The current volume is dedicated to professor emeritus Göran Eidevall at the faculty of theology, Uppsala University. Throughout his academic career, he has consistently explored the significance of metaphors in the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible. Focusing on Hosea, Amos, and Isaiah in particular, he has also made excursions to the Psalms, as well as to reception history. Therefore, settling on a theme for this volume was rather obvious. It had to include metaphors as well as prophets. By opening up for the afterlife of metaphors, we made it possible for Qumran and New Testament scholars to contribute, and found a way to recognize Eidevall’s budding interest in reception history. In the following, we will present the main contours of the range of Eidevall’s research, focusing primarily on his monographs.
Metaphor studies is a vital and constantly growing field in a wide range of academic disciplines. Even surveying the surveys is a challenge.1 Already in 1981, Mark Johnson designated the situation as “metaphormania.”2 The same Johnson identifies metaphor theory as a monolithic conception that has dominated philosophy and literary theory since Aristotle.3 Although one can contest such claims, the impact of metaphorology in the humanities is undeniable. Yet, it is only in the past four decades that biblical studies have seen a burst of interest in metaphor.4
Mason D. Lancaster offers one of the most recent and ambitious surveys on metaphor studies and biblical studies.5 He categorizes Hebrew Bible research on metaphor in three main groups. A first group tailors theoretical models or methods to work specifically for the biblical material.6 Secondly, studies cover metaphors in particular books, above all the poetic books (Psalms, Job) and some of the prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Hosea).7 A third group concentrates on specific domains, either target domains—like divinity or sin—or source domains—like plants or animals.8 Looking back at Eidevall’s production as a whole, it is striking that he breaches upon all of these groups, starting with his thesis on metaphors in Hosea. Furthermore, Eidevall also ventures into areas that Lancaster deems important for future research, such as metaphor and politics, or multimodal metaphors (involving ritual).9
1. Grapes in the Desert
In his first major work on metaphors, his thesis Grapes in the Desert: Metaphors, Models and Themes in Hosea (1996), Eidevall sets up no less than five aims for the study.10 He intends to 1) showcase the usefulness of metaphor theory for biblical studies, 2) propose a new exegetical method, metaphorical criticism, 3) demonstrate that Hosea 4–14 constitutes a coherent literary composition, 4) advance the understanding of metaphors in Hosea 4–14, and 5) shed new light on the ideological aspects of the text.11 Although early studies on metaphor in Scandinavia appeared already in the 1980s,12 Eidevall certainly contributed to consolidating the field and to making it accessible for a wider audience of biblical scholars. For this, Martti Nissinen commends him in his review in Biblica.13 He is also one of the first biblical scholars to engage metaphor theorist Eva Feder Kittay.14
Interaction theory constitutes the theoretical foundation for the thesis and Eidevall perceives this as the new “mainstream” in metaphor research.15 He credits Ivor Richards for initiating modern metaphor theory and Max Black for elaborating Richards’ critique of the previously dominating “substitution” and “comparison” view of metaphor.16 Crucial components of this critique was, for example, that metaphor permeates all human thought and language rather than simply functioning as stylistic embellishment, and that metaphor relies just as much on difference as on similarity. Eidevall does consider the theoretical contributions by Paul Ricœur, as well as George Lakoff and Mark Johnson,17 but chooses the road less travelled by in settling for Kittay’s perspectival theory, a development of Richards and Black.18 Kittay uses the term “perspective” to speak of the interaction between systems (not only words) that occurs in metaphor, in short, the process through which the “vehicle field” restructures the “topic domain” (Richard’s “tenor”).19 Kittay also provides Eidevall with tools for the identification of metaphor, as distinct from literal language, for example by stressing the significance of context (relating metaphor to both semantics and pragmatics) and the recognition of incongruity as essential for metaphor.20
As the subtitle indicates, Eidevall is also concerned with models and themes. Drawing mainly from Black and Janet M. Soskice,21 Eidevall understands models as systematic metaphors, grounded in extra-linguistic phenomena.22 He identifies the most central models with the label “root metaphor,” which generates networks of connected metaphors. These basic models, in turn, can harbour worldviews or theologies, creating coherence in a corpus of texts, like for example the “monarchical model” in the Hebrew Bible.23 Finally, Eidevall’s uses the concept of theme for a recurrent text-internal element that serves as a structuring device, like “knowing” or “returning.”24 By using this concept, he intends to facilitate the move between the level of the utterance and that of discourse.
The bulk of the book consists in a close reading of Hosea 4–14, mapping all (!) the individual metaphors, the underlying models and the structuring themes. Drorah Setel’s identification of “pornographic” elements in Hosea 2 had stirred quite a bit of attention at the time, in particular from feminist biblical scholars.25 Eidevall goes somewhat against the grain by focusing on the latter part of the book and by insisting that the so-called “marriage metaphor” of Hosea 1–3 should not be used as a key to the following.26 In a synthesizing final chapter, Eidevall discusses tendencies for the text as a whole, that is, the development of models and themes. He concludes that vehicle fields are drawn from a wide range of domains, such as agriculture and family life.27 Personification and victimization are the main characteristics of the metaphorical portrayal of the people.28 The judicial, the covenantal and the monarchical models of God dominate.29 Eidevall furthermore detects a movement from hierarchy to reciprocity in the interaction between the God and people of Israel and points to a frequent rhetoric of reversal as specific to Hosea.30 Finally, Eidevall concludes that fertility/sterility, sacrifice, and disappearance/discovery function as structuring codes that hold together the rich, but chaotic metaphorical landscape of Hosea 4–14.31
2. Prophetic Propaganda and Rhetoric
In Prophecy and Propaganda: Images of Enemies in the Book of Isaiah (2009), Eidevall investigates the phenomenon of Feindbild in Isaiah.32 The aim is to contribute to the understanding of enemy images in the Hebrew Bible in general and the prophetic literature in particular, and to clarify the function of this phenomenon in the ideology of the final redactors.33 So far, research on enemy images had concentrated on the Psalms, primarily individual psalms of lament, attempting to identify the psalmist’s adversaries.34 Eidevall explores new material and seeks to shift focus from the person (“who”) to the image and its function (“how”).35 In this historical enterprise, furthermore, Eidevall intends to push beyond noting parallels between the book of Isaiah and ANE material, to a more far-reaching comparison of ideological perspectives, including contrast as well as continuity.36 Eidevall motivates the choice of Isaiah as primary material with the fact that it offers such a treasure of enemy images, and that the book’s formation spans over (at least) four centuries.37
In defining the category of “enemy,” Eidevall draws from psychology as well as sociology.38 A first point of departure is that the phenomenon is ancient even if the concept is modern: the history of the human race is that of an enemy-making animal, Homo hostilis.39 Secondly, the “enemy” can be understood as a subcategory of the “other,” for which negative stereotypes and the notion of a perceived threat constitute fundamental components.40 In Eidevall’s terms, “enemies” are what “we” are not.41 Furthermore, enemy images come to expression through metaphor and serve as a means of propaganda.42 Two central aspects of such usage are “distortion” and “dehumanization” (or demonization) of the enemy.
In the main part of the book, Eidevall analyses more than 30 passages in Isaiah, where he identifies enemy images. He structures the material in three groups: 1) images of empires; 2) images of neighbouring nations; and 3) anonymous enemies. Two aspects are in focus for the analysis: characterization and contextualization of enemy images.43 The former has to do with the form and function of the image, and this is where metaphor comes into play. Drawing from rhetorical criticism, ideological criticism, and metaphor theory, Eidevall explores for example how caricature and irony function to belittle and vilify the enemy. The latter aspect, contextualization, involves considering several possible historical settings, since the dating of most passages is difficult to ascertain.
By way of conclusion, Eidevall first addresses common denominators for Israel’s enemies (as enemies or instruments of YHWH), and how YHWH too can serve as an enemy (of the people or the enemy’s enemy).44 He then proceeds to reconstruct the main phases of the complex formation of the book of Isaiah and considers the function of enemy images in the Zion-centred theology of the final redactors.45 Lastly, he returns to the issue of how enemy image and self-image relate to one another by tentatively positing the allegedly humble tremblers as a post-exilic group invested in the religious/political program of Ezra and Nehemiah.46 H. G. M. Williamson credits Eidevall for his “fresh approach to familiar material,” opening up research for new questions,47 and Anne Moore recognizes a socio-rhetorical extension of metaphor studies in Eidevall’s research design, in that he considers the emotive as well as cognitive nature of metaphor, and—one could add—in understanding metaphor in terms of literature and ideology, as well as history.48
In Sacrificial Rhetoric in the Prophetic Literature of the Hebrew Bible (2012), Eidevall explores the attitudes toward sacrifice that appear in the prophetic literature of the Hebrew Bible. The issue is a thoroughly contested one in biblical studies, for long the debate focused on the so-called cult-critical passages.49 Eidevall widens the scope of the investigation by also including prophetic texts that envision a life without sacrifice and texts that promote sacrifice. The hypothesis that he seeks to prove is that “all utterances on sacrifices in the prophetic literature share a basically positive view of the sacrificial cult as a legitimate means of worship.”50
In terms of methodology, Eidevall mainly mobilizes rhetorical criticism, developed in Prophecy and Propaganda, to pinpoint the persuasive function of these utterances.51 This time, however, he delimits the investigation to non-metaphorical texts about sacrifice, if opting to return to texts dealing with sacrifice through metaphor at a later stage.52 Furthermore, redaction criticism plays a central role to contextualize the function of the utterances for the redactors rather than the often out-of-reach historical situation of the prophets.
