I forgot to reply to this.  No it wasn’t a typo.  Remember the ESV claims to be engaged in scholarship.  They don’t claim to be doing a minor update and revision of the RSV in line with conservative principles totally ignoring the last 50 years of biblical scholarship.  That being the case they are supposed to be aware of the scholarship, on their verses.  But even if that wasn’t true any claim to scholarship would require knowledge within the RSV family which certainly include any changes made by the NRSV translation committee.     But even if they didn’t intend to do any scholarship at all and do nothing more than use the RSV, the most authoritative and newest RSV based commentary is the Navarre bible translation (New Vulgate/RSV).  And yes this has standard notes on this topic.   So take your pick, were they dishonest in not having done any scholarship at all or were they dishonest in having removed a footnote to support their theology?  I figure given the names associated and their behavior on other issues, the later.

 L Wells –

OK that’s an odd list but I agree the ESV fits it.  
1)  Likes the NA27 over the TR but not liberal scholarship
2)  Likes traditional wording a few places (as per the RSV) but not the kind of traditional language in the KJV/NKJV.  Essentially liking what David Ker above calls “biblish”.  
3)  Doesn’t mind conservative bias even though aware of it
4)  Understands the NRSV is generally more accurate but thinks the #2 outweighs that.  
5)  Acknowledges what the ESV actually is, and doesn’t support the Ryken approach to translation.

So you’ve created a set of criteria on which the ESV is actually the best fit.  Can you understand though that this list is essentially unique to you?  It is a very unusual set of weightings and cutoff points.  

I would say you are the first person who has put together a list which matches the ESV.  And I’m glad you are willing to admit what is going on is a theological override of the text and not translation.  Stately, traditional (with overrides), high reading level and vocabulary.  I’ll grant the ESV meets the criteria you’ve named.  OK so that is one.  

Now the question for you given your list: why not the KJV, NKJV?

Where does the ESV harmonize the text of the Gospel?  Again, I’m looking for some singular interpretations that are not simply in continuity with the RSV or other previous translations.  It still seems to me most of your concerns are based upon the fact that you simply disagree with choices they made–and that’s fine, but accepting your arguments seems to require assumptions that other people may not hold.

Well first off almah does not mean virgin.  The word can be used for a prostitute based on chronological age.  So what you are really saying is the ESV’s changes are in line with your theology while the NWT’s are not.  Well yeah.  But then is your claim against the NWT that your theology can do overrides and their’s can’t?  The changes in the NWT are:

1)  Reading the OT Jehovah back into the NT.  Which does strike me as analogous though frankly weaker than reading the NT back into the OT.

2)  Weakening verses which violate their Arian understanding of the text.  Again that is similar to what you are defending with regard to the ESV where they have shading things in line with their theology (for example reformed).

3)  Adding clarifying words in line with their theology like the change from Heb 9:27.  Well the ESV does things like this.  For example Gospel harmonization, that is they believe the gospels tell the same story and thus they freely harmonize the text.

And again the big difference is the Jehovah’s Witnesses publish the KIT which accurately indicates where they have made these changes.  The ESV does not have that sort of material, they act as if their changes were the only possibilities since after all they are producing an “essentially literal” translation.   So no I don’t see the difference unless it boils down to “when my team does it, it is OK but when the other team does it….”

In regards to issues with the ESV, I concede (and have conceded in a discussion on my blog) that there are issues with some of the male terms used in translating 1 & 2 Timothy especially.  Many of the other criticisms however, seem to be based not on any singular interpretations thrust onto the text, but rather because the translators/redactors of the ESV didn’t make the same judgements as those who translated the NRSV, and in a few places where the ESV returned to an older translation than the RSV.  It’s certainly OK to believe the translators were wrong, or that they were even wrongly motivated by gender-bias in some cases, but the level of hostility strikes me as equally ideologically driven.

I’ve never stopped using the NRSV, especially my New Oxford Annoted and New Interpreters (which, like you, I appreciate in many cases, but find too liberal in others.  I especially like the fact that it includes a note on the Anglican stepped-canon), and I actually prefer the overall smoothness of the NRSV translation, with the exception of places where I think they went overboard and lost some poetic language, which the ESV does a better job of maintaining in many cases, as well as where they either didn’t maintain continuity between the Old Testament and the NT passages that cite them so that people can hear the scriptural echoes, or allowed their concern to be gender-inclusive render impossible messianic interpretations of some psalms.  But we don’t use those in worship, having the BCP version instead.