Some letters Paul may or may not have written

Saint Paul of Tarsus is credited, spuriously, for a "3 Corinthians" and, more-seriously, for a lost Lachrymose Letter. So this day I was pondering Paul's epistles outside Corinth: to the Laodiceans, the Alexandrians, and Second Colossians. Laodiceans and Alexandrians got cited in the Murator Canon as what some Marcionites were using. Second Colossians is found in a sort of lectionary-handbook, in the Meroving Francia.

Mostly Marcion's sect claimed our "Ephesians" as "Laodiceans". But even our orthodox sects haven't always shared the same canon - witness the receptions of 2 Peter and the Revelation. This held true for the Marcionites as well, sometimes holding to Luke alone and sometimes to "the" Diatesseron (perhaps in grabar Armenian). It happens we have inherited a "Laodiceans" whose content is wholly not that in "Ephesians". This epistle / sermon in modern-times hasn't been taken seriously outside maybe the Quakers. Awhile ago we did get Philip L. Tite, The Apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans: An Epistolary and Rhetorical Analysis; its conclusion (all I skimmed) argued for a Pauline paraenesis. James would head up antiPauline paraenesis; and we also have 2 Clement out there and some others. So the Baghestan is still not about to consider it as Pauline but we may profitably compare it to other bogus Christian-lit... like James.

Alexandrians, er, doesn't exist. Paul in his lifetime isn't known to have bothered with the Greeks in Egypt or Africa; and in turn he would have found few over there willing to read him. To me this reference looks like gnostic forgery. Marcion's thought was easily mistaken for gnostic thought, and in antiquity usually was. I don't know all what the Canon knew but I do know its knowledge was often from Papias so, not at first hand.

Second Colossians is entirely new to me. UPDATE 5/8 - but not anymore!

Apparently a Latin sacramentary, whatever that means, survives in "Paris Bib cat., Lat. 13246" associated with Bobbio in Meroving territory. Wiki considers it a handbook for traveling priests of the Galician rite, a rite and a handbook no longer in Catholic use. The booklet excerpts a second letter to Colossos which isn't found anywhere else and, also, doesn't address Colossian concerns of Paul's time. In our day "first Colossians" is generally considered sus, itself. Theodor Zahn thought "2 Col" was the missing letter to Alexandria but, personally, I'm not seeing it.