Eidevall begins by presenting his points of departure in central areas for the investigation. First, he assesses the explanations of the cult critical texts in previous research, such as “total rejection” or “limited criticism,” leaning most closely to the “total but situational rejection” theory.53 Secondly, he considers various theories on the role of sacrifice, stressing the aspect of reciprocity, through gift giving and communion.54 Furthermore, he briefly addresses the role of the prophet, as dissident or defender of the status quo, in relation to the emergent genre of the prophetic book.55 Finally, he outlines his usage of rhetorical criticism, working through the following steps: rhetorical unit, rhetorical situation, rhetorical genre, and rhetorical strategy.56
The bulk of the study consists of close readings of prophetic texts, mainly from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Amos, but also from Ezekiel, Micah, Malachi, Joel, Zephaniah, and Nahum. In short, Eidevall concludes that the analyses confirm his hypothesis, if with some qualifications.57 He identifies the distinction between past and present or future sacrifices as crucial. According to Eidevall, the most severe critique of the cult refers to the monarchic era (if composed later), before the fall of Israel in 722 or Judah in 586.58 One can understand this rhetoric as a call to cultic reform rather than as a complete rejection of sacrifice.59 Its main function is to serve as a threat or as retrospective explanation, and it is part of a general critique of political regimes. One group of post-exilic texts, on the other hand, clearly endorses sacrificial worship. Furthermore, Eidevall identifies a more general critique of the cult, in texts connected to the wisdom tradition.60 If the main purpose of sacrifice is to foster a reciprocal relationship, the rejection of sacrifice by the divine party will always remain a possibility. Eidevall perceives ideological coherence in the prophetic texts with regard to sacrifice, which seem able to harbour the tension between cult-affirming and cult-relativizing texts. Making an analogy to the emergence of the Jewish Diaspora, with its tension between Jerusalem-centred and non-centrist views, Eidevall suggests that the prophetic literature constitutes a resource for the Judaism that emerged after the fall of the second temple, when the sacrificial cult had ceased.61
3. An Amos Commentary
Eidevall’s systematic investigations of various literary and historical aspects of prophetic literature prepared him well for his next major enterprise; Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (2017) in the Anchor Yale Bible series.62 In this context, we will limit ourselves to pointing out a few distinguishing features (by no means attempting to do justice to Eidevall’s achievement). One central point of departure for this commentary is to focus on the book of Amos rather the prophet. Eidevall thereby takes issue with the much-repeated traditional story of Amos as a simple man from the countryside who becomes a rhetorically skilled prophet of doom and a champion of justice.63 Eidevall considers such popular images of Amos as based on fiction rather than facts and he suggests that one should understand them as personifications of key aspects of the book’s message(s).64 For Eidevall, the prophet as a historical person is simply inaccessible. He therefore refrains from reconstructing biographical details of the prophet and argues that it is time to call off the quest for the historical Amos.65
The aim of the commentary is instead to offer a “comprehensive literary and historical analysis of the book of Amos.”66 To that end, Eidevall engages synchronic as well as diachronic exegetical methods. He perceives the book of Amos as an “artistically structured literary composition” while at the same time paying attention to the process of redaction that eventually resulted in this complex literary work.67 In line with his previous works, Eidevall seeks, in the textual analysis, to clarify the rhetorical function of every passage and to investigate the theological and ideological dimensions of the book. Another ambition is to build on the rich tradition of Amos research and to present a commentary that mirrors the current state of the field.68 Furthermore, Eidevall emphasizes that the overarching goal of the commentary is to elucidate the text rather than to, for example, argue for specific hypotheses for the history of composition.
With regard to the literary composition of the book, Eidevall accepts the near-consensus view of a tripartite division of the book (chapters 1–2, 3–6, and 7–9), with Amos 5:1–17 as the centrepiece of a concentric structure, and the doxology of 5:8–9 at its peak.69 Developing Terry Collins’ “thematic threads” further, Eidevall identifies nine themes, with shared motifs and vocabulary, that contribute to the book’s coherence: 1) earthquake/no escape; 2) shepherding; 3) mountains; 4) the roaring lion and other dangerous animals; 5) drought/thirst; 6) mourning/lament; 7) fortresses/palaces; 8) destruction by fire; and 9) deportation/exile.70 Furthermore, Eidevall reads Amos as a “drama of sorts,” if with no distinct plot and with YHWH as the sole agent with power.71 In the first act (1–2), YHWH acts as judge first over the nations in the Syro-Canaanite region, then shifting to more domestic affairs concerning Judah and Israel,. The second act (3–4) deals mainly with particular acts and their consequences in the Northern Kingdom. The final act (7–9) is set mostly outside the big cities and concerns the fate of the people, which here may include the Southern kingdom. This is where the human character of Amos appears and confronts the priest of Bethel, Amaziah. To Eidevall, the conflict between these literary figures stages the hostility between the prophets and the religio-political authorities.
When it comes to the history of composition and redaction, Eidevall argues against attempting to pinpoint a single historical context as decisive.72 Instead, he proposes that scholars consider how a range of historical events from the eighth to the fourth centuries have impacted on the formation of the book of Amos. In a tentative reconstruction, he identifies three stages in process of gradual growth, the fall of Samaria, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Persian era.73
As part of the introduction to the commentary, and still a novelty in the series, Eidevall includes a concise section on ancient and modern receptions of Amos.74 The first extra-canonical reference to Amos appears in the apocryphal Tobit (2:6, quoting Am 8:10), connecting the prophet to calamity and misery. The Qumran community took a particular interest in obscure passages in Amos that opened for eschatological interpretation, for example in the Damascus Document and the 4QFlorilegium.75 Luke is the only New Testament author who quotes Amos, in the speeches of Stephen (Acts 7:42–43, quoting Am 5:25–27, LXX) and James (Acts 15:16–17, quoting Am 9:11–12, LXX). Amos features rarely in rabbinic or patristic literature, with Augustine’s City of God as a major exception.76 Reformers like Martin Luther and Jean Calvin identified in Amos a champion of their own doctrines, righteousness through faith and predestination.77 Early historical-critical scholars (Wellhausen) famously connected Amos with “ethical monotheism,” whereas Martin Luther King Jr. and subsequent liberation theologians mobilized Amos as a spokesperson for the poor.78 Although Eidevall expresses sympathy with such readings, he cautions against anachronism and calls attention to the “troubling discrepancy” between passages that criticize the corruption of the elites and passages that proclaim judgement over the entire population, including the poor majority.79
Several commentators note the challenge of replacing Francis I. Anderson and David Noel Freedman’s massive opus of 979 pages, the previous Amos volume in the Anchor Bible series. Eidevall’s commentary is praised for its “clear and concise” as well as “friendly” style of writing.80 Tyler Mayfield appreciates it as the “new standard and reference point for Amos commentaries.”81 Eidevall is currently writing the new Hosea commentary for Anchor Yale, a commission that further attests Eidevall’s achievement with Amos.
