Selecting and Analyzing Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible: Cognitive Linguistics and the Literary

© 2014 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978-90-04-25819-8

Approaches to Literary Readings of Ancient Jewish Writings

Edited by

Klaas Smelik and Karolien Vermeulen

LEIDEN • BOSTON2014


CONTENTS

Preface ................................................................................................................ viiAbbreviations ................................................................................................... ix

Introduction: Some Thoughts on Ancient Jewish Texts and the ‘Literary’ ................................................................................................. 1 Karolien Vermeulen

PART ONE

HEBREW BIBLE

“Literary” Craft and Performative Power in the Ancient Near East: The Hebrew Bible in Context ................................................................ 19 Scott B. Noegel

Selecting and Analyzing Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible: Cognitive Linguistics and the Literary ................................................ 39 Johan de Joode and Hanneke van Loon

Literary Theory and Composition History of the Torah: The Sea Crossing (Exod 14:1–31) as a Test Case ................................................. 53 Angela Roskop Erisman

Eyewitness Accounts in the Book of Samuel? A Reappraisal ........... 77 Klaas Smelik

A Battle of Wits and Words: Hushai, Ahithophel and the Absalom Rebellion (2 Samuel 16–17) ..................................................................... 99 Robert P. Gordon

The Intentional Use of Polysemy: A Case Study of סתר דבר (Judg 3:19) ..................................................................................................... 115 Karolien Vermeulen

vi contents


Bridging the Gap between Linguistics and Literary Studies of Ancient Biblical and Jewish Texts: A Proposal Exemplifĳied by a Study of Gen 9:8–17 ......................................................................... 137 Ellen van Wolde

The ‘Literary’ in Trickster Narratives: A Comparison of Gen 27:1–39; 29:15–30; 31:19–55; Joshua 9 and 2 Sam 3:26–27 ...... 167 Anne-Laure Zwilling

PART TWO

OTHER ANCIENT JEWISH WRITINGS

“Friends Hearken to Your Voice”: Rabbinic Interpretations of the Song of Songs .............................................................................................. 183 Tamar Kadari

Between Tradition and Innovation: Seder Eliyahu’s Literary Strategies in the Context of Late Midrash ......................................... 211 Lennart Lehmhaus

Medieval Rationalist Exegesis and Intertextuality in Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Ma’amar Yiqqawu ha-Mayim ................................................ 243 Rebecca Kneller-Rowe

Index of Primary Sources ............................................................................. 269


SELECTING AND ANALYZING METAPHORS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE:COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS AND THE LITERARY

Johan de Joode and Hanneke van Loon

Abstract

In Cognitive Linguistics, it is customary to stress the ubiquity of conceptual meta-phors. In literary studies, however, critics tend to highlight the special character of specifĳic metaphors in texts. Exegetes using the tenets of Conceptual Metaphor Theory have thus far been at odds with the ubiquity of conceptual metaphors in literary texts: do all conceptual metaphors (and they are many) deserve equal attention? Do they all equally afffect the text and the reader’s experience? In this article, we study what is needed to discuss literary metaphors in Biblical Hebrew texts based on the theorems of Cognitive Linguistics. We combine Steen’s fĳind-ings on the deliberate use of metaphor with those of Pilkington on the range and strength of mappings. As such, we introduce criteria to fĳirst select and sub-sequently analyze metaphors in the biblical corpus. We advocate for explicitness and illustrate our point with an example from the book of Job (6:14–21).

Introduction

Conceptual Metaphor Theory (henceforth CMT) is undoubtedly one of the most popular—if not the most popular—current theory on metaphor. Anyone interested in metaphor cannot ignore the fairly recent insight that metaphor is fĳirst and foremost a conceptual rather than a linguistic phenomenon. As such, cognitive linguists teach us that metaphor, being conceptual, is ubiquitous. It is an established fact that many examples (some of which will follow later in this article) illustrate that point. Exe-getes, ourselves included, generally yield the point of the ubiquity of con-ceptual metaphor, yet are confused about the impact this theorem has on the analysis of metaphor in literary texts. Has metaphor not always had a special place in literary studies? Should exegetes now deal with each and every conceptual metaphor one can fĳind in biblical poetry or prose? Are we to study all metaphors in a text? Are there conceptual metaphors in a literary text that specifĳically call for our attention? In this contribution, we propose two distinctive steps for the analysis of metaphor in literary texts, one heuristic and the other analytical. First, we search for a systematic way of selecting certain conceptual metaphors that might be worth the

