Why was Paul's letter to the Laodiceians relegated to the Apocrypha?

[webhead]

Why is it not considered to be Holy Spirit inspired, and included in the current cannon of scripture?

In Colossians 4:16 Paul instructs the Laodiceian letter to be read to the Colossian church, and vice-versa in Laodiceans? Yet Colossians is considered cannon, and Laodiceans is not?

Interesting?

Wonder if Laodiceans 1:13 offends too much? I love it personally.

Laodiceans 1:13 And for the rest, dearly beloved, rejoice in Christ, and beware of them that are filthy in lucre.

[markedward]

It's because the "epistle to the Laodiceans" that we have now is a fake; it's not the real epistle to the Laodiceans that Paul wrote.

[Gulah Papyrus]

It's because the "epistle to the Laodiceans" that we have now is a fake; it's not the real epistle to the Laodiceans that Paul wrote.

Interesting...and how do we know that it's a fake? I mean, who decided that, and on what did they base their conclusions?

[markedward]

There are only two known-existing versions of the "epistle to the Laodiceans".

The first was forged by Marcion, a heretic, for the sole sake of proving his own false doctrines.

The second is formed out of phrases and passages from Paul's authentic letters.

[Gulah Papyrus]

There are only two known-existing versions of the "epistle to the Laodiceans".

Wow, you mean only two full letters? I wonder when those are dated. And if there are only 2 then how on earth did it even make it into the Apocrypha. Google, here I come!

The first was forged by Marcion, a heretic, for the sole sake of proving his own false doctrines.

Even more interesting...what were some of the false doctrines he was trying to promote with this letter(I have never read it)?

[webhead]

Jerome included the book of Laodiceans in his Latin Vulgates.

Most say Jerome forged it by order of the Catholic church? Who knows for sure?

I know they have yet to find an ancient copy of Laodiceans in the Greek. Doesn't mean the Vulgate copies are fake though?

[Athanasius]

I don't know why everyone is under the impression that something has to be inspired if it's mentioned by Scripture...

[webhead]

I don't know why everyone is under the impression that something has to be inspired if it's mentioned by Scripture...

But didn't Paul state that all of his letters were inspired by the Holy Spirit?

[Gulah Papyrus]

But didn't Paul state that all of his letters were inspired by the Holy Spirit?

He said all scripture is inspired...but at the time his letters were not yet considered 'scripture'.

[Gulah Papyrus]

Here is what I found if anyone is interested...

The oldest known Bible copy of this epistle is in the Fulda manuscript written for Victor of Capua in 546. It is mentioned by various writers from the fourth century onwards, notably by Gregory the Great, to whose influence may ultimately be due the frequent occurrence of it in Bibles written in England; for it is commoner in English Bibles than in others.

However this epistle is not without controversy. There is no evidence of a Greek text. The epistle appears in more than 100 manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate (including the oldest, the celebrated codex Fuldensis, 546 CE), as well as in manuscripts of early Albigensian, Bohemian, English, and Flemish versions. At the close of the 10th century Aelfric, a monk in Dorset, wrote a treatise in Anglo-Saxon on the Old and New Testaments, in which he states that the apostle Paul wrote 15 Epistles. In his enumeration of them he place Laodiceans after Philemon. About 1165 CE John of Salisbury, writing about the canon to Henry count of Champagne (Epist. 209), acknowledges that 'it is the common, indeed almost universal, opinion that there are only 14 Epistles of Paul ... But the 15th is that which is written to the church of the Laodiceans'.

The Epistle to the Laodiceans is included in all 18 German Bibles printed prior to Luther's translation, beginning with the first German Bible, issued by Johann Mental at Strassburg in 1488. In these the Pauline Epistles, with the Epistle to the Hebrews, immediately follow the Gospels, with Laodiceans standing between Galatians and Ephesians. In the first Czech (Bohemian) Bible, published at Prague in 1488 and reprinted several times in the 16th and 17th centuries, Laodiceans follows Colossians and precedes I Thessalonians.

It was not until the Council of Florence (1439-43) that the See of Rome delivered for the first time a categorical opinion on the Scriptural canon. In the list of 27 books of the New Testament there are 14 Pauline Epistles, that to the Hebrews being last, with the book of Acts coming immediately before the Revelation of John. The Epistle to the Laodiceans is noteably absent.