4. New Directions
The overview above of some of Eidevall’s main contributions is but a small fraction of his academic output. Eidevall has published more than 90 articles and encyclopedia entries, including popular work, disseminating his research to a broader audience. Beyond the topics presented above, areas of investigation include for example the Psalms, reception history and avian metaphors, which we here will present briefly.
With regard to the Psalms, Eidevall explores the role of metaphor in identify construction, whether image of God, self-image or enemy image.82 He compares the role of enemy images in the Psalms and the Book of Isaiah, addresses the construction of self-image through metaphor in Ps 22 and he offers a survey of the metaphorical landscape in psalms.83 He ventures into the reception history of Ps 121, for example Anne Frank’s diary and Sound of Music, in a Festschrift for the Icelandic scholar Gunnlaugur A. Jónsson.84 He investigates the terminology for body parts and inner qualities in psalms, focusing on their anthropological and theological implications, in honour of a Swedish colleague, Lennart Boström, at ALT School of Theology.85 Most recently, Eidevall sheds light on Geo Widengren’s contribution to biblical studies through his comparative history of religion approach, with a focus on the psalms of lament.86
Eidevall treats several different aspects of reception history, apart from the already mentioned Ps 121 in musical and literature. He elaborates on early and modern receptions of the book of Amos, in a volume dedicated to John Townsend.87 He also expounds on a particularly prominent theme in Isa 2:2–5, “Swords into Ploughshares,” in a volume for the Finnish scholar Antti Laato.88
Metaphors within and beyond the prophetic literature constitutes an important field of inquiry. Eidevall has explored avian metaphors in relation to human suffering, for example in the Psalms, Job, and the prophetic literature.89 He has no less than 28 entries on bird imagery in the New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, general ones like “Birds of the Bible,” but mostly specific ones, on bird species from “Cock” to “Vulture.”90 Eidevall furthermore probes spatial metaphors in Lam 3 or phytomorphic metaphors (plants) in descriptions of exile.91 Returning to Hosea, he investigates the network of metaphors at play in chapter 7, including the domains of bird life, hunting and household.92 In the Oxford Handbook to Isaiah, Eidevall offers an introduction to the use of metaphors in the book of Isaiah.93
The interrelated phenomena of divine presence, absence and silence constitute yet another area of exploration. In a rare excursion to narrative texts, Eidevall investigates the theophany in 1 Kgs 19, with a focus on the enigmatic phrase qôl děmāmâ daqqâ and the literary function of vv. 11–13a, in a Festschrift for Tryggve Mettinger.94 Furthermore, Eidevall explores the semantic field of silence in biblical Hebrew, demonstrating how the domains of silence and stillness overlap.95 Most recently, Eidevall addresses the paradox of YHWH’s (in)accessibility in the temple, focusing on Hosea 5:15 and Amos 4:4–5.96
5. Contributions in this Volume
The current volume is structured into four parts. The first two focus on metaphors targeting divinity and humanity. The latter two deal with metaphors in which animals and inanimate objects feature as source domains. Within each section, contributions are sorted according to the texts in focus, following the canonical order.
Ola Wikander opens the first part with a contribution on divine names, more specifically on the expression “Fields of Māwet” in Isa 16:8 and Jer 31:39. The expression allegedly features “the supreme bad-guy of Northwest Semitic story-telling, Mr Death himself.”97 Addressing the phenomenon of compound words through comparison with Ugaritic material, Wikander argues that the linguistic shape of metaphor is essential to interpretation. Next, Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer invites the reader to a “rollercoaster ride” through the entire book of Hosea.98 Offering a sequential reading of the final form of the book, Tiemeyer delineates the emerging character of the divinity, as someone who wavers between judgement and salvation, vengeance, and compassion. The resulting image of God appears as thoroughly human, surrendered to passions, hesitant and utterly untrustworthy. In chapter 3, Cecilia Wassén traces the afterlife of Amos (5:25–27 and 9:11) in Qumran. The Amos-Numbers Midrash (in the Damascus Document) reshapes oracles of divine punishment to promises of restoration, for example by elaborating the “booth of David” into an allegory for the Torah and by connecting it to the festival of Sukkot.
