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.
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
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)
Support Standard in the modern collections of the Apocrypha which I have seen. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 22:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, Encyclopedia Britanica lists it as "Epistle of Jeremy". Grk1011 (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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.
"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)