Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>]

Sorry! I didn't realise you were in America.

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of Heard, Christopher
Sent: Sat 7/30/2005 8:39 PM
To: b-hebrew
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Author of the Torah
 
[On Jul 30, 2005, at 8:16 AM, Read, James C wrote:]
> Am I to understand the continued silence after my long list
> text comparisons that you have finally accepted that the
> authorship of the torah is more heavily attested to Moshe'
> than you previously believed?
>
> Or are you still dilligently studying the references?
[/James]

Your message re Daniel, Ezra, and Nehemiah is time-stamped 10:14 PM  
PDT on 7/29/05. Your message re Chronicles is time-stamped 11:09 PM  
PDT on 7/29/05. The message above is time-stamped 8:16 AM PDT on  
7/30/05. You should understand from my "continued silence" from 10:15  
PM to 8:15 AM that I was ASLEEP.

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk  Sat Jul 30 23:39:14 2005
Return-Path: <k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail58.messagelabs.com (mail58.messagelabs.com 
[193.109.255.35])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A18754C00B
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sat, 30 Jul 2005 23:39:14 -0400 
(EDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-6.tower-58.messagelabs.com!1122781153!83978879!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.4.15; banners=kingston.ac.uk,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [141.241.2.22]
Received: (qmail 26331 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2005 03:39:13 -0000
Received: from kuexim3.king.ac.uk (141.241.2.22)
        by server-6.tower-58.messagelabs.com with SMTP;
        31 Jul 2005 03:39:13 -0000
Received: from [141.241.17.18] (helo=KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk)
        by kuexim3.king.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50)
        id 1Dz4fQ-0000Kj-ST; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 04:39:13 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 04:36:59 +0100
Message-ID: 
<6B84A53BD25BCA46B070A05DD8C8C9F813A3F8 AT KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [b-hebrew] Translating Ezekiel 16:26
Thread-Index: AcWVbwNsFbIM3+mRQw+w5SU2O6b8uwAEhfSM
From: "Read, James C" <K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
To: "kenneth hoglund" <hoglund AT wfu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Translating Ezekiel 16:26
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 03:39:15 -0000


Yeah!
I think ideals of decency have coloured translations in the past. 
Although it's quite clear that these things were not a great concern
to the original authors.

Translations of Isaac taking Rebekah into his tent and 'loving' her 
make me laugh.

-----Original Message-----
From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org on behalf of kenneth hoglund
Sent: Sun 7/31/2005 2:26 AM
To: b-hebrew
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Translating Ezekiel 16:26
 
Chris et al.--

The 2001 Study edition of the Koehler-Baumgartner Lexicon gives BASAR as 
"penis" in Syriac and shows Lev 15.2ff, 7 as well as Ezek 16.26 and 
23.20. But, in a somewhat contradictory fashion, provides "great of 
flesh" for Ezek 16.26 under GADEL.

In the Jewish Study Bible, the JPS translation has "lustful" but the 
footnote reads "Lit. 'big of phallus'" and cites 23.20.

Since GADEL has the sense of "enlarged" (as in 2 Chron 17.12) your 
proposed understanding would seem to make the most sense of an unusual 
expression.

Ken Hoglund
Prof. of Religion
Wake Forest University
Winston-Salem NC
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.


This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From kgraham0938 AT comcast.net  Sun Jul 31 00:05:13 2005
Return-Path: <kgraham0938 AT comcast.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from sccrmhc13.comcast.net (sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2885E4C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 00:05:13 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from 204.127.205.142 (sccrwbc59.asp.att.net[204.127.205.159])
        by comcast.net (sccrmhc13) with SMTP
        id <2005073104051201300qfbs8e>; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 04:05:12 +0000
Received: from [69.136.149.33] by 204.127.205.142;
        Sun, 31 Jul 2005 04:05:11 +0000
From: kgraham0938 AT comcast.net
To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 04:05:11 +0000
Message-Id: 
<073120050405.15648.42EC4DF70004B0C000003D202207003201C8CCC7CF030E080E9D0905 AT comcast.net>
X-Mailer: AT&T Message Center Version 1 (Dec 17 2004)
X-Authenticated-Sender: a2dyYWhhbTA5MzhAY29tY2FzdC5uZXQMIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Translating Ezekiel 16:26
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 04:05:13 -0000

I think it is refering to their genitials based on Ezekiel 23:20.  The only 
trouble is translating PILAG:$"YHEM in Ez 23:20.  I think that it is refering 
to the Egyptians 'genitals' as opposed to their concubines, because that does 
not make sense to me. But the pronoun is masculine, so it is something 
belonging to the men.  So I think the relative clause here is futher 
describing PILAG:$"YHEM .  So Israel lusted after their genitials, which was 
the flesh (genitial size) of a donkey.

So, tracing back to Ez 16:26, even though the context is fornication, I think 
 mentioning the size here points to the inticement of the Egyptians.  Israel 
was so blinded by lust, that she went after what she really desired, namely 
what attracted her eyes.

And maybe the reason why the NIV and other translators, translate this as 
lust is because of censorship.  I mean I'd have a hard time publishing this 
one.

--
Kelton Graham
KGRAHAM0938 AT comcast.net

-------------- Original message --------------

> I am working through Ezekiel and I am not sure how to take the phrase
> גדלי בשר [GDLY B&R] "those being great of flesh" in Ezekiel
> 16:26. It's clear enough from the context that the speaker is
> referring to male genitalia, and the use of בשר [B&R] in Ezekiel
> 23:20 confirms this. However, I am not sure whether to understand
> גדלי בשר [GDLY B&R] as a reference simply to large genitalia
> per se, or to _enlarged_ genitalia, that is, erections. NIV, NRSV,
> and JPS all take it in the latter sense, and translate it as
> "lustful." The LXX has a fairly literalistic translation,
> µεγαλοσάρκος [MEGALOSARKOS], "big-fleshed." Neither the
> Hebrew word-pair nor the Greek word appear elsewhere in the Tanakh or
> LXX, so I don't have any comparative data there to work with. Does
> anyone know of any good evidence, e.g. uses of the Hebrew phrase or
> Greek word in extra-biblical sources, or similar phrases in cognate
> languages, that would help me solidify this translation, or is it an
> irreducible ambiguity? Anybody know why NIV, NRSV, JPS read this as
> they do?
> --
> R. Christopher Heard
> Assistant Professor of Religion
> Pepperdine University
> Malibu, California 90263-4352
> http://faculty.pepperdine.edu/cheard
> http://www.iTanakh.org
> http://www.semioticsandexegesis.info
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>From k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk  Sun Jul 31 01:35:28 2005
Return-Path: <k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mail56.messagelabs.com (mail56.messagelabs.com 
[193.109.254.67])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9271F4C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:35:27 -0400 
(EDT)
X-VirusChecked: Checked
X-Env-Sender: k0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk
X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-56.messagelabs.com!1122788126!100093533!1
X-StarScan-Version: 5.4.15; banners=kingston.ac.uk,-,-
X-Originating-IP: [141.241.2.22]
Received: (qmail 3956 invoked from network); 31 Jul 2005 05:35:26 -0000
Received: from kuexim3.king.ac.uk (141.241.2.22)
        by server-12.tower-56.messagelabs.com with SMTP;
        31 Jul 2005 05:35:26 -0000
Received: from [141.241.17.18] (helo=KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk)
        by kuexim3.king.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Dz6Tt-0000m9-NJ
        for b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 06:35:26 +0100
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 06:35:24 +0100
Message-ID: 
<6B84A53BD25BCA46B070A05DD8C8C9F813A3F9 AT KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Nehemiah's Torah
Thread-Index: AcWVkaZxfexR2YcERHi0RmTxFWPaGA=From: "Read, James C" 
<K0434995 AT kingston.ac.uk>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.6
Subject: [b-hebrew] Nehemiah's Torah
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 05:35:28 -0000


There are seven direct references to Moshe' in Nehemiah:
1:7, 1:8, 8:1, 8:14, 9:14, 10:29, 13:1

8:1 specifically mentions 'Moshe's law-scroll'
while
13:1 simply makes reference to 'Moshe's scroll'

I have not reason to believe that these two scrolls were any different 
but am open to suggestions.
8:1 explicitly mentions 'Moshe's law scroll'

8:14 makes reference to something found *written* 'in the law that yhwh
had commanded by means of Moshe'. So while there is no explicit reference 
to Moshe's scroll/law-scroll, it is certainly adequately implied as they 
found it 'written'.

