As someone who prefers the RSV translation, I'm also interested in the modern "update" - the English Standard Version. However, this version is particularly clouded by accusations of Protestant bias, which seems supported by its market share of overall sales. Outside of the Evangelical camp, this version seems to be distrusted even though certain others have amply demonstrated its accurate, literal and cohesive translation philosophy. The accusations of Protestant bias, then, seem rather unsupported. Are such accusations being made not because of any actual bias but due to the resulting translation philosophy not favoring a particular ideological/religious position? Or is it merely due to wanting to place distance between Evangelicals and non-Evangelicals as a way of keeping our identities distinct? Or is it something else?
I've researched some of the many "which English Bible translation do you prefer" threads both here and on several of Orthodox and even Roman Catholic forums. While my search has been less than scientific and no statistics can be provided, based on the "eye-ball test" alone, it's easy to see that this version still has not yet received widespread acceptance among these two groups. This, in part, seems to be the result of groupthink. Among Orthodox, the KJV or NKJV translations receive the most usage and acclaim while, among RCs, it's the Douay-Rheims and RSV-CE. Clearly, translation philosophy is not the sole determinant. Orthodox rely on the KJV due to the translators' reliance upon Byzantine texts and the NKJV due to not only it being a revision of the KJV but also because it has been incorporated into the OSB. Roman Catholics seems to prefer the Douay-Rheims due to it being a translation of the Vulgate and the RSV-CE due to it being the translation of choice for English translations of the Catechism and Pope Benedict XVI's writings.
Can the modern objections to the ESV, then, be sustained? Is there truly any basis to our resistance against this version as an Evangelical corruption?