Paul could have just as well known that Timothy (of whom he was personally acquainted) knew well enough that the writings Jerome, centuries later referred to as Apocrypha -- were not Scripture.
So you are wrong yet again, basing an all-in-all which relies in part upon aspect of yet more assumption, as foundational to your contentions, for it can be, and perhaps should be argued the other way around, with Paul having made mention that the Pharisee sect of which he was once quite deeply involved in -- was wrong to have excluded Apocrypha from Scripture.
Yet Paul wrote not one word as for condemning the Pharisees for having excluded writings which God Himself would regard as His own "Word".
Or else also, like I've said many times, witnesses after Christian witness, many of the saints and bishops of the Church, were in this regard (as to OT canon) hopeless IDIOTS who did not know their own bibles!
You have yet to deal with that in any manner other than to brush it all aside, and then sweep it under a rug of claim that centuries later Church Councils could -- by their own decisions, convert that which had been by Tradition explicitly excluded, to at that later date be fully included.
As I pointed out to you...that process reached all the way to Council of Trent, for the voting there was not unanimous for indiscriminate inclusion of Apocrypha -- which would make of those bishops who voted against to themselves be idiots too, in the mold of Athanasius, Epiphanius, Melito, Origen, Jerome and yet many others also.
But he did not. He instead said "all the scripture known to thee", making no reservations.