40 johan de joode and hanneke van loon


while for literary critics. Based on Steen, we argue that exegetes can opt to focus on deliberately used metaphors.1 Consequently, our quest leads us to wonder how one can analyze these metaphors. Drawing on Pilkington’s notions of the strength and range of the mapping, we describe the choices a reader has to make when interpreting metaphors.2 Having discussed these theoretical issues, we introduce several general principles that advance the practical study of metaphor in exegesis. Finally, as exam-ple is better than precept, we demonstrate our principles in an analysis of the metaphors in Job 6:14–21.

Conceptual Metaphor Theory

Metaphor is a central theme in Cognitive Linguistics. In Metaphors We Live By, George Lakofff and Mark Johnson strongly react against the folk belief that metaphor is found mainly, primarily or most naturally in poetic language. Metaphor, they claim, is not merely a matter of language; it is a matter of thought:

[M]etaphor is typically viewed as characteristic of language alone, a matter of words rather than thought or action. For this reason, most people think they can get along perfectly well without metaphor. We have found, on the contrary, that metaphor is pervasive in everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature.3

In their iconic book, Lakofff and Johnson introduce the notion of “con-ceptual metaphor.” CMT (Conceptual Metaphor Theory) claims we understand one concept or experience in terms of another—often more concrete—concept or experience.4 Conceptual metaphor is thus a cogni-tive phenomenon. It involves two conceptual domains: the source domain is the concept that helps to understand a more abstract concept, called the target domain. Our knowledge about warfare, for instance, helps us to conceptualize argumentation and debate. The existence of linguistic

1 Gerard Steen, “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor—Now New and Improved,” RCL 9,1 (2011): 26–64.

2 Adrian Pilkington, Poetic Efffects: A Relevance Theory Perspective (Amsterdam/Philadel-phia: John Benjamins, 2000).

3 George Lakofff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chi-cago Press, 1980), 3.

4 “The essence of metaphor is understanding and experiencing one kind of thing in terms of another.” Ibid., 5.

selecting and analyzing metaphors in the hebrew bible 41


expressions like ‘he had to defend himself,’ ‘he attacked her on several points of her presentation,’ and ‘your claims are indefensible’ can be explained by the reality of the conceptual metaphor argument is war.5

Important to know is that we comprehend the target domain by select-ing some elements that are part of the source domain whilst ignoring others. Choosing which set of features can be applied to the target domain is called mapping. Mapping is both selective and unidirectional, viz. we choose to map some, but not all elements of the source domain and the mapping goes from source to target domain and not vice versa. For argu-ment is war, this can schematically be represented as follows.

SOURCE TARGET

Enemies → Discourse partnersWeapons → WordsStrongholds → PositionsFight → DebatePeace → AgreementWar industry ? Time investment?Spies ? Observers?Victory ? Winning the argument?

The above innovations in metaphor theory greatly afffect which linguis-tic expressions exegetes consider to be metaphorical. Lakofff and Johnson argue convincingly and with many examples that conceptual metaphor isubiquitous. It is attested in all language use, in all languages and across all genres.6 Nearly all everyday expressions use conceptual metaphor. As such, Lakofff and Johnson break down the hegemony of the literary when it comes to the use of metaphor. The latter is no longer restricted primar-ily to literary texts; it is pervasive.

Now, how do these fĳindings influence the analysis of metaphors in lit-erary texts? Can we methodically make use of CMT in literary analysis? Two issues force us to search for additional theoretical insights. First, we have a long-standing tradition that recognizes the special character

5 Cognitive linguists signal both concepts and conceptual metaphors with small capitals.

6 Cf. Gerard Steen, “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor,” 50. Steen’s observations confĳirm the ubiquity of metaphors, as he notes that by average 13,6 percent of natural language is metaphorical.



of metaphor in literary texts. As Elena Semino and Gerard Steen put it, “most scholars seem to agree that the metaphorical expressions typically found in literature are more creative, novel, original, striking, rich, inter-esting, complex, difffĳicult, and interpretable than those we are likely to come across in non-literary texts.”7 Second, we have to deal with a very practical point. Considering the distribution of conceptual metaphors, one might wonder whether the literary scholar that pays attention to all conceptual metaphors in a text does not end up with too much data to analyze. Are we to investigate all linguistic expressions of all conceptual metaphors found in a text? Are they all equally signifĳicant for the interpre-tation of that text? In what follows, we propose a theoretical framework that takes into account these issues as it allows exegetes to fĳirst select and subsequently analyze metaphors that are potentially relevant for literary analysis.8 The approach suggested below is but one of many possible modi operandi, yet it might be a particularly fruitful one for scholars interested in the literary.

