Cover not available

In:Drawing Attention to Metaphor: Case studies across time periods, cultures and modalities
Edited by Camilla Di Biase-Dyson and Markus Egg
[Figurative Thought and Language 5] 2020
► pp. 229–262

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

To those walking in the footsteps of the faith

Deliberate metaphor in the Pauline epistles

 | Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
Published online: 8 April 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.5.10dib
This paper investigates deliberate metaphors in the Pauline epistles in the framework of Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT), which targets metaphors that require conscious processing (Steen, 2009), but also with reference to other threads of metaphor research that pay attention to phenomena of deliberateness. Focus is on metaphors that exhibit deliberateness through their content. For these metaphors, deliberateness emerges through alienation, which highlights the differences between the two domains that are brought together in the metaphor. Three techniques of alienation are identified, using an ill-fitting literal (or source) domain for the metaphor, using contradicting source domains for the same metaphor, and using an internally flawed source domain. Many of these metaphors are motivated in that they convey a clear message that emerges through the alienation.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Pauline epistles as a corpus
  • 3.Deliberate metaphor and DMT
  • 4.Deliberate metaphor in CMT
    • 4.1The Invariance Principle
    • 4.2Poetic metaphor in CMT
    • 4.3Blending Theory
  • 5.Creating deliberate metaphor
    • 5.1Deliberate metaphor and alienation
    • 5.2Techniques of DM by alienation in Paul’s metaphors
      • 5.2.1Ill-fitting source domain
      • 5.2.2Contradicting source domains for the same target domain
      • 5.2.3Internally flawed source domain
    • 5.3Deliberate metaphor and conceit
    • 5.4Deliberate metaphor and the influence of register
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Key to glosses
  • Notes
  • References
References (45)
References
Baxter, A. & Ziesler, J. (1985). Paul and arboriculture: Romans 11.17–24. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 24, 25–32. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beger, A. (2011). Deliberate metaphors? An exploration of the choice and functions of metaphors in US-American college lectures. metaphorik.de, 20, 39–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Metaphors in psychology genres. Counseling vs. academic lectures. In B. Herrmann & T. Berber Sardinha (Eds.), Metaphor in specialist discourse (pp. 53–75). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron, L. (2003). Metaphor in educational discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cognitive Linguistics Group. (1991). Master metaphor list. Berkeley, 2nd draft, available from [URL].)
Collins, R. (2008). The power of images in Paul. Collegeville: Liturgical Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deignan, A., Littlemore, J. & Semino, E. (2013). Figurative language, genre and register. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunn, J. (1998). The theology of Paul the apostle. London: T&T Clark.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egg, M. (2016). Spatial metaphor in the Pauline epistles. In F. Horn & C. Breytenbach (Eds.), Spatial metaphors. Texts and transformations (pp. 77–99). Berlin: Edition Topoi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental spaces. Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. & Turner, M. (2002). The way we think. Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Rethinking metaphor. In R. Gibbs (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought (pp. 53–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finlan, S. (2003). The background and content of Paul’s cultic atonement metaphors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Durham.
Gibbs, R. (2015a). Does deliberate metaphor theory have a future? Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 73–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015b). Do pragmatic signals affect conventional metaphor understanding? A failed test of deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 77–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gwyn, R. (1999). “Captain of my own ship”: Metaphor and the discourse of chronic illness. In L. Cameron & G. Low (Eds.), Researching and applying metaphor (pp. 203–220). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harnisch, W. (1990). Die Gleichniserzählungen Jesu: eine hermeneutische Einführung (2nd ed.). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Havemann, J. (1997). Cultivated olive – wild olive: The olive tree metaphor in Romans 11:16–24. Neotestamentica, 31, 87–106.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Hecke, P. (2005). Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. Löwen: Peeters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herrmann, B. (2013). Metaphor in academic discourse: Linguistic forms, conceptual structures, communicative functions and cognitive representations (Dissertation Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam). Utrecht: LOT.
(2015). High on metaphor, low on simile. An examination of metaphor type in sub-registers of academic prose. In B. Herrmann & T. Berber Sardinha (Eds.), Metaphor in specialist discourse (pp. 163–190). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Herrmann, B. & Berber Sardinha, T. (Eds.). (2015). Metaphor in specialist discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knowles, M. (1989). “The rock, his work is perfect”: Unusual imagery for God in Deuteronomy XXXII. Vetus Testamentum, 39, 307–322.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kobel, E. (2019). Paulus als interkultureller Vermittler. Eine Studie zur kulturellen Positionierung des Apostels der Völker. Paderborn: Schöningh. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krennmayr, T. (2011). Metaphor in newspapers (Dissertation Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam). Utrecht: LOT.
Krennmayr, T., Bowdle, B., Mulder, G. & Steen, G. (2014). Economic competition is like auto racing. Metaphor & The Social World, 4, 65–89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202–251). New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1996). Moral politics: What conservatives know that liberals don’t. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Turner, M. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lyall, F. (1981). Legal metaphors in the epistles. Tyndale Bulletin, 32, 79–95.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richards, I. A. (1936). The philosophy of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ricœur, P. (1975). Biblical hermeneutics. Semeia, 4, 29–148.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1978). The metaphorical process as cognition, imagination, and feeling. Critical Inquiry, 5, 143–159. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schklowski, V. (1971). Kunst als Verfahren. In J. Striedter (Ed.), Russischer Formalismus. Texte zur allgemeinen Literaturtheorie und zur Theorie der Prosa (pp. 3–35). München: Fink.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Skorczynska, H. & Deignan, A. (2006). Readership and purpose in the choice of economics metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 21, 87–104. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G. (2008). The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a threedimensional model of metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 23, 213–241. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Deliberate metaphor affords conscious metaphorical cognition. Cognitive Semiotics, 5, 179–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). Developing, testing and interpreting deliberate metaphor theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 90, 67–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, G., Dorst, A., Herrmann, B., Kaal, A. & Krennmayr, T. (2010). Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 765–796. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tendahl, M. & Gibbs, R. (2008). Complementary perspectives on metaphor: Cognitive linguistics and relevance theory. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 1823–1864. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, D. (1999). Paul’s metaphors. Their content and character. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue