ᾔδει δὲ καὶ Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν τὸν τόπον, ὅτι πολλάκις συνήχθη καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐκεῖ μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ. (John 18:2)
A Subtle Web of Time and Identity
At first glance, John 18:2 appears to be a straightforward narrative aside — a simple note about Judas’s knowledge of Jesus’ habitual meeting place. Yet embedded within this brief clause lies a profound syntactic structure that binds temporal logic, identity, and theological irony into a single grammatical thread. The participle ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν, functioning as a substantive, is not merely a title for Judas but a dynamic temporal marker that links his present act of betrayal with the repeated past actions of Jesus. This article explores how the morphology and syntax of the present active participle παραδιδοὺς operates within the clause to create a complex interweaving of time, action, and moral implication.
Morphological and Syntactic Analysis of ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν
Let us begin with the key term:
| Term | Root | Form | Literal Translation | Syntactic Function |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν | παραδίδωμι | PAPart NMS (Present Active Participle, Nominative Masculine Singular) | “the one delivering him over” | Nominalized participle serving as appositive to Ἰούδας |
The participle παραδιδοὺς is a present active participle, indicating ongoing or contemporaneous action relative to the main verb ᾔδει (he knew). While participles often function adverbially, here it is substantival — operating as a noun equivalent through the article ὁ. It functions as an appositive to Ἰούδας, identifying him by his defining action: “Judas, the one delivering him over.”
This nominalization is crucial: rather than simply describing Judas’s role, the participle encapsulates his identity in terms of the action itself. In cognitive grammar terms, the construction frames Judas’s very being around the act of betrayal, rendering it not just a deed but a core aspect of his semantic profile within this narrative moment.
The Aspectual Weight of Present Participle: Ongoing Action in Narrative Space
From the standpoint of verbal aspect theory, the present tense-form encodes imperfective aspect — that is, it presents the action as ongoing or durative without reference to completion. Even when used substantivally, as here, the aspectual value persists. Thus, ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν does not merely denote a completed act of betrayal but implies that the act is either currently unfolding or persistently characteristic of Judas.
In context, this is significant: at the moment the narrator says Judas “knew the place,” he is still en route to betray Jesus (cf. John 18:3–5). Therefore, the use of the present participle aligns semantically with the narrative progression — Judas is identified precisely as the one in the process of delivering Jesus over. The participle, then, anchors Judas’s identity temporally within the unfolding action, creating a kind of narrative simultaneity between knowing and betraying.
Temporal Linkage Through Syntax: How πολλάκις συνήχθη Is Framed by the Participle
The participle also indirectly shapes the temporal logic of the second half of the verse. The phrase ὅτι πολλάκις συνήχθη καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἐκεῖ μετὰ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ (“because Jesus had often gathered there with his disciples”) refers to a repeated past action. But the presence of the present participle παραδιδοὺς in the preceding clause creates a subtle tension: the speaker identifies Judas as the one currently engaged in betrayal while simultaneously referencing Jesus’ prior habit of gathering in the same place.
This juxtaposition highlights the tragic irony of the passage. The place where Jesus once gathered repeatedly with his disciples becomes the site of his betrayal — and Judas, the betrayer, is linguistically defined by that act even as its full realization is yet to come. The participle thus functions as a pivot between past and present, memory and action, loyalty and treachery.
Voice and Identity: The Active Voice as Moral Agency
The choice of the active voice in παραδιδοὺς is also telling. In contrast to passive constructions that might obscure agency (e.g., “was handed over”), the active voice emphasizes Judas’s personal involvement and responsibility. Though the participle lacks an explicit object, the pronoun αὐτὸν (“him”) suffices to link the action directly to Jesus.
In Johannine theology, where themes of knowing and revealing are central, the active voice reinforces the idea that Judas is not a passive instrument but an agent whose knowledge leads to betrayal. The verse begins with ᾔδει (“he knew”) and immediately identifies Judas as ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν, suggesting a direct causal relationship between knowledge and action.
Participles That Shape Time
The present active participle ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν in John 18:2 is far more than a stylistic variation on “ὁ παραδός.” Its morphological and syntactic features — aspect, voice, and nominalization — combine to produce a rich temporal and ethical texture. By anchoring Judas’s identity in the ongoing act of betrayal, the participle weaves together past habits, present knowledge, and future consequences into a single linguistic gesture. In doing so, it reflects the Gospel’s broader theological vision: that identity is inseparable from action, and that what one knows can become what one does — and ultimately, who one is.