Deliberately Used Metaphors

Before analyzing a text’s conceptual metaphors, we have to select them. For practical reasons—mainly the pervasiveness of metaphor—exegetes might want to narrow down their corpus of analysis. If they were to inves-tigate all conceptual metaphors in a biblical text, this would to lead to a very large data-set. In fact, the time spent studying these data, might not be in proportion to the intended outcome. The present authors argue that, for literary critics, some metaphors in a text might be more reward-

7 Elena Semino & Gerard Steen, “Metaphor in Literature,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. Raymond W. Gibbs (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 232–246 (233).

8 In biblical exegesis the fĳindings and hypotheses of Cognitive Linguistics have been used by several exegetes and interpreters have in various ways demonstrated the exegetical relevance of the recognition of the conceptual nature of metaphor in the Hebrew Bible and its cognate languages. To name just a few: Sarah J. Dille, Mixing Metaphors: God as Mother and Father in Deutero-Isaiah (JSOT.SS 398; London/New York: T&T Clark Interna-tional, 2004); Andrea L. Weiss, Figurative Language in Biblical Prose Narrative: Metaphor in the Book of Samuel (Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2006); Ellen van Wolde, Reframing Biblical Studies: When Language and Text Meet Culture, Cognition, and Context (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009); Job Y. Jindo, Biblical Metaphor Reconsidered: A Cognitive Approach to Poetic Prophecy in Jeremiah 1–24 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2010); Pierre Van Hecke, From Linguistics to Hermeneutics: A Functional and Cognitive Approach to Job 12–14 (SSN 55; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011).



ing to study than others. To establish a sub-corpus of metaphors, Steen’s recent proposal on the communicative dimension and metaphorical pro-cessing is of assistance.9

Steen introduces the diffference between deliberately and non-deliberately used metaphors.10 As he puts it,

[d]eliberate metaphor is an overt invitation on the part of the sender for the addressee to step outside the dominant target domain of the discourse and look at it from an alien source domain.11

Some of the conceptual metaphors in a text explicitly ‘ask for our atten-tion.’ Now, for exegetes who systematically want to study metaphors in a text, Steen’s pragmatic approach is methodologically interesting: it allows examining not all the metaphors in a text, but primarily the deliberately used ones. Whereas CMT convinced a great many scholars of the ubiq-uity of metaphor, few of these metaphors explicitly force the reader to “step outside of the target domain” in order to investigate “an alien source domain.” Indeed, in sharp contrast to the ubiquity of metaphor in gen-eral, deliberately used metaphors are characterized by their paucity. Steen explains the latter by referring to the efffort they ask of the reader:

We cannot keep changing our perspective all the time as we need to stay focused on one conceptual target domain at a time, the topic. Nor can we keep making comparisons or cross-domain mappings all the time, for they cost additional energy.12

Now, how can an author draw the reader’s attention to an alien source domain? There are essentially two ways of doing so: one can use novel metaphor or one can signal the source domain linguistically.13 Steen

9 The present authors do not envision to distinguish between dead or conventional metaphors (metaphors of which the metaphorical meaning is described in the dictionary), on the one hand, and creative metaphors, on the other hand; instead, we suggest with Steen that the linguistic expression of a metaphor in a specifĳic text determines whether the metaphor should be included in the sub-corpus.

10 The notion of deliberately used metaphor touches the theoretical question of meta-phorical processing. Some scholars argue that not all metaphorical expressions are neces-sarily processed as metaphors. In this line of thought, metaphors that are conventional and not linguistically marked, that is metaphors that are not deliberately used, are understood without the brain having to compare two conceptual domains, whereas novel metaphors and linguistically marked metaphors are metaphorically processed, cf. Brian F. Bowdle & Dedre Gentner, “The Career of Metaphor,” Psychol Rev 112 (2005): 193–216.

