Talk:Letter of Jeremiah

message: * Oppose merger.  The Vulgate puts it in one place, other canons put it in other places.  Since when does the Latin Vulgate enjoy primacy on a neutral encyclopedia? It's a topic by itself.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: Completed. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 09:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Support Standard in the modern collections of the Apocrypha which I have seen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put Codex Sinaiticus' comments back from whence they came. His/her comments are from almost 1½ years ago and have nothing to do with this move. The purpose of this discussion is the move to a more commonly-used title per naming conventions. SigPig |SEND - OVER 02:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked online, Britannica lists it as The Letter of Jeremiah. I assume then that you will change your !vote to support? SigPig |SEND - OVER 02:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: "Although the "letter" is included as a discrete unit in the Septuagint, there is no evidence of it ever having been canonical in the Jewish tradition." The reference cited states this: "No work in the Apocrypha was ever considered canonical, see for example "Order of the Books in Jewish Lists" in Henry Barclay Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,  1900), 200." While I would definitely agree that this is what Henry Barclay Swete believes, it seems pretty odd that the majority of Christian history is against him in that claim "no work in the Apocrpyha was ever considered canonical". Catholics, Orthodox, and some Anglicans after Protestantism broke off all believe that the "apocryphal" writings the article is referencing are deuterocanonical, are completely and fully apart of the canon. Anthony 'Timoteo' Fisher 17:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The point here is if Letter of Jeremiah is deemed as canonical by the Jewish religion (and the reference correctly states it is not). An other point is its canonicity among Christians. A ntv (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV statement 

message: This work may have been composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, according to the article.The Hebrew title of this work, according to the Hebrew Wikipedia, is איגרת ירמיהו, which translates to The Letter of Jeremiah in English.Yet, I find no mention of how the work is referred to commonly in Aramaic, nor whether said title also translates to The Letter of Jeremiah in English.  For that matter, there is not even a mention of this work on the Aramaic Wikipedia.allixpeeke (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title (Aramaic) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Letter of Jeremiah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906041916/http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm to http://www.masseiana.org/panarion_bk1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified