INTRODUCTION
This paper aims to analyze the uses of verbal aspect and moods in the passage from John 3.12-13 based on cognitive linguistics. The text follows with my own translation. In the first part, I present the linguistic background. This is followed by the analysis. Then the final considerations.
εἰ τὰ ἐπίγεια εἶπον ὑμῖν καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε, πῶς ἐὰν εἴπω ὑμῖν τὰ ἐπουράνια πιστεύσετε; καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου.
“If I have spoken of earthly things and you do not believe, in what way would you believe if I spoke of heavenly things? And no one is in the situation of ascension to heaven except the one who came down from heaven: the Son of Man.”
1. VERBAL ASPECT AND MOOD
On the one hand, verbal aspect is the alternative ways of conceiving a situation in terms of schemacity/specificity, closeness/distancing, and prominence/backgrounding plane (SILVA, 2022). There is a relationship between schemacity, distancing, and backgrounding; in turn, there is a relationship between specificity, closeness, and focus. Aorist, imperfect, and most-perfect are distanced forms in gradience, while present and perfect are approximated forms in gradience.
On the other hand, MOOD[1] is a semantic category that concerns the speaker’s attitude in interacting with the interlocutor (figure) against the background of alternative ways of conceiving virtual reality (background). I am assuming that the world (reality) comes before subjects, the world being the background in which human interactions take place. Before anyone was born, there was already a world, regardless of how it came into being. In parallel, before anyone was born, there was already what we call society with its rules, values, forms of behavior, etc.
2. LINGUISTIC-EXEGETICAL RELEVANCE OF THE ASPECT-MOOD IN JOHN 3:12-13
2.1 Syntagms
At the syntagmatic level, we have the first sentence καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν composed of the following syntagms. The noun syntagm in nominative case (οὐδεὶς) functions as the grammatical subject of ἀναβέβηκεν. The verbal syntagm (ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν) composed of a verbal syntagm (ἀναβέβηκεν) and a prepositional syntagm (εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν) in the accusative case as delimiter of the verb (ἀναβέβηκεν). This group of syntagms is introduced by additive conjunction καὶ continuing the previous sentence (verse 12).
The second group of syntagms is ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς (he who comes down from heaven), composed of a verbal syntagm in the articular present participle (ὁ καταβάς, he who descends) and a prepositional syntagm (ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ, from heaven). The uses of the articles carry a sense of concreteness expressing immediate experience. There is no way this aorist participle can be interpreted as adverbial.
2.2 Discourse marker
Discourse markers are language resources for expressing an individual’s evaluation of something or someone in a certain interaction situation. I note two expressions that have more discursive (evaluative) value than referential value: the adverb πῶς and the conjunction with distancing negative particle εἰ μὴ.
The use of the adverb πῶς (in what way, how) has a sense of doubt and uncertainty causing some dissociation from the content of the sentence. In John’s gospel, the adverb πῶς fluctuates between hesitation, doubt, and unbelief, primarily. Nicodemus, in this context of chapter 3, uses πῶς to ask a question that has more of a tone of unbelief than of doubt (verses 3 and 9). In combination with future (πιστεύσετε) and aorist subjunctive (εἴπω), πῶς brings nuance of dissociation causing effect of criticism from Jesus. The future is used to impose more authority. In this case, Jesus puts himself in a position of power by criticizing Nicodemus’ unbelief. By himself, the future signals a certain anticipation of the virtual situation. Ironically, it is the case that Jesus does not believe Nicodemus. Jesus’ faith in others is a theme that presents itself in the Johannine gospel. I consider this to be the crux of verse 12: Jesus does not believe in Rabbi Nicodemus.
The negative expression (οὐδεὶς) and its rectification (εἰ μὴ) create two opposing perspectives. The conditional εἰ in combination with the negative particle μὴ creates an alternative perspective to that of the previous sentence. Another possible way to interpret the conditional εἰ μὴ with participle is its use as a way to echo that Nicodemus does not believe in the coming into the world of the Son of Man.
2.3 Mood-aspect
The first-class conditional sentence is composed of an aorist indicative (εἶπον) and present indicative (πιστεύετε). The use of εἰ indicates a certain epistemic neutrality compared to conjunction in other conditionals as in ἐὰν. The construction εἰ τὰ ἐπίγεια εἶπον ὑμῖν creates neutral epistemic posture in which Jesus echoes the earlier discourse of having spoken of earthly things. Whereas the construction καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε, implied εἰ, indicates positive epistemic stance in which Jesus commits himself to the content of the sentence; that is: the content of the sentence associates with his worldview. With this is accentuated Jesus’ criticism of Nicodemus.
The criticism is further heightened with the use of the distanced aorist subjunctive form (εἴπω) and future (πιστεύσετε) in the third-class conditional. The use of future (πιστεύσετε) is meant to express greater authority. The effect of meaning here is one of criticism on Jesus’ part. The distanced use of aorist subjunctive (εἴπω) creates effect of dissociation and rejection of Nicodemus. The aorist subjunctive distances Jesus from the content of the sentence causing dissociation between the content and the individual’s worldview. With subjunctive an alternative situation is created to the immediate situation in order to consider its possible consequences, actions, reactions, expectations, etc.
