Genesis 31:32

Posted on January 31, 2006 by Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus

Gn 31:32 Quod autem furti me arguis: apud quemcumque inveneris deos tuos, necetur coram fratribus nostris. scrutare, quidquid tuorum apud me inveneris, et aufer. hæc dicens, ignorabat quod Rachel furata esset idola.

But as for your accusation of theft against me: with whomever you find your gods, let him be put to death before our brethren. Search whatever of yours you find with me, and take it. In saying this, he did not know that Rachel had stolen the idols.”

# Latin Gloss Grammar Tag
1 Quod but as for the fact that CONJ
2 autem however CONJ
3 furti of theft GEN.SG.N
4 me me ACC.SG.1P.PRON
5 arguis you accuse 2SG.PRES.ACT.IND
6 apud with PREP+ACC
7 quemcumque whomever ACC.SG.M.REL.PRON
8 inveneris you find 2SG.FUT.PERF.ACT.IND
9 deos gods ACC.PL.M
10 tuos your ACC.PL.M.POSS.ADJ
11 necemtur let him be put to death 3SG.PRES.SUBJ.PASS
12 coram before PREP+ABL
13 fratribus brethren ABL.PL.M
14 nostris our ABL.PL.M.POSS.ADJ
15 scrutare search 2SG.PRES.IMP.DEP
16 quidquid whatever ACC.SG.N.IND.PRON
17 tuorum of yours GEN.PL.M.POSS.ADJ
18 apud with PREP+ACC
19 me me ACC.SG.1P.PRON
20 inveneris you find 2SG.FUT.PERF.ACT.IND
21 et and CONJ
22 aufer take it 2SG.PRES.ACT.IMP
23 hæc these things ACC.PL.N.DEM.PRON
24 dicens saying NOM.SG.M.PRES.PTCP
25 ignorabat he did not know 3SG.IMPERF.ACT.IND
26 quod that CONJ
27 Rachel Rachel NOM.SG.F.PROP
28 furata had stolen NOM.SG.F.PERF.PTCP.DEP
29 esset was 3SG.PLUPERF.SUBJ.ACT.AUX
30 idola idols ACC.PL.N

Syntax

Main Clause 1: Quod autem furti me arguis — causal-concessive clause introducing the accusation; literally, “But as for the fact that you accuse me of theft.”
Main Clause 2: Apud quemcumque inveneris deos tuos, necetur coram fratribus nostris — conditional with future-perfect verb and jussive subjunctive expressing a public declaration of justice.
Main Clause 3: Scrutare quidquid tuorum apud me inveneris, et aufer — two coordinated imperatives demanding investigation and restitution.
Subordinate Clause: Quod Rachel furata esset idola — indirect statement depending on ignorabat; expresses Jacob’s unawareness.
Overall Syntax: The sentence is a blend of legal challenge and irony; Jacob proclaims innocence before witnesses, unaware of his wife’s guilt, illustrating dramatic irony in the narrative.