11 Steen, “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor,” 37.12 Ibid., 38.13 Ibid., 39.



mentions the following means to linguistically signal a deliberately used metaphor: the appearance of lexical markers (for instance, like), the exten-sion of a metaphor beyond one phrase or clause, and the use of extended comparisons and analogies.14 A more complete inventory of possible lin-guistic signals can be found in Goatly’s The Language of Metaphors.15 All of the above illustrates the importance of the communicative dimension of metaphor: an author can direct the reader’s attention to certain, spe-cifĳic metaphors. Steen’s suggestions enable the literary scholar to select precisely these metaphors.

The Range and Strength of Mappings

As argued above, deliberate use is a criterion to select metaphors that shift the reader’s attention to the source domain. While Steen’s fĳindings help us to select metaphors (heuristics), we shall now turn to the interpretation of metaphors (analytics). Exegetes need to know how one can systemati-cally interpret the diffferent meanings that deliberately used metaphors evoke. To explain the efffect of metaphors, we combine Steen’s fĳindings with those of Adrian Pilkington.

To explain the poetic efffect of metaphors, Pilkington suggests we inves-tigate metaphors in terms of ‘range’ and ‘strength.’ He wonders what dis-tinguishes “relatively conventional” from “relatively creative” metaphors and proposes that the two types “vary in terms of the range and strength” of their selective mappings.16 His central idea is useful for CMT: meta-phors can vary a) in the number of diffferent correspondences the reader can fĳind (the range of the mapping), and b) in how self-evident the selec-

14 “Some linguistic forms typically indicate deliberate metaphor use, including a lexical signal such as like, or the extension of a metaphor beyond one phrase or clause. Extended comparisons and analogies between parts of texts are also deliberate, requiring discourse-strategic as opposed to lexico-grammatical decisions on the part of their producer. Instances of word-play that rest on a contrast between a metaphorical and a non-metaphorical word sense, or other combinations between metaphor and diffferent tropes, such as hyperbole, irony, and so on, all seem to require relatively conscious rhetorical planning. Even entire genres (allegory, parable, poetry) may count as including expected instructions to take any or most metaphors in their texts as deliberate, constituting well-known exceptions that allow for high density and processing of deliberate metaphor.” Ibid., 41–42.

15 Andrew Goatly, The Language of Metaphors (London/New York: Routledge, 1997). For linguistic signals in Hebrew, cf. Daniel Bourguet, Des métaphores de Jérémie (Paris: Gabalda, 1987), 23–44. This is nicely summarized in English by Brian Doyle, The Apocalypse of Isaiah Metaphorically Speaking: A Study of Use, Function and Signifĳicance of Metaphors in Isaiah 24–27 (BEThL 151; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000), 77–91, 123–128, 139–144.

16 Pilkington, Poetic Efffects, 100. In Pilkington’s words, conventional and creative meta-phors “vary in terms of the range and strength of the assumptions that they make more salient.” We have adapted his terminology in order for it to be in line with CMT.



tion of the correspondences is (the strength of the mapping). Whereas most metaphors have a small range of very dominant mappings, some metaphors have a broad range of equivalent mappings.17 An example, though admittedly trivial, might illustrate that point. If we say that a text contains a lot of information, the reader has few choices to make and the exact choice is quite evident: the meaning of the verb to contain refers to physical containment and one can also use it in relation to more abstract entities as, for instance, texts.18 If, however, we say in her text meaning hides behind many corners, the reader has more choices to make and less obvious ones. What are the corners referring to? Why would there be many? Is meaning hidden by the author? Or does meaning hide itself? If so, why would it hide itself? Should the reader reveal what is hidden? In other words, the range of the mapping is broad, viz. the reader can explore many correspondences, and the precise correspondences that the reader ought to map are less evident than in the containment example.

Following Pilkington, the connection between the source and target domain determines the range and strength of the mapping; if this con-nection is a) not well-established or b) not easy to achieve, there will be numerous and more intricate mappings. If the connection is long-familiar or easy to achieve, however, there will be fewer and easier mappings. In that case, the reader’s work is harder, but his/her reward is higher. We propose to integrate Pilkington’s theoretical insights in the study of delib-erately used metaphors by systematically analyzing the range and strength of mappings.