9:14 has no explicit reference to Moshe's scroll/law-scroll but there is 
an implicit perception of one, although,this is not adequately implied as 
in 8:14

10:29 has no explicit reference to Moshe's scroll/law-scroll but does make 
reference to the laws passed through him

1:7 makes reference to the commandments, regulations and judicial-decisions
given to Moshe' but no reference to a written record
1:8 makes reference to the 'word' that yhwh commanded Moshe and then 
paraphrases
promises and prophecies mentioned in the canonical Torah we have today.


1:7 Talks about yahowah's 'commandments, rules and judgements/punishments'. 
We 
know that the commandments were written in stone and kept in the 
covenant-chest.
We also know that, by attestation, that Moshe wrote down yahowah's 'rules and 
judgements' and these were kept beside the Ark and that Yehoshua started a 
tradition of faithful copying, which was to be also undertaken by kings, and 
that 
was still in practice in Nehemiah's day undertaken by 'Ezra the skilled 
copyist'.
1:8 Makes reference to prophecies we find in today's form of the canonical 
Torah 
and there is no internal evidence here to show that this was also part of 
Moshe's 
scroll of that day but both tradition of authorship and the attested 
tradition of 
copying imply that this was the case. NB This is, however, only 
circumstantial 
evidence.

9:14 Is an interesting verse because we find it slap bang in the middle of a 
summary
of not only Genesis to Deuteronomy but Genesis to Deuteronomy to Samuel to 
Kings.
Now, while this is not explicit evidence that such were already recorded in 
hard 
copies, it certainly is implied. Otherwise, we would be left in a position 
where not 
only did Ezra and Nehemiah compose their own books, but would also have been 
responsible 
for almost the entire hebrew canon. Which is a little exaggerated because 
Ezra is 
merely described as 'a skilled *copyist*' not 'a skilled copyist with the 
authority to 
add oral traditions into the missing bits'.

13:1 Starts the account of how the people realised that they shouldn't be 
mixing with
Moabites and Ammonites and, more pertinently, that their source of 
information was 
'Moshe's scroll'. This, evidently, is alluding to Deu23:3-6 and therefore 
does not 
conclusively show that Moshe's scroll included more than the first person 
discourse, 
which started at chapter 5. However, by the same token, it doesn't give me 
any 
reason to justifiably doubt it.

10:29 Does not explicitly allude to a written law but the whole context of 
the story 
shows the re-enstatement of spiritual pratices and that the basis of these 
was 'Moshe's
law scroll' which had been publically read out by Ezra.

8:1 Takes us to a scene where the repair of the wall has been completed and 
returning 
exiles are restoring pure worship of their god, Yahowah. In order to get this 
restoration
of to a fine start, we note that Ezra does not stand up and say 'I'm a priest 
entrusted with
oral traditions and therefore you must blindly believe everything I tell 
you'. He humbly 
reads out from a well-established and maticulously copied scroll attributed 
to Moshe.
More importantly, and more significantly, this scroll is referred to as 
Moshe's *law* scroll, 
which tends to show that the tradition of referring to this scroll as the 
'torah' had 
already been firmly established and, in fact, other parts of Nehemiah refer 
to it simply as 
'the law', 'god's law', 'the law-scoll/book' e.g. 8:3.

8:14 Refers to something found written in the law. And this something is a 
command to 
dwell in booths in festival of the seventh month. Deuteronomy 16:13,16 
commands to celebrate 
the festival of booths but makes no explicit mention of dwelling in them. 
Leviticus 23:42, on
the other hand, *does* make such an explicit reference and it is clear that 
such was firmly 
part of Moshe's scroll, which had been faithfully preserved and copied for 
many generations 
in accordance with the command given by Moshe for the kings to make a copy. 
Also Leviticus 23:34 gives the exact date and duration of the festival.

Conclusion. 

