Testament of Moses

Notes from this edition, separate from the reading. Original source text is retained.

• I.3: The chronological notice has lost numerals. Its mention of the phoenix and its connection with the narrative are uncertain; Charles treats I.3–5 as later additions.
• I.5: The genitive profetiae remains a heading-like fragment. Its connection is explicitly uncertain; no unsupported this was is inserted.
• I.7: His is supplied from context. Successor and holy things are provisional renderings of the difficult Latin construction.
• I.8: Charles replaces manuscript ex tribus eorum with patribus eorum. The adopted English words to their fathers are bracketed; manuscript wording remains in the aligned base.
• I.9: Charles’s critical verse division places these words at the end of I.9 rather than the opening of I.10. The Latin phrase translated to give through Joshua is difficult. The instrumental sense of de is documented elsewhere in this work, but the construction remains uncertain.
• I.10: Charles supplies Confortare and replaces manuscript promitte with firma te, and est ideo with sis Deo. Be strong is bracketed because it is supplied. The other changes are editorial emendations, not claimed to be manuscript wording. About everything is a minimal English connective rendering of the irregular construction; no lost Hebrew/Greek words have been restored.
• I.13: Charles omits the manuscript et before ab initio and reads in ea for in eam. This layer follows those bounded editorial changes. Non coepit still means did not begin here; no reconstructed was not pleased has been adopted. Inceptio is rendered undertaking, a lexical interpretation rather than changed Latin. The whole sentence remains uncertain; the reading does not claim to recover its lost original-language background.
• I.15: Charles reads nunc, now, instead of manuscript tunc, then. The final palam omnem plebem is rendered before all the people provisionally; grammar remains uncertain in the Latin.
• I.17: Charles reads repones, future, where the manuscript transcription has reponis, present. The English adopts the coherent future sequence with this change disclosed. Treat with cedar does not specify cedar oil or a particular preservation method.
• I.18: Charles reads respiciet, future, where the manuscript transcription has respicit, present. The English adopts this explicitly disclosed editorial reading. Repentance remains the Latin wording, not a conjectural return.