17 Pilkington illustrates his theory with a comment on an example given by Sperber and Wilson: “The example of poetic metaphor used by Sperber and Wilson is the following remark made by Flaubert of the poet Leconte de Lisle (1995: 237): Son encre est pale. ‘His ink is pale.’ Here there are no strong assumptions to the truth of which Flaubert can be said to have committed himself. [. . .] One might derive implicatures such as: “Leconte de Lisle’s writing is weak, lacks contrast, may fade, is sickly, will not last; Leconte de Lisle does not put his whole heart into his work. There are an indefĳinite number of further implica-tures one could add to the list [. . .], and there is no cut-offf point that allows one to say that so many implicatures are communicated and no more. It is the range and the indetermi-nacy of the implicatures which gives the metaphor its poetic force. These factors explain why it is that metaphors, especially poetic metaphors, can never be adequately translated or paraphrased. They also explain why their interpretation may difffer across individuals and be subject to debate amongst literary critics” (ibid., 101). As such, Pilkington explains why some metaphors in literary texts are considered more literary and elevated than oth-ers. See also the quotation of Semino and Steen above.

18 This example is part of the conduit metaphor, cf. Michael J. Reddy, “The Conduit Metaphor: A Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language about Language,” in Metaphor and Thought: Second Edition, ed. Andrew Ortony (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 164–201.



An Example

We propound a step-by-step procedure that has explicitness as its central goal: we want to be as explicit as possible about the selection and the analysis of metaphors. Our fĳirst step is to fĳind markers that signal deliber-ately used metaphors; the second step is to be explicit about the precise points of comparison between the source and target domain. We apply this method to the metaphors that can be found in Job 6:14–21:

י יעזוב׃ שד ת וירא סד ח הו מרע ס למ 14רו׃ ים יעב נחל יק בגדו כמו־נחל כאפ חי א 15לג׃ ימו יתעלם־ש ל רח ע מני־ק ים הקדר 16

ם׃ ממקומ נדעכו חמו ב תו נצמ עת יזרבו ב 17דו׃ ויאב הו בת ם יעלו דרכ ארחות פתו יל 18מו׃ א קוו־ל ב ש ת הליכ א תמ ארחות ביטו ה 19

רו׃ ויחפ יה ד או ע ב ח י־בט שו כ 20 באו׃ ותיר ת ת ח ראו ת א ל הייתם תה י־ע כ 21

14 A friend owes loyalty to one who fails, or he forsakes the fear of the Almighty;15 My comrades are fĳickle, like a wadi, Like a bed on which streams once ran.16 They are dark with ice; Snow obscures them;17 But when they thaw, they vanish; In the heat, they disappear where they are.18 Their course twists and turns; They run into the desert and perish.19 Caravans from Tema look to them; Processions from Sheba count on them.20 They are disappointed in their hopes; When they reach the place, they stand aghast.21 So you are as nothing: At the sight of misfortune, you take fright.19

In chapter 6, Job reacts on Eliphaz’s fĳirst intervention in chapters 4 and 5. Job 6:14–21 is structured as follows: verse 14 introduces the theme of the passage; verses 15 to 17 and 18 to 20 are a comparison, and verse 21 explains what the comparison intends to assert.20 The general picture is quite clear: Job expects חסד “kindness” from his friends, but they are

19 This translation is taken from JPS (1985), except for the words in italics.20 Cf. David Clines, Job 1–20 (WBC 17; Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989), 176: “The structure

of this section of the speech is in some respects plain: vv 14–21 are one unit, revolving about the image of the seasonal wadi, not directly addressed to the friends, beginning and



as unreliable as a נחל. The rivers that Job refers to are temporary rivers that are only fĳilled with water in winter or after heavy rain fall.21 With an extended, elaborated metaphor, Job describes in what sense the behavior of the river can be juxtaposed to the conduct of his friends. The point of comparison is given in verse 21: the friends get frightened at the sight of disaster. This verse hints at verse 14: by taking fright (ירא) at the sight of disaster (6:21), they neglect to show kindness and thus forsake the fear of the Almighty (6:14).22 (יראה)

