Just a quick update.
Having completed the research on and analysis of each of the ten “bones” found as markers in the Hebrew text of the bible I’ve been drawn more and more to the question of its provenance.
How did the markers get into the text?
When did they become a part of the text?
Who might have been responsible for their insertion?
How does the provenance affect their interpretation?
These questions cannot be answered definitively because we do not have the original written texts. The materials on which those were written could not survive the passage of so much time. But we have evidence on which to base some reasonable conclusions. And it is that evidence that I am working with and it is that evidence and those conclusions that I now want to add to the competed work.
I hope and expect that that additional material will improve the value and quality of the completed work.
Having had several conversations about this project with others and having received one comment from many, especially those whose Hebrew is good, I want to make one point now that I haven’t in prior posts on this subject…
The fact that the marker phrase is characterized by the use of the word often translated as “bone” is both important and interesting, in my view. However, it is not at all critical to the actual argument of the study. It does not matter, ultimately, HOW the marked events or occurrences are marked. What matters is that they ARE marked. So long as the markers are unique to the ten events, the marker itself could be any word, phrase or even scribal marking that created the unique quality of setting the ten instances off from others.
Some will suggest different translations for the word etzem and it is quite true that different translations are possible. But it is the Hebrew word itself, used in the phrase where we find it, that makes it a “marker”. And its use in the ten instances where we find it cannot be denied.
Charles R. Lightner