This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Saints, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Saints and other individuals commemorated in Christianliturgical calendars on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SaintsWikipedia:WikiProject SaintsTemplate:WikiProject SaintsSaints articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Until recently, it was said on this page, in a recent paragraph, that Philip baptised an Ethiopian eunuch. However, recently that wording was changed by one Richard Deveraux to "'man of Ethiopian' (frequently cited as "Ethiopian, but this is not what the text conveys)." The meaning of this I do not know, because I have failed to find the strange phrase "man of Ethiopian" in any version I know. No citation is given for Dereraux's addition, so I will be removing it. And in case anyone is wondering, the KJV calls the fellow, "a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch." Some other versions, translating more literally, call him an Ethiopian. The most literal translation from Greek would be to call him "a man, an Ethiopian, a eunuch." So regardless of what translation we use, I don't think anyone will object to his being called an Ethiopian eunuch. This is normally such a minor issue that I wouldn't think to mention it on a talk page, but seeing the sensitivity of so many toward even the most seemingly minor differences between Bible translations, it seemed good to justify my reasoning. Mitchell Powell (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
