Genesis 38:16

Posted on February 7, 2006 by Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus

Gn 38:16 Ingrediensque ad eam, ait: Dimitte me ut coeam tecum: nesciebat enim quod nurus sua esset. Qua respondente: Quid dabis mihi ut fruaris concubitu meo?

And going in to her, he said: “Allow me to come to you,” for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. And she said in reply: “What will you give me, that you may enjoy my embrace?”

# Latin Gloss Grammar Tag
1 Ingrediensque and going in PART.PRES.ACT.NOM.SG.M + ENCLITIC -que
2 ad to / toward PREP+ACC
3 eam her PRON.PERS.ACC.SG.F
4 ait he said V.3SG.PERF.ACT.IND
5 Dimitte allow / permit V.2SG.PRES.ACT.IMP
6 me me PRON.PERS.ACC.SG.1
7 ut that / in order that CONJ.PURP
8 coeām I may come together / have intercourse V.1SG.PRES.SUBJ.ACT
9 tecum with you PREP + PRON.ABL.SG.2
10 nesciebat he did not know V.3SG.IMPERF.IND.ACT
11 enim for CONJ.EXPL
12 quod that CONJ
13 nurus daughter-in-law NOUN.NOM.SG.F
14 sua his own PRON.POSS.NOM.SG.F
15 esset was V.3SG.IMPERF.SUBJ.ACT
16 Quā she who / and she PRON.REL.ABL.SG.F
17 respondente replying PART.PRES.ACT.ABL.SG.F
18 Quid what PRON.INTERROG.ACC.SG.N
19 dabis will you give V.2SG.FUT.IND.ACT
20 mihi to me PRON.PERS.DAT.SG.1
21 ut that / so that CONJ.PURP
22 fruaris you may enjoy V.2SG.PRES.SUBJ.DEP
23 concubitu intercourse / embrace NOUN.ABL.SG.M
24 meo my PRON.POSS.ABL.SG.M

Syntax

Participial Clause: Ingrediensque ad eam — ablative absolute-like participial phrase indicating temporal circumstance (“and going in to her”). The enclitic -que joins it to the following clause.

Main Clause 1: ait: Dimitte me ut coeam tecum — direct speech introduced by ait. The purpose clause ut coeam tecum follows Dimitte me, expressing intention (“allow me that I may come to you”).

Subordinate Clause: nesciebat enim quod nurus sua esset — causal clause explaining Judah’s ignorance (“for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law”). The verb esset is subjunctive due to indirect discourse introduced by quod.

Secondary Clause: Quā respondente: Quid dabis mihi ut fruaris concubitu meo? — ablative absolute introducing her reply. ut fruaris is a purpose clause indicating her condition (“that you may enjoy my embrace”).

