@isaacgreene Yeah. I think two problems also come into this: translators spend most of their time at the sentence level, while for these sorts of decisions you need to take in a paragraph (or at times reflect another translation decisions from chapters earlier). You have to be a good literary reader, not just grammatically proficient and handy with a lexicon.
The second issue is that too many translations are vying for the money crop of “pew Bible”—ESV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, etc. To be read out in churches you want to sound like the Bible and that promotes “conservative” translation choices—that is, not translations that are close to the Greek but translations that have president in the history of English Bible translation (Harvey Hicks calls this “translation inertia”). Because it sounds a bit odd to say “has favor in his hometown”—potentially even distracting from the sermon—its likely to not pass muster. It’s not like these translation committees are trying to be the translation, but to be widely used become the next pew translation is the best way to do it. If more would do the translation with weird decisions + notes (NLT, NET) like you’re saying, we could actually have a more diverse translation tradition in English. My frustration is that on several passages I’m passionate about, virtually every translation will go with “the standard” reading instead of the one I think is correct. A less risk-averse approach would make not that particular translation better per se, but would help an English reader drawing from a pool of translations. I doubt too many translation committees are saying “let’s be less risk averse!” though. Prolly just David Bentley Hart.