John 15:2 καθαίρει αὐτό - ordinary or figurative language?

Forum rules
Please quote the Greek text you are discussing directly in your post if it is reasonably short - do not ask people to look it up. This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

John 15:2 καθαίρει αὐτό - ordinary or figurative language?

Post by Stephen Hughes »

John 15:2 wrote:Πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπόν, αἴρει αὐτό· καὶ πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον, καθαίρει αὐτό, ἵνα πλείονα καρπὸν φέρῃ.
Is καθαίρει αὐτό here used figuratively or is it the everyday word?
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4237
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: John 15:2 καθαίρει αὐτό - ordinary or figurative languag

Post by Jonathan Robie »

I don't really understand the question.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Eeli Kaikkonen
Posts: 621
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 7:49 am
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: John 15:2 καθαίρει αὐτό - ordinary or figurative languag

Post by Eeli Kaikkonen »

I don't understand either, but maybe you mean whether it was a unique metaphorical meaning in this unique context or just a common used in this kind of context (whatever that context is, maybe collocation with some other word).

I think the usual explanation is that it's a horticultural term referring to pruning a plant, taking away unwanted unfruitful branches which take energy from fruitful branches. So it's concrete, ordinary language when used for pruning a vine, figurative when that pruning is used as a metaphor.
Thomas Dolhanty
Posts: 401
Joined: May 20th, 2014, 10:13 am
Location: west coast of Canada

Re: John 15:2 καθαίρει αὐτό - ordinary or figurative languag

Post by Thomas Dolhanty »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:I don't understand either, but maybe you mean whether it was a unique metaphorical meaning in this unique context or just a common used in this kind of context (whatever that context is, maybe collocation with some other word).

I think the usual explanation is that it's a horticultural term referring to pruning a plant, taking away unwanted unfruitful branches which take energy from fruitful branches. So it's concrete, ordinary language when used for pruning a vine, figurative when that pruning is used as a metaphor.
I would add that the αἴρει αὐτό ... καθ-αίρει αὐτὸ has a nice harmony to my eye/ear at least, where the first term illuminates the second one.
γράφω μαθεῖν
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: John 15:2 καθαίρει αὐτό - ordinary or figurative languag

Post by Stephen Hughes »

Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:I think the usual explanation is that it's a horticultural term referring to pruning a plant, taking away unwanted unfruitful branches which take energy from fruitful branches. So it's concrete, ordinary language when used for pruning a vine, figurative when that pruning is used as a metaphor.
Okay.

The next point is that I'm not sure of the sense of "prune", or "take away". I think it is a verb describing how the branch will look after it is pruned, rather than the action of pruning in and of itself. There are two other words that I know of for the action of pruning as if it is the action that is interesting, rather than the result. I would define English "prune" as κλαδεύειν, περικόπτειν τὰ περισσὰ φύλλα ἢ βλάστους ἀπὸ φύτου πρὸς τὸ πλείον καρποφορεῖν αὐτό. Perhaps that is the meaning of καθαίρειν, or perhaps προσλείπειν ἱκανοὺς βλάστοὺς καὶ ἄνθη εἰς τὸ καρποφορεῖν κλῖμά τι περισσοτέρους, καλλίονας ἢ μειζοέρους κάρπους.

Do the clearing or leave it in a state of having been cleared?
Thomas Dolhanty wrote:I would add that the αἴρει αὐτό ... καθ-αίρει αὐτὸ has a nice harmony to my eye/ear at least, where the first term illuminates the second one.
I think the first (αἴρει) acts on the whole thing, while the second (καθ-αίρει) limits the action of the removal to the boundaries of the thing. Somewhat like that ἀγωνίζω means to compete in a competition and we think about the person in the competition, while καταγωνίζω limits the more abstract idea of competition to a single opponent.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: John 15:2 καθαίρει αὐτό - ordinary or figurative languag

Post by cwconrad »

