Testament of Moses

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

• XI.1: Adopts Charles’s supplied quam (“and” in the both/and construction), singular praedixerat and Monse for meos. The manuscript’s first-person “my feet” remains in the source layer.
• XI.2: Adopts eum Monses for manuscript cum monse, resolving subject and object; “encouraged” is the ordinary sense of hortatus est.
• XI.3: No substantive critical reading needed.
• XI.4: Adopts solaris/solabor for celares/celabor, es for est, and acerba quae for acerva que. “Words” renders the speech relation within voce, not a separate manuscript noun. The damaged ending ist… is completed as Charles’s ist(a); ellipsis retains the larger trailing unreadable sequence shown by the manuscript.
• XI.5: Bracketed but and now are Charles’s supplies; recipiet regularizes the manuscript present recipit.
• XI.6: “Your” is supplied by the continuing direct address, not an independently surviving Latin possessive.
• XI.7: Uses Charles’s audebit and inde ut for audevit and in eut. The comparison homo is rendered “like a man’s” in relation to the body; the Latin comparison itself remains elliptical.
• XI.8: Secus aetatem is interpreted as “in the course of time”; “extends” is an English link for the Latin nominal clause, not a new event.
• XI.9: Uses Charles’s abis for ab his and nutriet for nutrit.
• XI.10: No substantive critical reading needed.
• XI.11: Uses Charles’s atavorum for araborum and case-regularized unum. “Pass” is an English grammatical supplement for the awkward patiens clause, not a visible manuscript lacuna; the construction remains uncertain. No earlier-language text is asserted.
• XI.12: Follows Charles’s domina filiam, dari viro, quem timebit and custodiens in place of the corrupt manuscript arrangement. “Care for” expresses the contextual sense of potero plebem, whose literal syntax is uncertain. The supplied finite verb from (sint) is bracketed; fear is retained rather than softened to respect.
• XI.13: Uses Charles’s (et qui), deletes his bracketed de voluntate eorum as duplication, and adopts voluptatem for manuscript voluntatem. The phrase remains literal rather than expanded into a description of cravings.
• XI.14: Does not adopt Charles’s supplied viri or D. Retains the physical opening lacuna and manuscript C milia = 100,000, whose historical value is uncertain. Adopts increverunt in place of qui creverunt for readability. Nam retains its explanatory force: the increase explains the stated number, rather than establishing an additional increase after it.
• XI.15: Only Charles’s explicit Domini fills the gap, shown in brackets. The list of words/judging/answering is retained without constructing a new institutional role.
• XI.16: Adopts Charles’s tum audebunt and dicent. The uninterpretable semet, which Charles also marks corrupt, is not assigned an invented meaning; its presence is disclosed in the reading and preserved verbatim in the source layer. The duplicate no-longer construction is combined in English without adding a new subject. Epithets are not treated as a doctrinal identification of Moses with God. The quotation introduced at XI.16 continues through XI.17. The enemies in XI.17 are the people the Amorite speakers intend to attack. Single quotation marks distinguish the reported Amorite speech from Joshua’s enclosing speech.
• XI.17: Inimici, “enemies,” occurs within the attackers’ speech and refers to those whom they intend to attack. Adopts ferebat for erat and potentem omnis orbis terrarum for the corrupt homini potentem orbem terrarum. These are editorial repairs, not directly intact readings. Mercy/justice may qualify the ruler or the act of looking; English leaves this attachment open. The quotation introduced at XI.16 continues through XI.17. The enemies in XI.17 are the people the Amorite speakers intend to attack. Single quotation marks distinguish the reported Amorite speech from Joshua’s enclosing speech.
• XI.18: Retains the Latin sense of confundamus; case-normalized “from the face” does not imply reconstructing a Greek verb. The quotation introduced at XI.16 continues through XI.17. The enemies in XI.17 are the people the Amorite speakers intend to attack. Single quotation marks distinguish the reported Amorite speech from Joshua’s enclosing speech.
• XI.19: No substantive critical reading needed; quotation boundary supplied.