In verse 15, the text’s metaphor is signaled by the lexical markers like.” In the succeeding verses, two more linguistic“ ,כ like,” and“ ,כמוmeans classify the metaphor as deliberately used. Firstly, the metaphor is extended up to verse 18 with repeated references to the נחלים, “rivers.” This noun functions as the subject of the participle הקדרים, “the ones that are dark” (verse 16) and the fĳinite verbs יזרבו, “dry up;” נצמתו, “disappear;” and נדעכו, “be extinguished” (verse 17). It is referred to by means of the sufffĳix third masculine plural on עלימו, “in them” (verse 16); ממקומם, “from their place” (verse 17); and דרכם, “their ways” (verse 18). Secondly, the metaphor is amplifĳied by the introduction of the new topics ארחות תמא, “caravans from Tema,” and הליכת שבא, “travelers from Sheba” in verse 19. As the new topic is also the subject of the verbs in verse 20, this verse too is part of the description of the source domain.

Before we can make the correspondences between the target and the source domain as explicit as possible, we must know where the text refers to the target domain and where it describes the source domain. The tar-get domain is referred to in verses 14, 15, and 21: the focus is on Job and his ‘brothers;’ the topic of discussion is the kindness of Job’s brothers (verse 14) and how they take fright when they see calamity (verse 21).

ending with distinctive couplets (vv 14, 21) and containing as a center two clearly defĳined triplets (vv 15–17, 18–20).”

21 See Allen P. Ross, “נהר,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theol-ogy and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids, MN: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997), 46–51 (47): “The word נחל applies most readily to a temporary river that flows with great force in the winter or rainy season but leaves only dry channels or deep ravines in the summer. Thus, the word can refer to either a fast flowing stream or torrent, or to the dry river bed.”

22 Cf. John E. Hartley, The Book of Job (Grand Rapids, MN: Eerdmans, 1988); Clines, Job. 1–20. For interpretations that understand Job as the one who forsakes the fear of the Almighty, see Samuel Rolles Driver & George Buchanan Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job Together with a New Translation (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1921); Marvin H. Pope, Job: Introduction, Translation and Notes (AB 15; Garden City, NY: Doubleday [1965] 19863); Norman C. Habel, The Book of Job. A Commentary (OTL; Phila-delphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1985).



The source domain is described in verses 15–20: the participants are riv-ers and caravans, and the topic of discussion is the behavior of the river. Now, what correspondences can be found between, on the one hand, the story of the rivers and the caravans, and on the other hand, the unreliable brothers that do not show kindness, but take fright? If the information given about the target domain is compared with the information that is given about the source domain, it can be established that a) the rivers correspond to the friends, b) the lack of water corresponds to the lack of kindness, and c) the hot circumstances correspond to the sight of calam-ity. Just as temporary rivers lack water when it gets hot, the friends lack kindness in the face of trouble.23 In 6:19–20, the caravans correspond to Job. They are disappointed in the rivers they counted on. Although the target domain does not mention how Job feels about the behavior of his brothers, the comparison establishes a mapping between the feelings of the caravans and the feelings of Job. Since the source domain is more elaborate than the target domain, the comparison adds new information to the target domain.

In fact, the deliberately used metaphor invites the reader to evaluate for every statement in the source domain whether it has a counterpart in the target domain.24 For example, if the rivers correspond to the brothers and the paths of the rivers are said to twist and end up in waste, what does this say about the brothers? The friends do not literally twist their ways. The reader can construct a mapping in order to explain the metaphor. Here, it seems the friends have steered away from the right path and now continue in a direction that leads nowhere.25 Does Job here accuse the

23 Commentaries generally agree that the rivers’ lack of water corresponds to the friends’ lack of kindness; what the heat refers to is often explained more implicitly. Some commentaries interpret the time of heat as the time of need, cf. Driver & Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job, 65: “Job’s friends now fail (disappoint) him in the hour of need, like such dried-up wādys;” Pope, Job, 54: “Job’s friends are like the wadis which overflow in the spring thaw, turbid with ice, snow, and silt sediment, but when the need is greatest, in the heat of summer, they fail”; Clines, Job 1–20, 178: “The wadis overflow when their water is not needed; when it is needed they have nothing to offfer. So it is with Job’s friends and their loyalty.” As the heat causes the water to disap-pear, we argue that it better fĳits the context that the heat refers to the sight of trouble. So also Hartley, The Book of Job, 138: “This analogy claims that the friends overflow with loyal kindness during the good times, but when the heat of trials comes, they dry up; they turn out to be undependable.”

