A Note on Dots

You might find the previous text a bit to read. That is true even for scholars, but here are a few notes to help you at least understand what someof the signs mean.

... always means that something is missing and/or left out. In this text, nothing is left out that can be idenitified; so here you can guess that the elipses (the technical term for those three little dots) indicate places where there is lettering, but it cannot be read with any certainty.

[] or [...] means that there is missing text. Unlike just ..., this usually indicates a spot where there is no lettering or (more commonly) the paper/stone/parchment is missing.

(?) or ? usually indicates that a reading is possible, but not certain; this may mean that the leters are clear enough, but for one reason or other, the meaning is not clear.

[un]to or m[igh]t usually means that there are missing letters/material, but that the reading seems to fit. In these cases, the parts enclosed are often used to suggest how much of a word - and what part - is missing. You can imagine that und[er] and und[derstanding] would suggest two very different amounts of missing text.

(namely) is often just an editorial addition to clarify something that is implied by the text. A good, non-Biblical example: I (am) Tarzan, (and) you (are) Jane. This would be perfectly acceptable Jungle-ese - and Russian, too! The additions are helpful, but not really there in the original.