The second part analyses different ways of speaking about humanity and/or the people of Israel. In chapter 4, Beth E. Elness-Hanson mobilizes neuropsychology to demonstrate the potential of metaphor to widen our understanding of the world. Using the metaphor of Israel as a vineyard in Isa 5, and its subsequent adaptation in Mark 5 as her point of departure, Elness-Hanson calls Euro-American biblical studies to break out from an epistemological framework still dominated by narrow Enlightenment ideals. Next, Richard Pleijel engages translation studies to understand the phenomenon of “metaphorization.” Analysing the translation of
Wild animals are the common denominator for the third part, with no less than four contributions on leonine imagery. In chapter 7, Dag Oredsson looks at Swahili Bible translations and assesses the challenge of rendering rare animal terms in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Zephaniah that are unknown or non-existent on the African continent. Considering the translation process in the context of colonialism, Oredsson concludes that familiarized and demythologized Swahili translations constitute a disarmament of the texts’ potential for resistant readings. In chapter 8, David Davage explores the function of leonine imagery in “Hezekiah’s” psalm in Isa 38:9–20 and asks what it means for the suffering human to perceive the deity as an enemy. Davage argues that the sickness of the psalmist serves as a means to speak of the fate of the people (exile). Next, Ulf Bergström explores another text where the deity is perceived as a lion, Amos 1–3, focusing on the aspect of fear. Bergström traces a development in the deployment of the imagery (fear, killing, collective disaster), and identifies representation of YHWH’s coming punishment as its overarching function. In chapter 10, Stefan Beyerle takes Am 3:8 as his point of departure for a mapping of metaphors in the speeches of the book of Amos. Beyerle considers how metaphor functions as a structuring literary device as well as a means of transformation of the phenomenological “Live-world” of the Northern kingdom. Last, Hanna Liljefors engages secularization theory and discourse analysis to explore the creative use of prophetic metaphors in contemporary culture: Zlatan Ibrahimović’s social media and Swedish gangster rap. Liljefors demonstrates how a reworking of the conceptual metaphors God is a lion and God is a judge becomes an expression of religious complexity and serves as a way to negotiate masculinity.
In the fourth and final part, inanimate objects serve as source domains in metaphors targeting different communities. In chapter 12, Cian Power investigates three sets of imagery used to convey the relationship between Israel and Judah: a robe (1 Kgs 11); sticks (Ezek 37); and sisters (Jer 3; Ezek 16; 23). Power notes similarities and differences in the deployment of these metaphors, addressing the issue of unification and/or separation. Next, in chapter 13, Antti Laato explores remnant theology in First Isaiah, with the image of “a booth in a vineyard” (1:8) as point of departure. Mapping first the development of remnant theology in Isa 40–66, Laato then traces the itinerary of the metaphor in early Jewish (Ben Sira) and Christian (Paul, Justin Martyr) reception history. In chapter 14, Kamilla Skarström Hinojosa focuses on the reception of stone imagery (Isa 28:16) in Qumran (1QS and 1QHa). Challenging a metaphorical understanding of the community as a temple, Skarström Hinojosa argues for a symbolical interpretation of the imagery, where Zion appears as the new Axis Mundi. Finally, in chapter 15, Håkan Bengtsson, looks at Paul’s usage of remnant and root imagery (from Isaiah and Hosea) in Rom 9 and 11. Rather than constituting a contradiction, Bengtsson proposes that these metaphors align in targeting inclusion of the external and elevation of the inferior.
Eidevall’s academic oeuvre gives witness to the rich benefits of engaging metaphor theory in biblical studies. By his consistency and unending curiosity, he has opened new avenues of inquiry for the rest of us to follow. One can always discover new things, and the work is by no means done—the contributions to this volume show how the conversation continues. We thereby hope to offer some glimpses of Eidevall’s legacy.
Bibliography
Barbour, Ian G. Myths, Models and Paradigms. London: SCM, 1974.
Bjørndalen, Anders Jørgen. Untersuchungen zur allegorischen Rede der Propheten Amos und Jesaja. BZAW 125. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986.
Black, Max. Models and Metaphors: Studies in Language and Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1962.
Blair, Wilgus, J. “Review of Amos.” SCJ 22 (2019): 133–134.
Booth, Wayne. “Metaphor as Rhetoric: The Problem of Evaluation.” Pages 49–72 in: On Metaphor. Edited by Sheldon Sacks. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1979.
Brinker, Menachem. “Theme and Interpretation.” Pages 21–37 in The Return of Thematic Criticism. Edited by W. Sollors. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Buzy, Denis. “Les symbols d’Osée.” RB 14 (1917).
Carroll, Daniel M. “Review of Amos.” BBR 28/3 (2018): 484–485.
Eidevall, Göran. “Lions and Birds as Literature: Some Notes on Isaiah 31 and Hosea 11.” SJOT 7/1 (1993): 78–87.
Eidevall, Göran. Grapes in the Desert: Metaphors, Models, and Themes in Hosea. ConBOT 43. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International, 1996.
Eidevall, Göran. “Masken som röt: Metaforik och självbild i Psalm 22.” SEÅ 65 (2000): 133–142.
Eidevall, Göran. “Images of God, Self, and the Enemy in the Psalms.” Pages 55–65 Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by P. van Hecke. BETL 187. Leuven: Peeters, 2005.
Eidevall, Göran. “Spatial Metaphors in Lamentations 3,1–9.” Pages 133–137 in Metaphor in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by P. van Hecke. BETL 187. Leuven: Peeters, 2005.
Eidevall, Göran. “Birds of the Bible.” Pages 467–470 in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible 1. Edited by K. Sakenfield. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006.
Eidevall, Göran. “Birds of Prey,” “Cock,” “Cormorant,” “Crane” and “Crow” in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible 1, Edited by K. Sakenfield. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006.
