A. Barselona's opinion on the issue. Regardless the benefits of the offered shift, we believe that there is no need to replace a traditional metaphorical model GOD IS FATHER of Christian God (Barcelona, 1999: 198). Moreover, Sally McFague herself points out that substitution of metaphorical model can result in substitution of religion (McFague 1982: 110).

Metaphors with the source-domain human interpersonal relationships express a significant aspect of God-human relationships, as they reveal the pursuit of God to restore relationships with the fallen men. Most accurately this pursuit is reflected by relationships that God had established with some chosen people as well as with a whole nation. These relations are lexicalized by an old Hebrew term berith, which functioned as a constant reminder about the seriousness of consequences for those who break agreement / covenant. It is a derivative of a Babylonian term birutu, `binding', interpreted as `cutting', “referring to a custom of cutting or dividing animals in two and passing between the parts in ratifying a covenant” (Peloubet 1947: 127-128). At the same time, it demonstrated what punishment expected those who broke the agreement. The idea of the covenant as a structure / object (metaphors COVENANT IS STRUCTURE, COVENANT IS OBJERCT) becomes obvious as we analyse the entailments that present covenant in a way it can be established (I will establish My covenant (Gn. 9:11); I will establish My covenant (Gn.17:2); made (the Lord made a covenant with Abram (15:18); broken (for he has broken My covenant (Gn.17:14); it is an object of possession (you shall keep My covenant, (Gn. 17:9). This metaphoric idea is one of principal Biblical ideas, because, on the one hand, it conceptualizes Biblical story from Genesis to Revelation, incorporating the tenets of restoring trustworthy Divine-human relationships. On the other hand, it is a long way in a person's life, his own story of coming back to eternal home. This metaphor is a ground for a number of covenants starting from God's promise given to Noah (Gn. 9), covenant with Abraham (Gn.17:1), the Sinai covenant (Ex 19, 20; Deut. 30) to the New Testament covenant established by the blood of Jesus Christ (Mtt. 26:28).

According to Nelly Stienstra, Ralf Bisschops the sense of the Sinai covenant between YHWH and Israel is fixed by a metaphorical model COVENANT IS WEDDING and within the model by a conceptual metaphor YAHWEH IS HUSNBAND OF HIS PEOPLE (Stienstra 1993: 70-95; Bisschops 2003: 126). Presence of these metaphors is obvious in a context of all Scriptures and especially prophetic books, Song of Songs, in the New Testament where the Church is conceptualized as Christ's Bride and Christ Himself as Bridegroom. However, regardless of obvious presence, the metaphorical model COVENANT IS WEDDING as well as the conceptual metaphor YAHWEH IS ISRAEL'S HUSNBAND is elicited only by metaphorical implications and entailments. As it is expected from husband, YHWH loves and protects His people. Moreover, following the scholar L. A. Hoffman, R. Bisschops points out that YHWH “also raises his people to the level of self-determination and national autonomy, that is to say `sanctifies' it and this corresponds to the later rabbinical notion of marriage according to which the wife is `sanctified' by the wedding” (Cited in Bisschops 2003: 129). In this connection, Israel is conceptualized as holy nation, holy priesthood above other nations (Deut. 10:15; 14:2; 15:6; 26:19; 28:1, 13; etc.) that is sanctified nation. In terms of YAHWEH IS ISRAEL'S HUSNBAND metaphor, Israel arises as wife. Thus, it justifies and explains jealousy on the part of YHWH. His warning not to follow other gods; idolatry is equalled to adultery. “From a semantic viewpoint there is the notion of `otherness' which is understood as something different, opposite. It is in a context of the notion of `otherness' that R. Bisschops considers the notions idolatry and adultery. The scholar establishes a parallel between idolatry, as worshiping other gods, and relationships out of wedlock, that is adultery. In both cases, it bears the sense of adultery. Thus, IDOLATRY IS ADULTERY (Bisschops, 2003: 133). This explains YHWH's warning not to follow other gods: “Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God” (Ex. 34:14).

Thus, the analyses of metaphorical mappings of source-domains “human” (physical, physiological, psychological features) and “human interpersonal relationships” (family relationships, social roles, status, authority, etc.) onto the metaphysical / transcendental (God, Angels) allowed identification of the following conceptual metaphors: 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, COVENANT IS STRUCTURE, COVENANT IS OBJERCT, IDOLATRY IS ADULTERY, GOD IS HELPER, GOD IS PROVIDER, GOD IS HEALER, GOD IS FRIEND, GOD IS THE LORD. ANGEL IS PERSON.

Conclusions

Since recently the number of investigations conducted within theolinguistic framework has increased. It is explained, first, by the pursuit of integral knowledge about a man that motivates researchers to look beyond the world view box and requires cross-disciplinary approaches. Secondly, theolinguistics employs both linguistic and theological toolkit to conduct linguistic investigations of religious language. In this way it adds a theological dimension to linguistic investigations whereby the truthful understanding of knowledge hidden within religious texts is secured.

The current investigation was conducted on the material of the Pentateuch texts of New King James Bible. To analyse the metaphorics of the Pentateuch texts, the Conceptual Metaphors Theory (CMT) developed by Lakoff and Jonson was applied. As a result, the consistent patterns of metaphorical expansion from source-domain physical reality onto target-domain metaphysical (transcendental, sacred) reality were analysed. Conceptual metaphors that allow understanding the metaphysical (sacred) reality of the Pentateuch texts were characterized. Constant re-evaluation of gained results in the light of both linguistic and theological sources allowed new insights into metaphysical reality of the Bible.

The semantic and cognitive analysis of the metaphorics of the Pentateuch has shown that onto transcendental (sacred) reality are metaphorically mapped as source domains: 1) tridimensional 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.). Understanding of metaphysical (transcendental, sacred) reality is provided by the conceptual metaphors presented in the table below:

Abbreviations

Gnu. - Genesis

Deut. - Deuteronomy

Ex. - Exodus

NKJV - New King James Version

Lev. - Leviticus

Nu. - Numbers

OT - Old Testament

NT - New Testament

References

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

2. 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 872 in Gen 1:1-2:4a. Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, 10 (3). P. 2-21.

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

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

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

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

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

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

11. 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.

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

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

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

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

16. 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.

17. 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.

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

19. 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.

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

21. 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.

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

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

24. 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.

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

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

27. 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

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

29. 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.

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

31. 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.

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

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

34. 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.

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

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

37. 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).

38. 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).

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

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

41. 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.

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

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

44. 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.

45. “Summa Theologiae” by Thomas Aquinas.

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

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

48. The Latin Vulgate Old Testament Bible. Exodus - Chapter 17.

49. The Orthodox Christianity. Old Testament Prototypes of the Cross of the Lord.

50. Thibodeau, P. H., Boroditsky, L. (201). `Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS Vol. 6. ¹ 2: e16782.

51. 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.

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

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

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

55. Wolde, E. J. van. (2009). Why the Verb X“D Does Not Mean `to Create' in Genesis 1.1-2.4a. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 34 (1). P. 3-*23.

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

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

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

59. 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.

60. List of Lexicographic Sources