Dr. Bock,
You say: “What makes flesh flesh (merely that it is material or matter)? No, there is more to it than to say it is fleshy stuff. The point surely is that flesh is described as flesh because it is not immortal and what makes it temporary is the judgment that fell on flesh as a result of sin (as the context of Gen 3 has told us before we get here).”

As a noted and respected scholar (certainly by me!) you make a number of unsupported assertions. [Of course, you could more fully argue them.] When you argue with phrases like “merely,” “there is more to it” and “surely,” you are essentially saying (in the common manner of scholars) trust me, I know about these things. But I might prefer that you make fewer assumptions in Genesis 6:3 (for example). Consider:
1. Bashar does not necessarily imply what is temporary or transient because bashar existed prior to sin and “the judgment that fell on flesh” (Bock). See Gen. 2:21 and 2:23, which have nothing to do with mortality or the fall.
2. HALOT-3 does indeed have “what is frail, transient” as part of its eighth entry, but note that the first entry is “skin” and the second is “flesh,” both conveying the ordinary meaning you seem to disdain (in this context). Why do dynamic translations so frequently slide to the tails of a lexical probability plot? Or off of the plot altogether?
3. Instead of going to Genesis 3 for context, why not stay in Genesis 6 and say bashar might contrast with the “sons of God” (Gen. 6:2), who may be angelic beings? Assuming that more immediate context probably takes one in a different direction than “mortal” (NET) or “corrupt” (HCSB).

You offer reassurance from teams of translators. Teams of translators do not deliver us from the danger of questionable selections from the population of possible renderings. The translators are all following a certain translation philosophy, and that will yield different translation results for different philosophies. Further, your teams of scholars making knowledgeable judgments regularly come up with different translation choices for the same word (“flesh,” “mortal,” “corrupt” or no translation at all!). So, in the final analysis, what did teams of experts buy me in terms of accuracy?

My example in Genesis 6:3 used NET and Holman Christian Standard Bible, which are both mildly dynamic. The more fully dynamic Contemporary English Version drops the entire causal clause (“I won't let my life-giving breath remain in anyone forever.” Gen. 6:3, CEV). Compare that to the formal equivalent “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh” Gen. 6:3, ESV). I think you will agree that some teams employ dynamic philosophy to a fault.

My reading has convinced me that this debate is best pursued with concrete translation comparisons such as Genesis 6:3. Otherwise the jousting goes on in a vacuum.

At the end of the day, a Bible student who owns several translations ends up with a handful of different possibilities. Most have no way to sift these for a decision. I agree they should use more than one translation, but a problem remains.

I do appreciate your scholarship and opinions as well as your irenic spirit.

-Barry