Lest there be any confusion, I think it should be noted here that καθαίρειν is not a verb compounded from κατά and αἴρειν; rather it is a denominative verb derived from the root of the adjective κάθαρος; the iota in -αιρ- is a matter of vocalic metathesis of iota over the rho (καθάριω --⟩ καθαίρω. Note that the verb is augmented syllabically: ἐκάθαιρον, ἐκάθηρα).
Comparable is the verb ἐπίσταασθαι, which one might suppose is compounded of ἐπί and ἵστασθαι -- but note that it's ἐπίστασθαι, not ἐφίστασθαι -- i.e. the π is not aspirated, and also the verb is augmented on the initial ε: ἠπιστήθην.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stephen Hughes
Posts: 3323
Joined: February 26th, 2013, 7:12 am

Re: John 15:2 καθαίρει αὐτό - ordinary or figurative languag

Post by Stephen Hughes »

cwconrad wrote:Lest there be any confusion, I think it should be noted here that καθαίρειν is not a verb compounded from κατά and αἴρειν; rather it is a denominative verb derived from the root of the adjective κάθαρος; the iota in -αιρ- is a matter of vocalic metathesis of iota over the rho (καθάριω --⟩ καθαίρω. Note that the verb is augmented syllabically: ἐκάθαιρον, ἐκάθηρα).
Comparable is the verb ἐπίσταασθαι, which one might suppose is compounded of ἐπί and ἵστασθαι -- but note that it's ἐπίστασθαι, not ἐφίστασθαι -- i.e. the π is not aspirated, and also the verb is augmented on the initial ε: ἠπιστήθην.
With respect to what you've pointed out and not as a knee-jerk, but as an opportunity to voice something tangential that I've been wondering, would somebody with only an everyday knowledge of the language know the rules and derivations as we do? It is a so much more complex landscape to navigate when the rules don't apply, but sometimes I think that we lose our intellectual ballance and perhaps think the importance of the workings of the language on a minute-by-minute basis are comparable with developments and changes that happened over centuries (or mellenia if we consider PIE). I think both types of knowledge are great, but perspective is important to be kept.
Γελᾷ δ' ὁ μωρός, κἄν τι μὴ γέλοιον ᾖ
(Menander, Γνῶμαι μονόστιχοι 108)
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: John 15:2 καθαίρει αὐτό - ordinary or figurative languag

Post by cwconrad »

Stephen Hughes wrote:
cwconrad wrote:Lest there be any confusion, I think it should be noted here that καθαίρειν is not a verb compounded from κατά and αἴρειν; rather it is a denominative verb derived from the root of the adjective κάθαρος; the iota in -αιρ- is a matter of vocalic metathesis of iota over the rho (καθάριω --⟩ καθαίρω. Note that the verb is augmented syllabically: ἐκάθαιρον, ἐκάθηρα).
Comparable is the verb ἐπίσταασθαι, which one might suppose is compounded of ἐπί and ἵστασθαι -- but note that it's ἐπίστασθαι, not ἐφίστασθαι -- i.e. the π is not aspirated, and also the verb is augmented on the initial ε: ἠπιστήθην.
With respect to what you've pointed out and not as a knee-jerk, but as an opportunity to voice something tangential that I've been wondering, would somebody with only an everyday knowledge of the language know the rules and derivations as we do? It is a so much more complex landscape to navigate when the rules don't apply, but sometimes I think that we lose our intellectual ballance and perhaps think the importance of the workings of the language on a minute-by-minute basis are comparable with developments and changes that happened over centuries (or mellenia if we consider PIE). I think both types of knowledge are great, but perspective is important to be kept.
Unquestionably that's so. What's difficult in these written "dialogues", however, is grasping/distinguishing what perspective the other party or parties in the discussion may be holding. That's why I interjected this particular comment, as a warning against the possibility of etymologizing the relationship between αἴρει and καθαίρει, as if καθαίρει were derivative from αἴρει. My own impression is that the author here (whom we call John) is making a play with the sounds of the two words as a poet who plays games with contiguous or nearby words that interact with each other -- that there is some word-artistry here that's deliberate and that this is something that the author of this gospel does not infrequently.

