George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003). For auxiliary treatments from the authors, see Lakoff and Johnson, “Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language,” in Mark Johnson (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981), pp. 286-325; Lakoff, “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor,” in Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1993), pp. 202-251; Lakoff and Mark Turner, More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989).

 George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003). For auxiliary treatments from the authors, see Lakoff and Johnson, “Conceptual Metaphor in Everyday Language,” in Mark Johnson (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981), pp. 286-325; Lakoff, “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor,” in Andrew Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1993), pp. 202-251; Lakoff and Mark Turner, More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989).)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 See, for example, Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (trans. Jane Doull; Sheffield: JSOT, 1981), pp. 80-81, 89-90; Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (New York: Harper, 1962), vol. 1, pp. 334-47, esp. 338-39; Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), pp. 274-89, esp. 281 and 284; Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Eugene: Wipe & Stock, 1997), pp. 53-57.

 See, for example, Martin Noth, The Deuteronomistic History (trans. Jane Doull; Sheffield: JSOT, 1981), pp. 80-81, 89-90; Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology (New York: Harper, 1962), vol. 1, pp. 334-47, esp. 338-39; Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), pp. 274-89, esp. 281 and 284; Meredith G. Kline, The Structure of Biblical Authority (Eugene: Wipe & Stock, 1997), pp. 53-57.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), pp. 320-65.

 Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972), pp. 320-65.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, p. 5. For the history of the development of the study of metaphor see Mark Johnson, “Introduction: Metaphor in the Philosophical Tradition,” in Johnson (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor, pp. 1-47; Andrew Ortony, “Metaphor, Language and Thought,” in Andrew Ortony (ed)., Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1993), pp. 1-16.

 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, p. 5. For the history of the development of the study of metaphor see Mark Johnson, “Introduction: Metaphor in the Philosophical Tradition,” in Johnson (ed.), Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor, pp. 1-47; Andrew Ortony, “Metaphor, Language and Thought,” in Andrew Ortony (ed)., Metaphor and Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1993), pp. 1-16.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Lakoff writes, “A sentence like ‘the balloon went up’ is not metaphorical, nor is the old philosopher’s favorite ‘the cat is on the mat.’ But as soon as one gets away from concrete physical experience and starts talking about abstractions or emotions, metaphorical understanding is the norm” (Lakoff, “Contemporary Theory,” p. 205). See also Van Hecke, “Walking,” p. 39 n. 3.

 Lakoff writes, “A sentence like ‘the balloon went up’ is not metaphorical, nor is the old philosopher’s favorite ‘the cat is on the mat.’ But as soon as one gets away from concrete physical experience and starts talking about abstractions or emotions, metaphorical understanding is the norm” (Lakoff, “Contemporary Theory,” p. 205). See also Van Hecke, “Walking,” p. 39 n. 3.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Lakoff, “Contemporary Theory,” p. 203.

 Lakoff, “Contemporary Theory,” p. 203.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Lakoff, “Contemporary Theory,” p. 207.

 Lakoff, “Contemporary Theory,” p. 207.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, p. 59, emphasis original.

 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, p. 59, emphasis original.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, pp. 52-53.

 Lakoff and Johnson, Metaphors, pp. 52-53.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), p. 45.

 Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), p. 45.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 See also G.R. Driver, “Reflections on Recent Articles” JBL 73 (1954), pp. 131-36. Here Driver attempts to distinguish between מוקש and פח. He writes of the latter that it is “an instrument for shutting in,” and of the former that it is “one for striking down the victim.” While the exact contours of the items seem unclear, the general function within the metaphor of hindering progression or harming stands.

 See also G.R. Driver, “Reflections on Recent Articles” JBL 73 (1954), pp. 131-36. Here Driver attempts to distinguish between מוקש and פח. He writes of the latter that it is “an instrument for shutting in,” and of the former that it is “one for striking down the victim.” While the exact contours of the items seem unclear, the general function within the metaphor of hindering progression or harming stands.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

 See also Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, pp. 332-41 for the various phrases used throughout the DH to express “observance of the Law and loyalty to the covenant” and “disloyalty.”

 See also Weinfeld, Deuteronomic School, pp. 332-41 for the various phrases used throughout the DH to express “observance of the Law and loyalty to the covenant” and “disloyalty.”)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation