I'm going to address your direct question of how a text could be accepted as Pauline if Paul didn't write it. I won't go into the specifics of the arguments for or against Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.

###Types of Authorship###

In ancient times the concept of authorship was different from what it is today. There were at least five different types of authorship:

1. Physical inscription of words on a page
2. Dictation to an amanuensis or secretary
3. Supplying of ideas to an amanuensis
4. Composition by a disciple in the spirit of his master's ideas
5. Writing in the tradition of a famous person of the past

Of these, only the last would not be considered authentic in ancient times. That leaves considerable leeway for another writer's words to be accepted as Pauline.

And in fact, both Luke/Acts and Hebrews were included in the canon on Paul's authority, because the authors were believed to have been disciples of Paul. So in that sense, Luke/Acts and Hebrews were considered authentically Pauline even though they were written by someone else.

We also see, in the majority of Paul's letters, at least one coauthor. We don't know how much input the coauthors had into the content.

Furthermore, several of Paul's letters include a personal note written by Paul's own hand (see 1 Corinthians 16:21, Galatians 6:11, 2 Thessalonians 3:17, Colossians 4:18, Philemon 19), implying that the rest of the letter was written by an amanuensis. Again we don't know how much input the amanuensis had into the actual words of the document.

All this just underscores the difficulty in using vocabulary analysis to determine the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles.

###Acceptance of the Pastorals###

What we do know, however, is that the early church universally recognized the Pastorals as authoritative, and we have a good idea of the criteria they used. The Muratorian Canon which possibly dates as early as 170. It lists the nine letters of Paul to seven churches, then adds:

[Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline.

The Muratorian Canon also mentions "one to the Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians" which were rejected by the church as forgeries, as these letters supported the dualism taught by Marcion. The same text also praises the worthiness of a text known as the Shepherd of Hermas, but excludes it from the canon due to its having been written after the age of the Apostles.

The Gospel of Luke was accepted on Paul's authority:

Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.

However, the letter to the Hebrews was not yet associated with Paul.

From this we can infer that the early Christians a) agreed the Pastorals were written during Apostolic times, b) saw nothing in the Pastorals going against Paul's teaching, and c) accepted Paul's name at the top of the letters.

Of the five types of authorship listed above, these criteria rule out #5, assuming we can trust the church's judgment. That still leaves options for the Pastorals to have been physically penned by someone other than Paul and still accepted by the church as authentic.

I'm going to address your direct question of how a text could be accepted as Pauline if Paul didn't write it. I won't go into the specifics of the arguments for or against Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.

Types of Authorship

In ancient times the concept of authorship was different from what it is today. There were at least five different types of authorship:

1. Physical inscription of words on a page
2. Dictation to an amanuensis or secretary
3. Supplying of ideas to an amanuensis
4. Composition by a disciple in the spirit of his master's ideas
5. Writing in the tradition of a famous person of the past

Of these, only the last would not be considered authentic in ancient times. That leaves considerable leeway for another writer's words to be accepted as Pauline.

And in fact, both Luke/Acts and Hebrews were included in the canon on Paul's authority, because the authors were believed to have been disciples of Paul. So in that sense, Luke/Acts and Hebrews were considered authentically Pauline even though they were written by someone else.

We also see, in the majority of Paul's letters, at least one coauthor. We don't know how much input the coauthors had into the content.

Furthermore, several of Paul's letters include a personal note written by Paul's own hand (see 1 Corinthians 16:21, Galatians 6:11, 2 Thessalonians 3:17, Colossians 4:18, Philemon 19), implying that the rest of the letter was written by an amanuensis. Again we don't know how much input the amanuensis had into the actual words of the document.

All this just underscores the difficulty in using vocabulary analysis to determine the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles.

Acceptance of the Pastorals

What we do know, however, is that the early church universally recognized the Pastorals as authoritative, and we have a good idea of the criteria they used. The Muratorian Canon which possibly dates as early as 170. It lists the nine letters of Paul to seven churches, then adds:

[Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline.

The Muratorian Canon also mentions "one to the Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians" which were rejected by the church as forgeries, as these letters supported the dualism taught by Marcion. The same text also praises the worthiness of a text known as the Shepherd of Hermas, but excludes it from the canon due to its having been written after the age of the Apostles.

The Gospel of Luke was accepted on Paul's authority:

Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.

However, the letter to the Hebrews was not yet associated with Paul.

From this we can infer that the early Christians a) agreed the Pastorals were written during Apostolic times, b) saw nothing in the Pastorals going against Paul's teaching, and c) accepted Paul's name at the top of the letters.

Of the five types of authorship listed above, these criteria rule out #5, assuming we can trust the church's judgment. That still leaves options for the Pastorals to have been physically penned by someone other than Paul and still accepted by the church as authentic.

I'm going to address your direct question of how a text could be accepted as Pauline if Paul didn't write it. I won't get into the specifics of the arguments for or against Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.