But I would emphasize, in response to your question, the problem we (I at least) have regularly in discerning where the other party in a written dialogue is coming from, what is being assumed, what the point of the question being raised really is. This is not altogether different from the problem we have in interpreting some of the Pauline letters in which we must make intelligent guesses regarding the shared history and common assumptions of Paul and the community that he is addressing.

In sum, I'm not sure that I'm responding adequately to your question, but I think that in this forum we are looking at a text like this from more than one single perspective: we are looking at it as straightforward communication (if there is any such thing), as a "literary" exchange (where the words used carry connotative as well as denotative senses), as a text to be analyzed grammatically and rhetorically, etc., etc. And we don't all come at a text like this in quite the same manner, either.

I suspect I've said too much or not enough.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4237
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: John 15:2 καθαίρει αὐτό - ordinary or figurative languag

Post by Jonathan Robie »

cwconrad wrote:Lest there be any confusion, I think it should be noted here that καθαίρειν is not a verb compounded from κατά and αἴρειν; rather it is a denominative verb derived from the root of the adjective κάθαρος; the iota in -αιρ- is a matter of vocalic metathesis of iota over the rho (καθάριω --⟩ καθαίρω. Note that the verb is augmented syllabically: ἐκάθαιρον, ἐκάθηρα).
Yes. Both καθαιρεῖν (καθ-αιρέω, derived from αιρέω) and καθαίρειν (καθαίρω, related to κάθαρος) are real verbs.
Abbott-Smith wrote:καθαιρέω: verb
to take down: c. acc pers. (the technical term for removal after crucifixion, Field, Notes, 44), Mk 15:36, 46, Lk 23:53, Ac 13:29.; to put down by force, pull down, destroy: ἀποθήκας, Lk 12:18 (opp. to οἰκοδομεῖν); δυνάστας, Lk 1:52; ἔθνη, Ac 13:19; pass., Ac 19:27 (diminished, Field, Notes, 129 f.); fig., to refute: λογισμούς, II Co 10:5.† [G2507]
Abbott-Smith wrote:καθαίρω: verb
to cleanse: of pruning, Jo 15:2 (cf. καθαρίζω).† [G2508]
And if I'm not mistaken (I often am, morphology is not my strong suit), the 3rd person present singular of both verbs is καθαίρει, so you have to rely on context to disambiguate?
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Jonathan Robie
Posts: 4237
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:34 pm
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: John 15:2 καθαίρει αὐτό - ordinary or figurative languag

Post by Jonathan Robie »

Stephen Hughes wrote:With respect to what you've pointed out and not as a knee-jerk, but as an opportunity to voice something tangential that I've been wondering, would somebody with only an everyday knowledge of the language know the rules and derivations as we do? It is a so much more complex landscape to navigate when the rules don't apply, but sometimes I think that we lose our intellectual ballance and perhaps think the importance of the workings of the language on a minute-by-minute basis are comparable with developments and changes that happened over centuries (or mellenia if we consider PIE). I think both types of knowledge are great, but perspective is important to be kept.
Native speakers of a language have internalized the rules of the language needed to understand it. They don't usually think in terms of metalanguage and derivations and rules, but they do know the language.

How does a native English speaker keep words straight when they can be written the same way or in a very similar way, with different meanings? I bow to no man, I shoot a bow, I tie a bow, I sit in the bow of a canoe. I assume those have different derivations, I don't know what they are, I could be wrong. I do know that 'agape' has a different derivation depending on whether it refers to an open mouth or to a kind of love, and I know the difference between (1) a bass that I can tune and play with a bow (a kind of bow not described in the previous list) and (2) a bass that I can catch while sitting in the bow of a canoe.

We use rules and derivations to try to explain these differences and where they came from either because we are not native speakers or because we need a systematic model to be able to talk about these phenomena in our language. We create rules to try to describe the language the same way that we create maps to describe a landscape. The landscape is the source of truth, not the map. But the landscape described by a map really does exist. The person who knows a particular landscape really, really well doesn't need the map.
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/
Post Reply

Return to “New Testament”