Church of the East position on non-canonical Books

[judge]

[b][i]Could someone please tell me which books that the church of the East would consider as non-canononical but yet genuine, and in what language these orignals were written in??(I mean, letters that did not make the canon of the New Testament in the CoE but are not considered "psuedo" letters and whose authorship is without dispute) Maybe I can give an example: 2 John; considered nocanononical by the CoE but genuine and author was John: language - Greek.

In scholarly circles I think that the authorship of 2 &3 John is in dispute. Certainly 2 Peter is thought by some to not be written by the same hand as 1 Peter. Even in greek 2 Peter is thought to be quite different stylistically and linguistically.

See here for example.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/2Pet.htm">http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/2Pet.htm</a><!-- m -->

Or the wikipedia article. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_of_Peter</a><!-- m -->

Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle pseudepigraphical. Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to second-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[2] In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (2Peter 3:15-16), his implication that the Apostlic generation has passed (2Peter 3:4), and his differentiation between himself and "the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2Peter 3:2).

A minority of scholars have disagreed with this position and forwarded reasons in support of genuine Petrine authorship. They argue that the letter did not fit a specific pattern of what they consider pseudepigraphy.

If 2 Peter was not written by the same hand as 1 Peter then it explains why the peshitta excludes it.