Talk:Letter of Jeremiah

Bible High‑importance

	Bible portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Ancient Near East Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles 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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

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)[reply]

Requested move

Epistle of Jeremy → Letter of Jeremiah — More common name. —SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 21:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Completed. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 09:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Oppose, Encyclopedia Britanica lists it as "Epistle of Jeremy". Grk1011 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Support - much more common name. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV statement

"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)

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)[reply]

Title (Aramaic)

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)[reply]

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]