24 It could be argued that not every description in the source domain needs to have an exact correspondence in the target domain. Deliberately used metaphors, however, do trigger the reader to fĳind as many correspondences as possible.

25 Cf. Habel, The Book of Job, 149: “Job cannot discern his own course (derek, 3:23) but [his friends’] twisting trek into the wasteland is obvious (verse 18). They dwindle away



brothers of a bad attitude, of a logic so incorrect that it will lead to immo-rality? One could also suggest that turning away corresponds to the move-ment of forsaking, or literally, leaving of the fear of the Almighty (verse 14). This correspondence would extend the comparison as follows: like the temporary rivers lack water when it gets hot, the friends lack kindness at the sight of disaster; like the lack of water results in wadis that turn to go up into waste, the lack of kindness results in the friends leaving the fear of the Almighty. Whereas the caravans are disappointed about the disappearance of the river, Job is dismayed about his friends not having succeeded in keeping the fear of the Lord.

Another example of can be found in verse 16 where darkness, ice, and snow can be taken literally. When snow, however, is said to hide itself, that is yet again a metaphorical expression. The reader has to interpret this metaphor twice: in relation to the source domain (what is the mean-ing of snow that hides itself?) and in relation to the target domain (how does hidden snow fĳit into Job’s refutation of the friends?). Likewise, in the source domain the image of a river fĳilled with ice and snow has positive associations (it promises an abundance of water). If the characterization of the water, however, corresponds to the characterization of the friends’ kindness, the terms ‘dark’ and ‘concealing’ evoke negative connotations.

By searching for correspondences between the source and target domain, the main argument of the comparison in verses 15–20 can be established: Job accuses his friends to be unreliable because they withhold their kindness at times of trouble, and he warns them that this will result in that they forsake the fear of the Almighty. While the main line is clear, many elements in the metaphor remain hard to grasp.

The above example is not exhaustive, but it does illustrate our point.26 When exegetes deal with deliberately used metaphors in literary texts,

and ‘perish’ (ʾbd) like the wicked whom Eliphaz had introduced (4:9).” Commentators that choose to read ארחות “caravans,” and not ארחות “paths,” contend that in 6:18 the caravans twist from their ways in search for water, but perish because of thirst, cf. Driver and Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Job, 64; Hartley, The Book of Job, 138; Clines, Job. 1–20, 179. In this reading, the lack of kindness results in Job leaving his way to end up without orientation. We think that this verse refers to the behavior of the paths of the rivers, that is, the behavior of the friends (and not that of Job): there is nothing to sug-gest that Job’s disorientation is caused by a lack of kindness on the part of his friends.

26 In the above, we have used the theorems of CMT to describe and analyze possible mappings. We have not dealt with the subsidiary conceptual metaphors that underlie the mapping as such. Here are a few examples (though it would lead us too far to describe them in detail): emotional state is solidity (cf. מס, “the weak/melting one”), affection is warmth (cf. קרח and שלג, “ice” and “snow”), trouble is heat (cf. בחמו, “in the heat”), being righteous is being straight (cf. לפת, “to twist”).



their research should make explicit what similarities between the source and target domains can be found. It is tempting to map elements from the source domain implicitly (for that matter, in everyday life we do so continuously), yet the more explicit a mapping is made, the more criti-cal fellow scholars can evaluate it. As exegetes, we should be aware of the decisions we (have to) take when selecting and analyzing deliberately used metaphors.

Deliberately Used Metaphor and Hermeneutics

Paying attention to the deliberate use of metaphors has several method-ological benefĳits, a few of which we want to highlight. First, the notion of ‘deliberately used metaphor’ joins at the hips the issues of authorial intent, on the one hand, and reader response, on the other. By using meta-phors deliberately, the author can force the reader to reflect on them, try and process them. Thus, he triggers reflection on the part of the reader (cf. note 10). Which elements should he/she map? What is the author aim-ing at? The reader thus constructs a mapping based on a wide range of equivalent correspondences and this process is intentionally incited by the author.

Furthermore, deliberately used metaphors constitute a natural sub-corpus. Ideally, exegetes study all the conceptual metaphors in a text, yet in view of time restrictions this is not always possible. When one is forced to make a selection of the metaphors to be studied, deliberateness allows the exegete to narrow down his/her sub-corpus based on criteria that are metaphor-related (and not criteria related to historical, thematic or literary features). Though these metaphors are not the only metaphors we can and should study, they might be the most obvious ones to start with. Finally, the author’s invitation to the reader to investigate the source domain is also likely to enhance his/her attention for the literary features of his text. As such, the notion of deliberateness easily connects literary and conceptual studies.