Eidevall, Göran. “Dove,” “Eagle,” “Falcon,” “Fowl,” ‘Fowler/Fowlers,” “Hawk, “Hen,” “Heron” and “Hopoe” in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible 2. Edited by K. Sakenfield. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2007.
Eidevall, Göran. “Nest,” ’Nighthawk,” “Osprey,” “Ostrich,” “Owl,” “Owl, Great,” “Partridge,” “Quail,” “Raven,” “Sea-Gull,” “Sparrow,” ‘Swan,“Vulture” in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible 3. Edited by K. Sakenfield. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2009.
Eidevall, Göran. Prophecy and Propaganda: Images of Enemies in the Book of Isaiah. ConBOT 56. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2009.
Eidevall, Göran. “Metaphorical Landscapes in the Psalms.” Pages 13–21 in Metaphors in the Psalms. Edited by P. van Hecke and A. Labahn. BETL 231. Leuven: Peeters, 2010.
Eidevall, Göran. “The role of sacrificial language in prophetic rhetoric.” Pages 49–61 in Ritual and Metaphor: Sacrifice in the Bible. Edited by C. Eberhart. Atlanta: SBL, 2011.
Eidevall, Göran. “Horeb Revisited: Reflections on the Theophany in 1 Kings 19.” Pages 92–111 in Enigmas and Images: Studies in Honor of Tryggve Mettinger. Edited by G. Eidevall and B. Scheuer. ConBOT 58. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2011.
Eidevall, Göran. “The Role of Sacrifical Language in Prophetic Rhetoric.” Pages 49–61 in Ritual and Metaphor: Sacrifice in the Bible. Edited by Christian A. Eberhart. SBLRBS 68. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2011.
Eidevall, Göran. “Sounds of Silence: “A Lexical Study.” VT 62 (2012): 159–174.
Eidevall, Göran. Sacrificial Rhetoric in the Prophetic Literature of the Hebrew Bible. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen, 2012.
Eidevall, Göran. “Helping Mountains and Smiting Moon: Samples from the Modern Reception History of Psalm 121.” Pages 75–90 in Mótun Menningar / Shaping Culture (FS Gunnlaugur Jónsson). Edited by K. Ólason et al. Reykjavik: Hid, 2012.
Eidevall, Göran. “Rejected Sacrifice in the Prophetic Literature: A Rhetorical Perspective.” SEÅ 78 (2013): 31–45.
Eidevall, Göran. “Propagandistic Constructions of Empires in the Book of Isaiah.’ Pages 109–128 in Divination, Politics and Ancient Near Eastern Empires. Edited by A. Lenzi and J. Stökl. ANEM 7. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2014.
Eidevall, Göran. “Från Juda bergsbygd till Alperna: Ur en psaltarpsalms receptionshistoria.” Pages 93–110 in Vägar till insikt och utsikt: Berg i religiösa traditioner. Edited by Eva Hellman and Lena Roos. Skellefteå: Artos & Norma bokförlag, 2014.
Eidevall, Göran. “Shifting Emphasis: Examples of Early and Modern Reception of the Book of Amos.” Pages 31–41 in Bridging between Sister Religions: Studies of Jewish and Christian Scriptures Offered in Honor of John Townsend. Edited by I. Kalimi. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Eidevall, Göran. “A Farewell to the Anticultic Prophet: Attitudes towards the Cult in the Book of Amos.” Pages 99–114 in Priests and Cult in the Book of the Twelve. Edited by L.-S. Tiemeyer. ANEM 14. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016.
Eidevall, Göran. “The Role of the Enemies of YHWH in the Book of Isaiah and in the Psalms.” Pages 27–40 in L’adversaire de Dieu / Der Widersacher Gottes. Edited by Michael Tilly, Matthias Morgenstern, and Volker H. Drecoll. WUNT 364. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.
Eidevall, Göran. Amos: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24G. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017.
Eidevall, Göran. “From Table Fellowship to Terror: Transformations of zebaḥ in the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 43–59 in The Eucharist: Its Origins and Contexts. Edited by David Hellholm and Dieter Sänger. WUNT 376. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2017.
Eidevall, Göran. “Prophetic Cult-Criticism in Support of Sacrificial Worship? The Case of Jeremiah.” Pages 151–167 in Sacrifice, Cult, and Atonement in Early Judaism and Christianity: Constituents and Critique. Edited by Henrietta L. Wiley and Christian A. Eberhart. Resources for Biblical Study. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2017.
Eidevall, Göran. “Reciprocity and the Risk of Rejection: Debate over Sacrifice in the Hebrew Bible.” Religions 9/12 (2018).
Eidevall, Göran. “Guds vänner och fiender: Ideologi och identitetskonstruktion i Psaltaren och Jesajaboken.” Pages 51–66 in Må de nu förklara …”: Om bibeltexter, religion, litteratur. Festskrift för Staffan Olofsson. Edited by Rosmari Lillas-Schuil et al. Göteborg: LIR-skrifter, 2018.
Eidevall, Göran. “Trees and Traumas: The Use of Phytomorphic Metaphors in Prophetic Descriptions of Deportation and Exile.” Pages 217–131 in Images of Exile in the Prophetic Literature. Edited by Jesper Høgenhaven, Friederich Poulsen, and Cian Power. FAT II/103. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019.
