Barry:

What you call assumptions are actually contended for in the exegesis that feeds translation work in the committees (I have done work with several teams with distinct philosophies). Let's look at the ESV you commend in Gen 6:3. Is not the force of the translation the transience of the human in contrast to angelic beings? If not, then why the contrast with forever in the parallel line?  If so, then the ESV rendering is actually little different than many dynamic equvalents on this text you seemed initially uncomfortable with. Flesh, mortal and corruption ARE translation options that are quitepossible part of the intention of the choice by the original author of the word, as the lexicon shows. To simply render it flesh may actually say too little in terms of the passage's intent. The latter two options (mortal and curruption) bring out why one calls someone flesh in a context like Gen 6:3. Barry, this is the point you seem to be uncomfortable with, namely, trying to make such a clarifying move. One does not mention flesh in this text merely to describe the human shell but to characterize humanity. This is not an assumption; it is part of looking for a reading that yields a sense that best explains the context as a whole. I am not saying merely trust me. I am saying think about it. Is flesh here the best rendering for this kind of a context? Is the point in Gen 6:3 about fleshiness as matter or about some other association with flesh (which the word often DOES mean and with a recognition that association is how language often works through terms). The translator sees that other association as intended (and thus serves as a clearer rendering because it is the best of the options) and then tries to render the resultant force (In doing so, he makes explicit the kind of explanatory gloss a lexicon gives for the word to point to the term having this meaning in some cases). We appeal to Gen 3 because in Gen 6 we are in a context of sin, not pre-fall as in Gen 2.

I agree that it is best to engage in concrete translation comparisons (if I am understanding you right). The comparisons help and I would want to stress that in the choices of versions to use for this process one should not only use dynamic equivalent translations but certainly inlucde a few formal translations.This is why I have worked on texts like the ESV, as well as the NLT.

I am taking time on this in these responses because often we (not you, I mean a host of those reading this) do not entirely appreciate how many hours and conversations feed into a translation. This is why they take years to do. The renderings people see are often part of conversations about the detail of the text and are tied to its exegesis.

dlb