Start with a critical evaluation of the "view of Pseudonimity..."; there are good arguments for and against. The way you've structured your question you accept it as a given, which it is not necessarily. The onus still rests on proponents of the pseudonymous perspective. Also, have a look at my book, Persuading the Cretans on this issue. In (your) teaching ministry list both views, that's what teaching is about and cite the arguments for all the views. If this is done in a church context the implications of pseudonymity are not good to say the least. But you have to at least be honest and state it. See fnn 1 and 4 on pages 1 and 2 of my book respectively (Genade, AA Persuading the Cretans, Wipf & Stock, 2011). I have copies at R162/ea excl postage. Alternatively, seach online for access to my PhD dissertation (Free State) (A Text-centered rhetorical analysis of Paul's Letter to Titus)

Aldred, I am very interested in your PhD dissertation as well as (Matthew) the topic of pseudonimity and how it affected and effected not only the process of canonization-with regard to apostolic origin, but also the impact within the Church structure as a whole especially within a literalist teaching/ministry setting.

Given the nature of canonical reception and the role of canonical literature in 'church use', pseudonimity for eccelsial exposition is critical. If one considered them non- canonical then there use would be similar to Papias or Hermas. Marck Harding (Dean- Australian College of Theology) did his DTheol (Harvard, I think) on this issue but concluded that it did not compromise canonicity. In his book 'Faith's Foundation' D W B Robinson argued that, for Anglicans strictly applying the 39 Articles, one could hold a 20 book Canon but this included the Pastorals as Pauline. One issue in the question is the dating of 1 Timothy, if early and from the East as I believe, then the question pf psuedonimity is challenged. If 'preaching' from these texts one should acknowledge that some regard them as non-pauline but present the reason one accepts for accepting their canonicity for integrity's sake.

It doesn't affect my teaching one way or the other. Since I believe in divine-human confluent authorship of Scripture, the authority of the text isn't altered by whether Paul or one of Paul's disciples wrote the Pastorals.