Eidevall, Göran. “Body and Soul in the Psalms: A Terminological Study with Anthropological and Theological Implications.” Pages 208–223 in God and Humans in the Hebrew Bible and Beyond: A Festschrift for Lennart Boström on his 67th Birthday. Edited by David Willgren. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2019.
Eidevall, Göran. “Use of Metaphors.” Pages 409–425 in The Oxford Handbook of Isaiah. Edited by Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Eidevall, Göran. “Of Burning Ovens, Half-Baked Cakes, and Helpless Birds: Exploring a Cluster of Metaphors in Hosea 7.” Pages 111–122 in Networks of Metaphors in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Danilo Verde and Antje Labahn. BETL 309. Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2020.
Eidevall, Göran. “Swords Into Plowshares: A Prophecy and Its Reception (Isaiah 2.2–5).” Pages 319–330, in Heralds of Good Tidings: Essays on the Bible, Prophecy, and the Hope of Israel in Honour of Antti Laato. Edited by Pekka Lindqvist, and Lotta Valve. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2021.
Eidevall, Göran. “Sad as a Bird: On Avian Metaphors in Biblical Depictions of Human Suffering.” Pages 85–96 in Sin, Suffering, and the Problem of Evil. Edited by Blaženka Scheuer and David Willgren Davage. FAT II/126. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021.
Eidevall, Göran. “Hebrew Laments in the Light of Mesopotamian Material.” Pages 36–49 in The Legacy, Life and Work of Geo Widengren and the Study of the History of Religions after World War II. Edited by Göran Larsson. Leiden: Brill Academic Publishers, 2022.
Emmerson, Grace I. “Review of Grapes in the Desert: Metaphors, Models and Themes in Hosea.” JTS 48/2 (1997): 773–774.
Fiebig-von Hase, Ragnhild, and Ursula Lehmkuhl (eds.). Enemy Images in American History. Oxford: Berghahn, 1997.
Guest, Deryn. Beyond Feminist Biblical Studies. BMW 47. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2012.
Johnson, Mark. Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1981.
Johnson, Mark. “Metaphor: An Overview.” Pages 208–212 in Encyclopedia of Aesthetics 2. Edited by Michael Kelly. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Keen, Sam. Faces of the Enemy: Reflections of the Hostile Imagination. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986.
Kennedy, George. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1984.
Kittay, Eva Feder. Metaphor: Its Cognitive Force and Linguistic Structure. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
Lancaster, Mason D. “Metaphor Research and the Hebrew Bible.” CBR 19/3 (2021): 235–285.
Lowth, Robert. Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews. London: Ogles, Duncan, and Cochran, 1816.
Mayfield, Tyler. “Review of Amos.” Religious Studies Review 44/3 (2018): 328.
Möller, Karl. A Prophet in Debate: The Rhetoric of Persuasion in the Book of Amos. LHBOTS 372. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003.
Moore, Anne. “Review of Prophecy and Proaganda.” SEÅ 76 (2011): 229–231.
Nielsen, Kirsten. For et træ er der håb: om træet som metafor i Jes 1–39. København: Gad, 1985.
Nissinen, Martti. “Review of Grapes in the Desert: Metaphors, Models and Themes in Hosea.” Bib 79/3 (1998): 421–424.
Ottosen, Rune. Mediestrategier och fiendebilder i internasjonale konflikter. Oslo: Universitetsförlaget, 1994.
Porter, Paul. Metaphors and Monsters. ConBOT 20. Lund: Gleerup, 1983.
Renz, Thomas. The Rhetorical Function of the Book of Ezekiel. VTS 86. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
Richards, Ivor A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1936.
Ricœur, Paul. The Rule of Metaphor. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977.
Setel, Drorah. “Prophets and Pornography: Female Sexual Imagery in Hosea.” Pages 86–96 in Feminist Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Letty M. Russel. Oxford: Blackwell, 1985.
Soskice, Janet M. Metaphor and Religious Language. Oxford: Clarendon 1985.
Steen, Gerard. “The Cognitive-Linguistic Revolution in Metaphor Studies.” Pages 117–142 in Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive linguistics. Edited by Jeanette Littlemore and John R. Taylor. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014.
Törnqvist, Rut. The Use and Abuse of Female Sexual Imagery in the Book of Hosea: A Feminist Critical Approach to Hos 1–3. Uppsala Women’s Studies. A. Women in Religion 7. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis: 1998.
Weinrich, Harald. Textmetaphorik: From Sprache in Texten. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett, 1976.
Williamson, H. G. M. “Review of Prophecy and Propaganda.” CBQ 72/2 (2010): 345–346.
Surveys of the field habitually quote Wayne Booth’s quip that there will be more students of metaphor than there will be humans by the end of the 2030’s (“Metaphor as Rhetoric,” 49).
Johnson, Philosophical Perspectives, ix; Lancaster, “Metaphor Research,” 236.
Johnson, “Metaphor: An Overview,” 208.
Lancaster, “Metaphor Research,” 249, mentions Lowth, Lectures, and Buzy, “Les Symboles,” as forerunners in biblical studies.
Lancaster, “Metaphor Research.” On recent developments in cognitive metaphor theory, cf. Steen, The Cognitive-Linguistic Revolution, 117–142.
Lancaster, “Metaphor Research,” 249–253.
Lancaster, “Metaphor Research,” 253–255.
