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

[David Taylor]

Good collage MarkEdward.

Yeah, point is taken quite well.

We could easily take bits and pieces of several of the epistles, paste them together, and title them the lost Epistle to the Macedonians by Paul.

Let it hide out for several hundred years, then someone finds it, and presents it as a 'lost epistle' of Paul.

I didn't partcularly find anything problematic or unscriptural in the Laodicean epistle...but just because it contains sound teaching still doesn't make it inspired canon.

I could just as easily whip up an epistle of my own acclaimed to Paul by taking source material from something unexpected like the Book of Mormon writings, and if I only selected verses and passages that Joseph Smith himself took from the KJV, it would be sound and true doctrinal teaching; but it still wouldn't be a viable and trustworthy writing of Paul.

I think it really comes down to the sensationlistic idea of curiousity, and adventure, and finding new or lost things...it intrigues folks, and causes them to speculate. But in God's Word's case, there is no need for more writings; --what we've been given, as Paul taught Timothy, is most certainly sufficient and "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

[webhead]

Good collage MarkEdward.
We could easily take bits and pieces of several of the epistles, paste them together, and title them the lost Epistle to the Macedonians by Paul.

This is not the case with the book of Laodiceans though.

It was published in the original King James version of the Bible.

The reason it is no longer included in the KJV's published today is, that there are no ancient Greek manuscripts for the book of Laodiceans.

There are plenty of ancient manuscripts for the book of Laodiceans, just none in the Greek is all.

[markedward]

That is the case with the "epistle of the Laodiceans". It's a shorter, re-packaged version of Philippians.

[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.