The participle has two semantic features. It is a factive presupposition (ALBUQUERQUE, 2020) and a frame marker (MARK, 2010). Frame is organized knowledge in the individual’s memory about a given aspect of reality (e.g., RESTAURANT evokes a set of actions and expectations). The participle evokes the frame DOWN FROM HEAVEN, which is part of the shared knowledge between interlocutors. This frame is metonymy for divinity. In John’s gospel, what is divine comes from above, from heaven. This aorist articular participle is used to interpret the prayer in the perfect indicative. In the Johannine gospel, Jesus came down from heaven as an expression of his incarnation, while his ascent to heaven is projected in anticipation of the resurrection. There are two events: the descent of the Son of God (his incarnation) and his ascension (resurrection). Temporally, the descent of the Son comes before his ascension. The descent also evokes the frame SENDING OF THE SON INTO THE WORLD, a very relevant theme in this gospel.
The aorist participle in John 3.13 creates a sense effect of social distance. The prepositional phrase (ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ) is a metonymy to refer to God by expressing the place where God resides. Socially, Jews show deference to the divine name by presenting language of distance in order to produce certain effects of sense. The aorist participle (καταβάς) in the prepositional syntagma creates an effect of social distance by speaking indirectly of God, hence the distanced usage.
The use of the article in combination with the participle ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς brings the sense of a concrete referent, part of the immediate experience of the people involved in the interaction, which creates in the mind of the reader/listener that the referent is God. Jesus, in doing so, uses a nominative with appositive value to explain who the one who came from heaven is, is the Son of Man. The inference is that the Son of Man is divine. It is known that Jesus used this expression to refer to himself. Therefore, Jesus is saying that he is God. All this information is taken as background in the sense that it serves as the basis for interpreting the emphasis given to the information in the perfect indicative. In other words, what is highlighted (prominent, figure, relevance, salience) is understood on the basis of what is placed as backgrounding information.
The aorist has as semantics to present an attenuation of subjectivity based on distancing and generalization projecting in the reader/listener effects of meaning of social distance, politeness, neutrality, summarization, objectivity in reporting events or situations, background information. In other words, there is attenuation of the presence of the subject seeking to create in the reader an effect of distancing from the content. The blend between participle and aorist creates the blend distanced presupposition. The blend between indicative and perfect creates the highly approximate assertion blend.
In turn, the perfect has as semantics to accentuate the presence of the subject (greater degree of involvement) having as a basis spatial closeness and specification causing sense effects in the reader as intensity (SAUGE, 2000), prominence (PORTER, 1993), high proximity (CAMPBELL, 2007) or responsibility of the subject (RIJKSBARON, 2019; MCKAY, 1994). Put another way, there is greater closeness (accentuation, involvement) of the speaker/writer seeking to attract the attention of the listener/reader.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The first and second class conditional clauses create alternative perspectives of the situation in order to project into the interaction between Jesus and Nicodemus a relationship of distancing and criticism. Conditionals are not only ways of conceiving alternatives to the immediate situation. They are also ways of interacting with others.
The perfect indicative stresses greater presence of the subject (involvement) in order to get the attention of his interlocutor. By using the aorist participle, a virtual situation is created that serves as a foundation for interpreting the assertion in the perfect by creating the theological pair of John’s incarnation/coming of the Son into the world and ascension/glory in the bosom of the Father.
The interaction between Jesus and Nicodemus portrayed by John presents the clash between rabbis, creating the Johannine theology of the descent/submission of the Son to highlight the incarnation/glorification of the Son in his mission to the world. For this, the aorist participle is used in order to evoke from the reader’s memory the knowledge shared between the interlocutors (presupposition).
REFERENCES
ALBUQUERQUE, R. Presupposition and [E]motion: the upgraded function and the semantics of the participle in the New Testament. New York: Peter Lang, 2020.
CAMPBELL, C. Verbal Aspect, the indicative mood, and narrative. New York: Peter Lang, 2007.
MCKAY, K. A New Syntax of the Verb in the New Testament Greek: An Aspectual Approach. New York: Peter Lang, 1994.
MARK, Y. Mark’s Memory Resources, and the Controversy Stories (Mark 2:1-3:6): An Application of the Frame Theory of Cognitive Science to the Markan Oral-Aural Narrative. BRILL: LEIDEN, 2010.
PORTER, S. Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with reference to tense and mood. New York: Peter Lang, 1993.
RIJKBARON, A. Form and Function in Greek Grammar: Linguistic contributions to the study of Greek Literature. Leiden: BRILL, 2019.
SILVA, F. A semântica do aspecto verbal na peça Assembleia de Mulheres. In: POMPEU, A; PREZOTTO, J; ALMEIDA, S; ARAÚJO, O. (Orgs) As mulheres de Aristófanes. Volume 1. São Paulo: Pimenta cultural, 2022. SAUGE, A. Les degrés du verbe: sense et formation du parfait en grec ancien. Berlin : Peter Lang, 2000.
[1] MODE is used in uppercase to express broader category. Mode is used to denote the indicative whose semantics is assertion. Modality (imperative, future, subjunctive, and optative) and modulation (infinitive and participle).