Lancaster, “Metaphor Research,” 256–258. The final category can be seen as a subset of the third, metaphors related to gender, sexuality, or family life.
Lancaster, “Metaphor Research,” 261.
Eidevall, Grapes.
Eidevall, Grapes, 1.
Bjørndalen, Untersuchungen, Porter, Metaphors and Monsters, Nielsen, For et træ (Kirsten Nielsen was co-supervisor to Eidevall’s thesis).
Nissinen, “Review of Grapes”; see also Emmerson, “Review of Grapes.”
Kittay, Metaphor; cf. Lancaster, “Metaphor Research,” 240.
Eidevall, Grapes, 20–21.
Richards, Philosophy; Black, Models and Metaphors.
Ricoeur, Rule; Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors.
Eidevall, Grapes, 23–24.
Eidevall, Grapes, 24–26.
Eidevall, Grapes, 26–29.
Black, Models and Metaphors; Soskice, Metaphor and Religious.
Eidevall, Grapes, 36–39.
Eidevall, Grapes, 38. See further Barbour, Myths.
Eidevall, Grapes, 37–39. Eidevall builds on Weinrich, Textmetaphorik, and Brinker, “Theme and Interpretation.”
Setel, “Prophets,”; Törnqvist, The Use, Guest, Beyond Feminist.
Eidevall, Grapes, 229.
Eidevall, Grapes, 225.
Eidevall, Grapes, 226–228.
Eidevall, Grapes, 229–232.
Eidevall, Grapes, 236–242.
Eidevall, Grapes, 243–252.
Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda.
Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda, 19.
Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda, 13.
Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda, 14.
Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda, 6–7.
Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda, 15–16.
Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda, 1–6.
Keen, Faces of the Enemy, labels human beings as Homo hostilis, “the enemy-making animal”; cf. Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda, 2.
Fiebig-von Hase, Enemy Images; cf. Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda, 3–4.
Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda, 4.
Ottosen, Mediestrategier; cf. Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda, 4–6.
Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda, 20–22.
Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda, 177–186.
Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda, 186–194.
Eidevall, Prophecy and Propaganda, 194–200.
Williamson, “Review of Prophecy and Propaganda.”
Moore, “Review of Prophecy and Propaganda.”
Eidevall, Sacrificial Rhetoric.
Eidevall, Sacrificial Rhetoric, 2.
Eidevall, Sacrificial Rhetoric, 65–76.
Eidevall, Sacrificial Rhetoric, 4. Eidevall does address sacrificial metaphors in idem, “Sacrifical Language.”
Eidevall, Sacrificial Rhetoric, 5–30.
Eidevall, Sacrificial Rhetoric, 31–48.
Eidevall, Sacrificial Rhetoric, 49–64.
Eidevall, Sacrificial Rhetoric, 65–76. In terms of methodology, Eidevall builds on the work of Renz, Rhetorical Function; Möller, Prophet in Debate; and Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation.
Eidevall, Sacrificial Rhetoric, 215–219.
Eidevall, Sacrificial Rhetoric, 217.
Eidevall, Sacrificial Rhetoric, 216.
Eidevall, Sacrificial Rhetoric, 218–219.
Eidevall, Sacrificial Rhetoric, 219.
Eidevall, Amos.
Eidevall, Amos, 3.
Eidevall, Amos, 3.
Eidevall, Amos, 5–7.
Eidevall, Amos, 4.
Eidevall, Amos, 4.
Eidevall, Amos, 4.
Eidevall, Amos, 8–15.
Eidevall, Amos, 12–13.
Eidevall, Amos, 13.
Eidevall, Amos, 15–20.
Eidevall, Amos, 24–26.
Eidevall, Amos, 27–31.
Eidevall, Amos, 27.
Eidevall, Amos, 29.
Eidevall, Amos, 30.
Eidevall, Amos, 30.
Eidevall, Amos, 31.
Carroll, “Review of Amos”; Blair, “Review of Amos.”
Mayfield, “Review of Amos.”
Eidevall, “Images of God.”
Eidevall, “The Role”; “Masken”; “Metaphorical Landscapes.”
Eidevall, “Helping Mountains.”
Eidevall, “Body and Soul.”
Eidevall, “Hebrew Laments.”
Eidevall, “Shifting Emphasis.”
Eidevall, “Swords Into Plowshares.”
Eidevall, “Sad as a Bird.”
Eidevall, “Birds of Prey”; “Birds of the Bible”; “Cock”; “Cormorant”; “Crane”; “Crow”; “Dove”; “Eagle”; “Falcon”; “Fowl”; “Fowler/Fowlers”; “Hawk”; “Hen”; “Heron”; “Hopoe”; “Nest”; “Nighthawk”; “Osprey”; “Ostrich”; “Owl”; “Owl, Great”; “Partridge”; “Quail”; “Raven”; “Sea-gull”; “Sparrow”; “Swan”; “Vulture.”
Eidevall, “Spatial Metaphors”; “Trees and Traumas.”
Eidevall, “Of Burning Ovens.”
Eidevall, “Use of Metaphors.”
Eidevall, “Horeb Revisited.”
Eidevall, “Sounds of Silence.”
Eidevall, “Has God Left.”
Wikander, “Fields of Māwet,” 3.
Tiemeyer, “The Volatile Deity,” 22.
Kazen, “Malachi’s Metaphorical Divorce,” 131.