There is no doubt that by Nehemiah's day there had already been a tradition 
of 
faithful copying of scrolls. It is also evident that the most important of 
those scrolls was 
Moshe's scroll or Moshe's law scroll aka 'god's law' or simply 'the law'. It 
is evident 
that there was more than just Deuteronomy in this scroll and the internal 
evidence of 
Nehemiah gives no reason to doubt that any parts of the canonical Torah were 
not already 
a well-established and faithfully copied part of it.
Ezra is referred to as a copyist and is in no way, explicitly or implicitly, 
authorised to 
add oral traditions to Moshe's scroll, which was already considered sacred 
and was evidently 
the major point of reference for the system or worship. In fact, the 
festivals being 
celebrated are outlined in Moshe's scroll or torah.
The priests were well enough versed in the history from Genesis to Kings to 
be able to 
give an accurate summary of their nations failings in their supplication to 
their god.
This implies a well establiched point of reference that all priests could 
refer to. 
Otherwise, each priest would have his own version of their history as the 
product of a 
game of Chinese whispers. The attested tradition of copying and the 
traditional view of 
the authorship of the implied scrolls give me good reason to believe that 
they were 
in circulation at that time.
More interestingly, Ezra is not commanded to go and get 'the scroll' in 8:1 
but 'Moshe's 
law-scroll' implying that there were other scrolls. However, I am sure that 
critics will 
pounce immediately on this observation as conjectural but I still think that 
it is worthy 
of note.
Furthermore, the tradition of copying was still around in the days of the 
masoretes and 
we know that there is good reason that copyists were named 'sopherim' 
(counters). We know
that they were maticulous in their duty and employed many counting techniques 
to verify 
the authenticity of copies of scrolls. This tradition was commanded by Moshe 
and Yehoshua 
was the first participant. Ezra was a copyist in Nehemiah's day and there is 
no reason to 
believe that he was less maticulous than Yehoshua or the masoretes. In fact, 
as a priest 
encharged to retore pure worship it is reasonable to believe that he would 
have more than 
the usual care not to overstep the limitations of his duties,

Therefore,I see absolutely no reason to believe that the Torah we have today 
is substantially 
different from the torah which Ezra read from and participated in faithfully 
preserving via
copying and verification by counting.

This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs Email
Security System.
>From jkilmon AT historian.net  Sun Jul 31 06:55:08 2005
Return-Path: <jkilmon AT historian.net>
X-Original-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from mx1.lsn.net (mx1.lsn.net [66.90.130.73])
        by lists.ibiblio.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2685F4C005
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 06:55:08 -0400 
(EDT)
Received: from Jack (66-90-142-245.dyn.grandenetworks.net [66.90.142.245])
        by mx1.lsn.net (8.13.0.Beta3/8.13.0.Beta3) with SMTP id j6VAt7aL023849
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 05:55:08 -0500
Message-ID: <1a5901c595be$4e1c0070$0200a8c0@Jack>
From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon AT historian.net>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
References: 
<6B84A53BD25BCA46B070A05DD8C8C9F813A3C2 AT KUDBEX01.kuds.kingston.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 05:54:58 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
        reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Antivirus: Scanned by Vexira Antivirus 1.0.6
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] YHWH pronunciation
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.6
Precedence: list
List-Id: Hebrew Bible List <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 10:55:08 -0000

I still believe it possible that yhwh is just what it is, the qal of hwh
taken
from a TITLE phrase as a hypocoristicon of EL, ala Albright and Cross.  A
title like "El caused the world to come into being".  I believe so because
it is a formula seen throughout the ANE, like kheper khepera kheperu from
Egypt.

At some point in time YHWH passed into folk etymology as the hiph'il,
perhaps at the time
of the Yahwist author/editor.

Sometimes I see all this NAME of God stuff as a big joke played on us by
history or, indeed, history's God.  My sense of the collective Pentateuch is
that the SOUND  of God's voice gives existence to something when he CALLS it
much like a baby did not become a person until its NAME $m was called out by
the father.  In Genesis 1:5 wayqara elohym l'owr yom w'lachoshek qara
layileh and in Genesis 1:8 wayqara elohym laraqiya shemayim.....hence
everything that was called into existence with a NAME $m was SHEMAYIM.  Now
EL was not CALLED into existence, was he?  He was not part of the shemayim.
Was he created? If HE was not created, why would he have a name?
He would just BE as he so told Moses in
the narrative.  The NAME is $m and all that is named is $mym and what we
HEAR is $m(  and $m also means what is existing because it is THERE $m and
unless God was created by being named..he has no name. l) $m.

Having added my two shekels, it is plain that we will never know how YHWH
emerged from a very misty area of the ancient past, hence we will not know
its original pronounciation.  One might, therefore, at first, think this
extensive exchange is moot but every time this thread plays out on any of
the serious lists with serious Hebrew linguists, like Rolf, Yigal and
others,  but I find the various opinions and their various lexical
backgrounds to be fascinating and informative.

Jack