>To respond to the problem he raises re Rom 1:16 and 17, it is possible to be
>gender-neutral in v. 16 without offending conservative readers because the
>pronoun "everyone" (from PANTI) is typical and gender-neutral. In v. 17
>however, using "the righteous" alone would imply a plural adjective to most
>readers when in fact the adjective is singular, therefore it is necessary to
>add a noun for clarification. To be neutral we would have to add "person" or
>"individual" (which is awkward and puts too much emphasis on the singular) or
>perhaps something else more awkward. Using "person" is probably best, but it
>connotes to conservative readers of the NASB a deliberate attempt to be
>"politically correct" and sounds bad to those who have long since memorized
>the statement. Using something like "man or woman" would be just as bad or
>worse for the NASB. "Man" is thus not the ideal choice by any means, but until
>gender-inclusive language becomes more common "man" is perhaps least pro-
>blematic, and sophisticated readers, as I've already noted, know that "man"
>does not necessarily exclude women.
This may be stupid idea, but, how about, instead of "the righteous _man_"
why not put "the righteous _one_" as is done in Acts 3:14, 7:52, and 22:14?
Why is it permissible to translate the masculine as neuter in those cases?
I guess it would sound absurd to say, "the Righteous Man" and that seems to
be clearly implied anyway, since (after all) Jesus is a man.
Just a thought.