# Three or Four Hundred Years?



## SerinusCanaria3075

I noticed something strange in the Latin version of the _Biblia Sacra Vulgata_ that confused me. Isn't the number *300* expressed as _trecentis_? So I'm hoping there's also a number for *400* (duh, common sense right?)
However, in *Genesis 11* there's a verse that says:
*Vixitque Arfaxad postquam genuit Sale, trecentis annis et genuit filios et filias.
So as I saw other versions:
(po) viveu Arfaxade, depois que gerou a Selá, *quatro*centos e três anos anos e gerou filhos e filhas.
(it) visse Arpacsàd dopo aver generato Selach, *quattro*centotré anni anni e generò figli e figlie.

So is 300 and 400 the same in Latin (doubt it) or have changes been made in the newer versions?

*Latin*[13]


----------



## Fenoxielo

I find it interesting that in both the Italian and Portuguese translations, it is in fact 403 years. That three could possibly account for the 300 in the Vulgate. Either way, it seems one is a mistranslation, which is exceedingly common in the Bible. What source were the Portuguese and Italian translations made from? I'm guessing they were probably NOT from the Vulgate, because I couldn't possibly understand how you would get 403 from the Latin here.


----------



## Anne345

There is a lot of "403" 
look there http://scripturetext.com/genesis/11-13.htm 

Greek OT: Septuagint
και εζησεν αρφαξαδ μετα το γεννησαι αυτον τον καιναν *ετη τετρακοσια τριακοντα* και εγεννησεν υιους και θυγατερας και


----------



## Flaminius

Great site Anne.  Merci.

Now, the above Web page in among many that have "303 years" for Latin:
_vixitque Arfaxad postquam genuit Sale *trecentis tribus* annis et genuit filios et filias_

I am just correcting the reference to "300 years" for the sake of accuracy.


----------



## quirinus

έτη τετρακόσια τριάκοντα graece scriptum latine uertitur 'annos quadringentos et triginta', id est CDXXX (430).


----------



## SerinusCanaria3075

So there's some things I don't understand yet. The Vulgate was a revision made in the 5th century, and it was to revise the old Latin translations taken directly from Hebrew _Tanakh_ rather from the Greek _Septuagint_ (correct me if I'm wrong please). 
The Vulgate (if I'm not mistaken) is the version that the Roman Cathoilc church adopted and made official, but regardless of this...
The Spanish Bible I have at hand says the sources came from Hebrew and Greek but not Latin like I thought. What worries me is that if indeed there's some "mistranslation" (it's understandable, well sort of) shouldn't at least the numbers coincide in all versions regardless of what Christian bible you're reading?


----------



## Outsider

The Vulgate was the official version of the Bible for several centuries, but I doubt very much that the Catholic Church is that dogmatic these days. And the Romance translations of the Bible are all recent (20th century), because until the sixties only Latin was allowed in mass.

Vulgate at Wikipedia


----------



## wonderment

I think it would be easy for a tired scribe to get the numbers mixed up. Just look at the text from the Vulgate, Genesis 11:13-17:

13 vixitque Arfaxad postquam genuit Sale trecentis tribus annis et genuit filios et filias (303)
14 Sale quoque vixit triginta annis et genuit Eber (30)
15 vixitque Sale postquam genuit Eber quadringentis tribus annis et genuit filios et filias  (403)
16 vixit autem Eber triginta quattuor annis et genuit Faleg (34)
17 et vixit Eber postquam genuit Faleg quadringentis triginta annis et genuit filios et filias (430)

It seems that our scribe mixed up verse 13 with 15. And if you go have a look at the Greek, verse 13 in the Septuagint actually corresponds to verse 17 in the Vulgate.


----------



## SerinusCanaria3075

Interesting remark by _wonderment _(I should probably skip this Chapter of Genesis huh?).
By the way Outsider, _Nova Vulgata_ is the official Bible of the Catholic Church since 1979 (yeah, I wasn't sure either, thanks).


----------



## Fenoxielo

SerinusCanaria3075 said:


> So there's some things I don't understand yet. The Vulgate was a revision made in the 5th century, and it was to revise the old Latin translations taken directly from Hebrew _Tanakh_ rather from the Greek _Septuagint_ (correct me if I'm wrong please).
> The Vulgate (if I'm not mistaken) is the version that the Roman Cathoilc church adopted and made official, but regardless of this...
> The Spanish Bible I have at hand says the sources came from Hebrew and Greek but not Latin like I thought. What worries me is that if indeed there's some "mistranslation" (it's understandable, well sort of) shouldn't at least the numbers coincide in all versions regardless of what Christian bible you're reading?


Not necessarily. Scribes often thought themselves smarter than the original author and often "corrected" things they thought to be erroneous. The new error is then perpetuated as copies of the copy are made. It could have been a scribe who thought 403 years was a little ridiculous and shortened it a but (although 303 isn't any more realistic).


----------