Nonetheless, before we conclude, a few disadvantages of our pro-posal should be mentioned. The main objection one could raise against the construction of a sub-corpus based on deliberateness, is that non-deliberately used metaphors might reveal as much—if not more—about the message the author wants to get across, and the mental world he attempts to sketch. For example, Job regularly refers to the bitterness of his soul (נפש cf. 3:20; 7:11; 10:1). This metaphor is never as such used ;מר



deliberately in the book (the reader’s attention is not shifted to the source domain), but it is an important characteristic of the author’s depiction of Job. Though one single linguistic expression does not force the reader to step out of the target domain, a set of linguistic expressions spread over a text, might incite him/her to do so. Indeed, what he deliberately communicates is what he controls, but it might also interest us what he communicates with less control. One could likewise object that the author has—before writing—constructed a mental image of the pro-tagonist, its narrative world and its relationship with other characters. Exegetes can thus also choose to study all conceptual metaphors (pref-erably the non-deliberately used ones) in an attempt to reconstruct the author’s implicit conceptualizations.

Furthermore, one could raise a theoretical objection: the degree of deliberateness is evaluated by the efffect the text has on the reader (when does his/her attention shift to the source domain?). There is hardly any other way of evaluating the deliberateness of the author’s use of meta-phors. Depending on the present-day reader, however, might be shaky ground. The author can use strategies other than interpretative conflict in order to purposefully communicate his message using metaphor and the reader might not spot these metaphors (the author can, for instance, combine metaphors across a text or use them at strategic places in his text). In what sense is that set of images not deliberately used and are we thus prone to fĳind it in many details and characterizations throughout the story?

These objections illustrate that deliberately used metaphor is not the only phenomenon worthy of study. In light of the present volume’s insis-tence on the literary, however, we do think that the study of deliberately used metaphor is accessible to literary scholars. Though all conceptual metaphors are worthy of our attention, the deliberately used ones might be the fĳirst ones to deserve it. If one thus has to make a choice about the metaphors one should study, the deliberately used ones provide a natural sub-group that can be explicitly analyzed with attention for the range and strength of mappings.

Conclusion

Literary studies have often considered metaphor to be a matter of style, yet Cognitive Linguistics has proven the ubiquity of conceptual meta-phor. Though conceptual metaphor can explain metaphorical linguistic



expressions in isolation, it is not by defĳinition equipped to deal with con-ceptual metaphor in literary texts. In this contribution, we have therefore evaluated whether all metaphors in a literary text are equally signaled. We have done so fĳirst from a theoretical point of view. Are there concep-tual metaphors in poetry that ask for more attention in literary analysis than others? With Steen, we have argued for the efffĳicacy of the notion of deliberate use. The deliberate use of a metaphor shifts the attention from the target to the source domain. It is signaled and it requires the reader to make an active choice about how to understand the metaphor and its literary function. Pilkington’s notion of the range and the strength of the mapping explain what the reader is confronted with: few, and dominant elements are part of the mapping of a non-deliberately used metaphor and many, equivalent mappings are inherent to deliberately used metaphor.

We have also put these theories to practice by formulating some prac-tical guidelines for metaphor analysis and by testing them. Quintessen-tially, we advocate for explicitness about the source and target domain and in particular about the chosen mapping. We have applied this motto to Job 6:14–21 where clearly (a) a metaphor was used deliberately and (b) the range and strength of its mapping proved to be respectively great and equivalent. A systematic analysis of deliberate metaphor thus provides more insight into the choices a text forces upon the exegete. In terms of hermeneutics, these two fĳindings are signifĳicant as they join at the hips the ways in which meaning comes to the fore: the author uses specifĳic conceptual metaphors deliberately; the reader processes these intensively. Hence, we hope that the present proposal fĳills a gap in cognitive linguistic and literary studies of poetic metaphor in the Hebrew Bible.

Selecting and Analyzing Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible: Cognitive Linguistics and the Literary

Documents

Transcript of Selecting and Analyzing Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible: Cognitive Linguistics and the Literary