Morphology

  1. Quod — Lemma: quod; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: indeclinable; Function: introduces explanatory clause; Translation: “but as for the fact that”; Notes: Opens Jacob’s defense by connecting it to Laban’s accusation.
  2. autem — Lemma: autem; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: indeclinable; Function: introduces contrast; Translation: “however”; Notes: Indicates a shift from previous dialogue to a new argument.
  3. furti — Lemma: furtum; Part of Speech: noun; Form: genitive singular neuter; Function: genitive of charge with arguis; Translation: “of theft”; Notes: Specifies the crime alleged by Laban.
  4. me — Lemma: ego; Part of Speech: pronoun; Form: accusative singular; Function: object of arguis; Translation: “me”; Notes: Jacob is the one accused of theft.
  5. arguis — Lemma: arguo; Part of Speech: verb; Form: present active indicative, 2nd person singular; Function: main verb; Translation: “you accuse”; Notes: A term of legal confrontation implying evidence or proof.
  6. apud — Lemma: apud; Part of Speech: preposition; Form: governs accusative; Function: expresses location; Translation: “with”; Notes: Indicates the person or place in possession of the object.
  7. quemcumque — Lemma: quicumque; Part of Speech: relative pronoun; Form: accusative singular masculine; Function: object of inveneris; Translation: “whomever”; Notes: Emphasizes impartiality in Jacob’s declaration.
  8. inveneris — Lemma: invenio; Part of Speech: verb; Form: future perfect active indicative, 2nd person singular; Function: verb in conditional protasis; Translation: “you find”; Notes: Refers to discovery after inspection; future perfect anticipates certainty.
  9. deos — Lemma: deus; Part of Speech: noun; Form: accusative plural masculine; Function: direct object of inveneris; Translation: “gods”; Notes: Refers to Laban’s household idols, central to the narrative’s irony.
  10. tuos — Lemma: tuus; Part of Speech: possessive adjective; Form: accusative plural masculine; Function: modifies deos; Translation: “your”; Notes: Reinforces possession and highlights Laban’s claim.
  11. necemtur — Lemma: neco; Part of Speech: verb; Form: present subjunctive passive, 3rd person singular; Function: jussive subjunctive; Translation: “let him be put to death”; Notes: Legal oath-like formula declaring public punishment if guilt is found.
  12. coram — Lemma: coram; Part of Speech: preposition; Form: governs ablative; Function: denotes presence; Translation: “before”; Notes: Introduces the audience or witnesses of the action.
  13. fratribus — Lemma: frater; Part of Speech: noun; Form: ablative plural masculine; Function: object of coram; Translation: “brethren”; Notes: Refers to clan or kin witnesses required for justice.
  14. nostris — Lemma: noster; Part of Speech: possessive adjective; Form: ablative plural masculine; Function: modifies fratribus; Translation: “our”; Notes: Suggests mutual kinship between Laban’s and Jacob’s households.
  15. scrutare — Lemma: scrutor; Part of Speech: deponent verb; Form: present imperative, 2nd person singular; Function: command; Translation: “search”; Notes: Indicates Jacob’s confidence and openness to inspection.
  16. quidquid — Lemma: quisquis; Part of Speech: indefinite pronoun; Form: accusative singular neuter; Function: direct object; Translation: “whatever”; Notes: Expresses universality, leaving no possession exempt.
  17. tuorum — Lemma: tuus; Part of Speech: possessive adjective; Form: genitive plural masculine; Function: modifies implied noun rerum; Translation: “of yours”; Notes: Reinforces the idea of rightful ownership of the accused items.
  18. apud — Lemma: apud; Part of Speech: preposition; Form: governs accusative; Function: expresses possession or proximity; Translation: “with”; Notes: Repetition for emphasis, underscoring the location of investigation.
  19. me — Lemma: ego; Part of Speech: pronoun; Form: accusative singular; Function: object of apud; Translation: “me”; Notes: Jacob refers to himself, offering transparency before witnesses.
  20. inveneris — Lemma: invenio; Part of Speech: verb; Form: future perfect active indicative, 2nd person singular; Function: conditional verb; Translation: “you find”; Notes: Anticipates confirmed results of Laban’s search.
  21. et — Lemma: et; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: indeclinable; Function: links coordinate commands; Translation: “and”; Notes: Connects the imperatives scrutare and aufer.
  22. aufer — Lemma: aufero; Part of Speech: verb; Form: present active imperative, 2nd person singular; Function: command; Translation: “take it”; Notes: Expresses Jacob’s full surrender and confidence of innocence.
  23. hæc — Lemma: hic; Part of Speech: demonstrative pronoun; Form: accusative plural neuter; Function: object of dicens; Translation: “these things”; Notes: Refers to the preceding declaration.
  24. dicens — Lemma: dico; Part of Speech: participle; Form: nominative singular masculine present active; Function: circumstantial participle; Translation: “saying”; Notes: Introduces the subsequent action of ignorance.
  25. ignorabat — Lemma: ignoro; Part of Speech: verb; Form: imperfect active indicative, 3rd person singular; Function: main verb; Translation: “he did not know”; Notes: Marks narrative irony; Jacob’s statement is sincere but mistaken.
  26. quod — Lemma: quod; Part of Speech: conjunction; Form: indeclinable; Function: introduces indirect statement; Translation: “that”; Notes: Connects ignorabat to its content clause.
  27. Rachel — Lemma: Rachel; Part of Speech: proper noun; Form: nominative singular feminine; Function: subject of subordinate clause; Translation: “Rachel”; Notes: The true perpetrator of the theft.
  28. furata — Lemma: furor; Part of Speech: deponent participle; Form: nominative singular feminine perfect; Function: predicate of esset; Translation: “had stolen”; Notes: Deponent participle describing completed secretive act.
  29. esset — Lemma: sum; Part of Speech: auxiliary verb; Form: pluperfect subjunctive, 3rd person singular; Function: auxiliary in indirect statement; Translation: “had been”; Notes: Used with furata to express pluperfect tense in indirect discourse.
  30. idola — Lemma: idolum; Part of Speech: noun; Form: accusative plural neuter; Function: direct object of furata esset; Translation: “idols”; Notes: Refers to the teraphim Rachel had taken, the center of the narrative tension.

 

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.