Doesn't it worry you at all, Julian, that the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that Paul isn't the author of Titus?
To which one is inclined to respond: why does one have to believe that moderns always know best about the Bible?
It is probably true that most of those who teach Pauline studies in the universities of the Western world today believe that Titus is not by the Apostle Paul but is a later document by someone pretending to be Paul. That majority might be smaller in theological colleges, but it might not.
Whatever the academic head count, the Western scholarly 'consensus' that New Testament documents such as Titus are pseudepigraphic emerged in the 19th and 20th centuries. But it was not the judgement of the early Christians who circulated Titus as a genuine letter by the Apostle Paul in the immediate post-apostolic period, a judgement that the Council of Nicaea accepted when it finalised the New Testament Canon in AD 325.
William Hague in his masterly biography of William Wilberforce (HarperPress, 2007) rightly questioned the assumption that the assessments of later historians deserve greater weight than the accounts of those closer to the events under examination.
Surely if we all bowed the knee to modernist intellectual snobbery none of us would believe in the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ?