Translation - Latyn-Engels - An liber Job computetur inter Prophetales; & quid...

indeed we call propethical books --> because/for we will call prophetical books (future)

by founder prophets --> by prophet(ic) authors/writers

It has to be objected to this that the Iob's book has not been located between the prophetical ones
--> It (the hebrew tradition) should explain/give the answer why the Iob's book was not located between the prophetical ones

because not only is required that was a prophet to write it --> "becuse not only they ask (or "it is questioned" ) if it was a prophet, who wrote it" or literally "...if the book was written by a prophet"

but also that it demonstrates great influence --> but also it would receive/obtain a great meaning/importance

No it isn t future , it s the present subjuntive of the verb dicare (associated with the other present subjunctive "scriptitentur".
"Conditor" means both author but more often "founder", I don t know theology very well but I think that is referred to the older (founder)prophets.
That "cui" isn t necessarily referred to "auctoritas hebraica" but it could refer to the whole previous sentence.

Yes, you're right. It can be also "dicare" in subjunctive. I'm sorry. It fits here even better indeed.
I don't know theological terms precisely too, so I think Jair should decide what fits better - authors or founders...
I'm convinced that "cui" reffers to the "hebraic tradition", but don't insist.
Anyway, the meaning of the sentence is different a bit and should be corrected. "Cui respondendum est" --> coniugatio periphrastica passiva, usually translated into English by a verb "should". For example: "Mihi discendum est" = I should learn.

Warm greetings!

The translation is good! But I agree with Aneta about the "should" of the periphrastica.


Well done!

Hey girls those corrections look confusing to me. Could you please simply point out the corrections suggested like:

I learn ---> I should learn?

Thanks in advance

CC: Efylove

In many other places, the author speaks about the great "auctoritas" that an author must have in for his books to be included in the prophetic subsection. It seems to me that this is the issue here - conditor - one of the major prophets, those possessing the greates authority.

"It has to be objected" = "It should be objected"

Why "It should be objected", Efee... I don't like the verb here.
"Cui respondendum est" I would translate: "It should explain/give the answer" or sth similar...

Dear Lilly,I gave the example with "to learn" just to show you that the construction"coniugatio periphrastica passiva" shouldn't be translated in passive voice:

"Mihi discendum est" = I should learn.
mihi - the subject (in dative) is a person acting (so-called "agent" ).

The same situation we have here:
"Cui respondendum est"
cui - the subject, which indicates (in this case) the thing acting...so, IMHO, we shouldn't express the predicate in passive voice...

So, could you please tell me what has to be edited?

We are wasting too much time with such a simple correction

Is it:
"That explains why the book of Iob has not been placed among..."?

Isn't possible in English: "that should explain...", Lilly? This is exactly what I meant.

OK, again I've made some edits to make the text more readable in English. Tell me what you think.

Before edits:
Considering if the Iob's book should be counted into the Prophetical ones, and what is required to be a prophetical books.

Someone will see as necessary to examinate why the Iob's book should be collocated between the prophetical books, indeed we call propethical books , those written by the founder prophets;
also the hebrew tradition attends that the book of Iob was written by Moses; so truly it is a prophetical book.It has to be objected to this that the Iob's book has not been located between the prophetical ones, because not only is required that was a prophet to write it , to call it prophetical , but also that it demonstrates great influence.

Only two tiny improvements, if you don't mind, Lilly, to convey the Latin source precisely:

"Someone will see as necessary to examine why the book of Iob should be placed among the prophetical books, because we call propethical books those written by the founder prophets; also the Hebrew tradition attends that because the book of Iob was written by Moses; so it is indeed a prophetical book. That should explain why the book of Iob has not been placed among the prophetical ones, because for a book to be called prophetical it is required that not only a prophet had written it, but also that it demonstrates great influence"