###Types of Authorship###

In ancient times the concept of authorship was different from what it is today. There were at least five different types of authorship:

1. Physical inscription of words on a page
2. Dictation to an amanuensis or secretary
3. Supplying of ideas to an amanuensis
4. Composition by a disciple in the spirit of his master's ideas
5. Writing in the tradition of a famous person of the past

Of these, only the last would not be considered authentic in ancient times. That leaves considerable leeway for another writer's words to be accepted as Pauline.

And in fact, both Luke/Acts and Hebrews were included in the canon on Paul's authority, because the authors were believed to have been disciples of Paul. So in that sense, Luke/Acts and Hebrews were considered authentically Pauline even though they were written by someone else.

We also see, in the majority of Paul's letters, at least one coauthor. We don't know how much input the coauthors had into the content.

Furthermore, several of Paul's letters include a personal note written by Paul's own hand (see 1 Corinthians 16:21, Galatians 6:11, 2 Thessalonians 3:17, Colossians 4:18, Philemon 19), implying that the rest of the letter was written by an amanuensis. Again we don't know how much input the amanuensis had into the actual words of the document.

###Acceptance of the Pastorals###

All this just underscores the difficulty in using vocabulary analysis to determine the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles.

What we do know, however, is that the early church universally recognized the Pastorals as authoritative, and we have a good idea of the criteria they used. The Muratorian Canon which possibly dates as early as 170. It lists the nine letters of Paul to seven churches, then adds:

[Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline.

The Muratorian Canon also mentions "one to the Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians" which were rejected by the church as forgeries, as these letters supported the dualism taught by Marcion. The same text also praises the worthiness of a text known as the Shepherd of Hermas, but excludes it from the canon due to its having been written after the age of the Apostles.

The Gospel of Luke was accepted on Paul's authority:

Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.

However, the letter to the Hebrews was not yet associated with Paul.

From this we can infer that the early Christians a) agreed the Pastorals were written during Apostolic times, b) saw nothing in the Pastorals going against Paul's teaching, and c) accepted Paul's name at the top of the letters.

Of the five types of authorship listed above, these criteria rule out #5, assuming we can trust the church's judgment. That still leaves options for the Pastorals to have been physically penned by someone other than Paul and still accepted by the church as authentic.

I'm going to address your direct question of how a text could be accepted as Pauline if Paul didn't write it. I won't go into the specifics of the arguments for or against Pauline authorship of the Pastorals.

###Types of Authorship###

In ancient times the concept of authorship was different from what it is today. There were at least five different types of authorship:

1. Physical inscription of words on a page
2. Dictation to an amanuensis or secretary
3. Supplying of ideas to an amanuensis
4. Composition by a disciple in the spirit of his master's ideas
5. Writing in the tradition of a famous person of the past

Of these, only the last would not be considered authentic in ancient times. That leaves considerable leeway for another writer's words to be accepted as Pauline.

And in fact, both Luke/Acts and Hebrews were included in the canon on Paul's authority, because the authors were believed to have been disciples of Paul. So in that sense, Luke/Acts and Hebrews were considered authentically Pauline even though they were written by someone else.

We also see, in the majority of Paul's letters, at least one coauthor. We don't know how much input the coauthors had into the content.

Furthermore, several of Paul's letters include a personal note written by Paul's own hand (see 1 Corinthians 16:21, Galatians 6:11, 2 Thessalonians 3:17, Colossians 4:18, Philemon 19), implying that the rest of the letter was written by an amanuensis. Again we don't know how much input the amanuensis had into the actual words of the document.

All this just underscores the difficulty in using vocabulary analysis to determine the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles.

###Acceptance of the Pastorals###

What we do know, however, is that the early church universally recognized the Pastorals as authoritative, and we have a good idea of the criteria they used. The Muratorian Canon which possibly dates as early as 170. It lists the nine letters of Paul to seven churches, then adds:

[Paul also wrote] out of affection and love one to Philemon, one to Titus, and two to Timothy; and these are held sacred in the esteem of the Church catholic for the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline.

The Muratorian Canon also mentions "one to the Laodiceans, another to the Alexandrians" which were rejected by the church as forgeries, as these letters supported the dualism taught by Marcion. The same text also praises the worthiness of a text known as the Shepherd of Hermas, but excludes it from the canon due to its having been written after the age of the Apostles.

The Gospel of Luke was accepted on Paul's authority:

Luke, the well-known physician, after the ascension of Christ, when Paul had taken with him as one zealous for the law, composed it in his own name, according to [the general] belief. Yet he himself had not seen the Lord in the flesh; and therefore, as he was able to ascertain events, so indeed he begins to tell the story from the birth of John.

However, the letter to the Hebrews was not yet associated with Paul.

From this we can infer that the early Christians a) agreed the Pastorals were written during Apostolic times, b) saw nothing in the Pastorals going against Paul's teaching, and c) accepted Paul's name at the top of the letters.

Of the five types of authorship listed above, these criteria rule out #5, assuming we can trust the church's judgment. That still leaves options for the Pastorals to have been physically penned by someone other than Paul and still accepted by the church as authentic.