번역 - If indeed we consider (영어)

Please, Tarino, don't vote on your own translations. Of course you think they are correct!

I seems that "precedentes legales" ('precedens legalis') refer to a thought tradition in Law. Thus, it may be better translated as "jurisprudence" or litterally as "legal precedent".

I'm sorry, but I would translate it completely different. Only this part is ok: "because they were composed by the greatest prophet".

Goncin I ve just translated it as referred to some previous part of the text that concerns the disquisition about the definition as legal or prophetical of some biblic book.
So Aneta i m eager to listen your version

Well, firstly we have here MODUS POTENTIALIS which in English should be translated by 2nd conditional I guess, not by the 1st.

My version? Ok. But I don't claim it is perfect in English, ok?

"As if we said that the previous low was the prophetical one, somebody could claim that the Five Books of Moses (or Pentateuch) were the prophetical books, because the greatest prophet had composed them".

but however considering the previous texts , it doesn t refer to some law but a group of books that concern the law ."Hos prophetales esse" and ""..Moysi prophetales esse" depend from the same verb "obiciet", you translate them as separate sentences.The one who claims,who makes an objection say that these are the prophetical ones, because there are 5 prophetical books written by Moses ( and these are written by Moses himself as you can read from the previous translations).

But "law" here is just a name which is a common name for Torah... Sorry, I always make the mistake "low" instead of "law" - I don't know why...

LAW=Torah=the Five Books of Moses=Pentateuch (These are only different names for the books)

But "Pentateuch" doesn't belong to prophetic books! This is why in this sentence the author said what he did... It was only a hypothetical sentence (modus potentialis)"if we said that the previous law was the prophetic one..." But the law ("Pentateuch" ) isn't the prophetic one but legislative one...

You can see here:
"Prophetic books"

Another option which I could accept is:

"As if we said that the previous legislation books were the prophetic ones, one could claim that the Five Books of Moses (or Pentateuch) were the prophetic books..."

- but they weren't so it was only a hypothesis...

And, I'm sorry, but I disagree you typed:
"Hos prophetales esse" and ""..Moysi prophetales esse" depend from the same verb "obiciet"

According to me:
"Hos prophetales esse" - should be followed by "dicamus'
"..Moysi prophetales esse" - is to be followed by "obiciet"

But you forgot that "hos" , it means that the speaker refer to other books not the same "praecedentes".

??? I don't catch it, sorry.

"hos" is a pronoun directing to these just books, not to others...

"As if we said that the previous legislation books were the/these prophetic ones..."

hos --> the/these

I remain by the idea that "praecedentes " isn t related to that "hos", but it s related with obiciet. The true problem with latin is that there aren t native speakers to call in aid.

Tarinoidenkertoja, I can see you doubt in my Latin skills.
Well, I claim what I do and I can't change my mind, because I know Latin rules. Accusativus cum infinitivo syntax doesn't work back! So, "hos" can't be connected with "obiciet"(We have comma before "obiciet" and this should tell us that we can't connect the verb with a pronoun from the previous clause).I'm very sorry.

Oops! I think we'd better ask for some help here

@ Efylove, could you take some time and read the previous posts so that you can help us solve the issue? Otherwise this evaluation will take ages to be completed
Thanks in advance

CC: Efylove

I think some background might be helpful here. The author discusses the criteria according to which the books of the canon should be divided, subject matter or status of author. even without being a latin expert, the following translation (approximately, of course) seems sensible to me:

"If we consider the previous books, the ones pertaining to law, and also those that are prophetical, then it might be objected that also the books of Moses are prophetical, since they were written by the greates of prophets (that is, we might argue that the Torah as well as the ones called "prophets" should all be considered prophetical, from the p[oint of view of their authors)".

The continuation goes like this: "Si autem dixerimus praecedentes legales, & hos historicos esse, obijcietur etiam praecedentes magnam temporum historiam continere" - to say, that if, on the other hand, we divide acc. to subject matter, then the Torah might be placed in the section of the historical books, since it contains many historical descriptions (besides law).

Thank you, jairhas, for your effort, but I don't agree with your version, even if we know the background. It's quite out of Latin gramma.

I don't claim we have to translate anything in a literal way, but I only showed up the literal version to understand the text corectly.
First we have to know the literal version and then we can start making beautiful literary version.

I am not a person who translates the text, but only the person who shows the literal meaning and grammatical issues.

So, I repeat once again:
We have here 'modus potentialis' in conditional clauses (in English - second conditional)- typical hypothesis and it should be concerned here.

This is my (literal)bridge once again:

As if we said that the previous legislation books (=Law) were the prophetic ones, one could claim that the Five Books of Moses (or Pentateuch) were the prophetic books , because the greatest prophet had composed them.

It doesn't deny at all your thesis that Pentateuch could be concidered as propetical books.

There is a "&" sign before the word "hos"

Where? I can't see it in the source.

someone must have omiited it, do you remember that Francky thought it to be a mistake, but when he checked the internet, he found that this sign was in use in Latin already in the first century ?

So, you, as the requester, should correct the text...