This Epistle to the Laodiceans has been highly esteemed by several learned men of the church of Rome and others, including the Quakers, who have printed a translation and plead for it as canon. However there are several scholars who write it off as a forgery. Their strongest objection being no surviving Greek text. Sixtus Senensis mentions two manuscripts, the one in the Sorbonne Library at Paris, which is a very ancient copy, and the other in the Library of Joannes a Viridario, at Padmus, which he transcribed and published, and which is the authority for the translation below.

[Gulah Papyrus]

It is mentioned by various writers from the fourth century onwards, .

This seems odd as well. Are there any other letters in the canon that failed to receive 'mention by various writers' before the 4th century?

Markedword's case satisfies my curiosity just fine. An abbreviated cover of Philippians.

What is the scholastic term for the study/dating of ancient manuscripts? Fascinating stuff.

[third hero]

I agree that this is probably a fake. I have studied Paul's writing style, and the sijple fact is that Paul had a tendency to overexplain his points to the people. This aspect is clearly missing in at least the portion that David Taylor copied for us to read. In that portion, "Paul" runs through at least five or six points that are mentioned and fully explained in other epistles. If I were to be a judge, I would have no choice but to say that the epistle to the laodiceans is definitely a fake.

[Radagast]

This is from the Muratorian Canon, which dates from about 180 AD:

"As to the epistles of Paul, again, to those who will understand the matter, they indicate of themselves what they are, and from what place or with what object they were directed. He wrote first of all, and at considerable length, to the Corinthians, to check the schism of heresy; and then to the Galatians, to forbid circumcision; and then to the Romans on the rule of the Old Testament Scriptures, and also to show them that Christ is the first object in these – which it is needful for us to discuss severally, as the blessed Apostle Paul, following the rule of his predecessor John, writes to no more than seven churches by name, in this order: the first to the Corinthians, the second to the Ephesians, the third to the Philippians, the fourth to the Colossians, the fifth to the Galatians, the sixth to the Thessalonians, the seventh to the Romans. Moreover, though he writes twice to the Corinthians and Thessalonians for their correction, it is yet shown i.e., by this sevenfold writing-that there is one Church spread abroad through the whole world. And John too, indeed, in the Apocalypse, although he writes only to seven churches, yet addresses all. He wrote, besides these, one to Philemon, and one to Titus, and two to Timothy, in simple personal affection and love indeed; but yet these are hallowed in the esteem of the Catholic Church, and in the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline. There are also in circulation one to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, and addressed against the heresy of Marcion; and there are also several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for it is not suitable for gall to be mingled with honey."

[Br. Barnabas]

Here are some of what I would call heresies or errors in doctrine of the letter that I found after a short reading.

1:4 seems like an odd warning, for the greeting of Paul, might be trying to prove something a little to much. From my reading it is tipping the hand that Paul did not write it.
1:5 "perfect knowledge" sounds a little to Gnostic for my tastes and Paul does not seem to refer to the Gospel in this way in any other letters. Also he talks about "doing good works which accompany salvation." This just seems a little to unlike Paul not that he had a problem with works going along with salvation but it just seems a little to iffy to me. Also does not sound like Maricon who rejected the Law completly.
1:12 "And do all things without sin" I'm just not getting a good feeling about that. I don't know why, can't really put my finger on it but to me just does not sound like Paul too much.
1:14 "doctrine" just does not sit right with me. The only time Paul used this word was talking to close friends like Timothy and Titus.
1:19 Again seems to be tipping his hand a little to much. Just does not sound that good. Unlike the letter to the Colossians were it seems like it is mentioned in passing here it is a point that needs to be made.

Also the letter does not really address any problems or mention any names of people in Laodicea or those that are with him. Paul usually drops some names in there. Like in 17 I would think that Paul would drop the names of the "saints" with him that salute the people he is writing to. I can see with the letter to the Colossians why Paul would want them to read that letter because it has some good theological stuff in it, but this one does not have that much. I can see why the letter to the Ephesians is thought to be a circular letter. This one does not really follow the structure that we see Paul using in a lot of other letters. I know that there is a greeting and a ending. But it does not really have a lot of other elements that Paul usually throws in when writing to a church.

[thepenitent]

He said all scripture is inspired...but at the time his letters were not yet considered 'scripture'.

That's not what Peter says in 2 Peter. He says all Paul's letters are scripture. And Peter was writing "at the time" you are referring to.