Morphology

  1. Ingrediensque — Lemma: ingredior; Part of Speech: participle (deponent); Form: nominative singular masculine present active (deponent in form); Function: modifies Iudas; Translation: “and going in”; Notes: Deponent participle expressing simultaneous action; -que links to main clause.
  2. ad — Lemma: ad; Part of Speech: preposition; Form: governs accusative; Function: expresses direction; Translation: “to / toward”; Notes: Indicates movement toward Thamar.
  3. eam — Lemma: is, ea, id; Part of Speech: pronoun; Form: accusative singular feminine; Function: object of ad; Translation: “her”; Notes: Refers to Thamar, the disguised woman.
  4. ait — Lemma: aiō; Part of Speech: defective verb; Form: 3rd person singular perfect indicative active; Function: introduces direct speech; Translation: “he said”; Notes: Common biblical formula introducing dialogue.
  5. Dimitte — Lemma: dīmittō; Part of Speech: verb; Form: 2nd person singular present imperative active; Function: imperative of request; Translation: “allow / let”; Notes: Expresses request for consent.
  6. me — Lemma: ego; Part of Speech: pronoun; Form: accusative singular; Function: object of Dimitte; Translation: “me”; Notes: Reflexive pronoun of Judah’s speech.
  7. ut — Lemma: ut; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: indeclinable; Function: introduces purpose clause; Translation: “that / in order that”; Notes: Links request to intended act.
  8. coeām — Lemma: coeō; Part of Speech: verb; Form: 1st person singular present subjunctive active; Function: verb of purpose clause; Translation: “I may come together (with you)”; Notes: Euphemistic for sexual union.
  9. tecum — Lemma: tū; Part of Speech: prepositional pronoun; Form: ablative singular; Function: complement with coeām; Translation: “with you”; Notes: Compound of cum + tē.
  10. nesciebat — Lemma: nesciō; Part of Speech: verb; Form: 3rd person singular imperfect indicative active; Function: introduces causal explanation; Translation: “he did not know”; Notes: Continuous ignorance expressed by imperfect tense.
  11. enim — Lemma: enim; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: indeclinable; Function: introduces explanatory clause; Translation: “for”; Notes: Marks rationale for preceding request.
  12. quod — Lemma: quod; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: indeclinable; Function: introduces subordinate clause; Translation: “that”; Notes: Used in place of accusative + infinitive in biblical Latin.
  13. nurus — Lemma: nurus; Part of Speech: noun; Form: nominative singular feminine; Function: subject of esset; Translation: “daughter-in-law”; Notes: Identifies Thamar’s familial relation to Judah.
  14. sua — Lemma: suus; Part of Speech: possessive pronoun; Form: nominative singular feminine; Function: agrees with nurus; Translation: “his own”; Notes: Reflexive, referring back to Judah.
  15. esset — Lemma: sum; Part of Speech: verb; Form: 3rd person singular imperfect subjunctive active; Function: verb of indirect statement; Translation: “was”; Notes: Subjunctive expresses dependent reported statement.
  16. Quā — Lemma: quī, quae, quod; Part of Speech: relative pronoun; Form: ablative singular feminine; Function: ablative absolute with respondente; Translation: “she who / and she”; Notes: Refers to Thamar.
  17. respondente — Lemma: respondeō; Part of Speech: participle; Form: ablative singular feminine present active; Function: ablative absolute; Translation: “replying”; Notes: Temporal clause “while replying.”
  18. Quid — Lemma: quis, quid; Part of Speech: interrogative pronoun; Form: accusative singular neuter; Function: direct object of dabis; Translation: “what”; Notes: Introduces her question to Judah.
  19. dabis — Lemma: dō; Part of Speech: verb; Form: 2nd person singular future indicative active; Function: main verb of direct question; Translation: “will you give”; Notes: Future tense implying negotiation.
  20. mihi — Lemma: ego; Part of Speech: pronoun; Form: dative singular; Function: indirect object of dabis; Translation: “to me”; Notes: Recipient of the proposed payment.
  21. ut — Lemma: ut; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: indeclinable; Function: introduces purpose clause; Translation: “that / so that”; Notes: Governs subjunctive verb fruaris.
  22. fruaris — Lemma: fruor; Part of Speech: deponent verb; Form: 2nd person singular present subjunctive deponent; Function: verb of purpose clause; Translation: “you may enjoy”; Notes: Deponent verb taking ablative object concubitu meo.
  23. concubitu — Lemma: concubitūs; Part of Speech: noun; Form: ablative singular masculine; Function: ablative with deponent verb fruaris; Translation: “embrace / sexual union”; Notes: Lexically denotes intimate contact.
  24. meo — Lemma: meus; Part of Speech: possessive pronoun; Form: ablative singular masculine; Function: agrees with concubitu; Translation: “my”; Notes: Possessive, emphasizing her agency in the act.

 

About Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus

Born around 346 A.D. in Stridon, St. Jerome was a scholar fluent in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew whose ascetic discipline and deep engagement with Scripture prepared him for a monumental task: translating the Bible into Latin. Commissioned by Pope Damasus I around 382 A.D., Jerome began by revising the flawed Old Latin Gospels, then expanded his work to the entire Bible. For the New Testament, he corrected Latin texts using Greek manuscripts; for the Old Testament, he translated most books directly from Hebrew—a controversial but principled choice. His final Psalter, however, followed the Greek Septuagint tradition for liturgical use. This composite translation, later known as the Vulgate (editio vulgata), became the authoritative biblical text of the Western Church, formally endorsed at the Council of Trent in 1546. The Vulgate’s influence extends beyond theology into textual criticism and Latin education. As one of the earliest translations grounded in original-language scholarship, it offers a vital witness to the state of biblical texts in late antiquity. Jerome’s lexical and syntactic decisions are studied to trace manuscript history and assess variant readings. Its elegant Latin, consistent in grammar and rich in vocabulary, became a model for medieval and Renaissance learning, bridging classical and ecclesiastical Latin. More than a translation, the Vulgate helped define Christian doctrine, preserved the Latin language, and laid essential groundwork for the critical study of Scripture—remaining indispensable to students of Latin, theology, and textual history.
This entry was posted in Genesis. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.