[annalex]

this actually supports his conclusion that the "wider Alexandrian canon," as he calls it was a Christian, and not a Jewish development. The evidence drawn from the various canonical debates of the Jewish period do not revolve around the deuterocanonicals,...

So whatever Beckwith's hypothesis is, and evidence for it is, they is not applicable to the books in focus of the thread, the Deuterocanonical books.

Agree about affiliation alone not amounting to much, -- except maybe when a Catholic supports a Protestant doctrine or vice versa.

[Springfield Reformer]

So whatever Beckwith's hypothesis is, and evidence for it is, they is not applicable to the books in focus of the thread, the Deuterocanonical books.

Um, that seems to be a compete misunderstanding of what I said. Beckwith's effort was to show that the Alexandrian canon that supposedly included the deuterocanonicals early on was in fact an unsustainable hypothesis, and that the Jewish canon of the First Century distinctly lacked the deuterocanonicals. I am uncertain how one can get from that to "not applicable to the books in focus of the thread, the Deuterocanonical books." Nope, I'm not seeing how you got there. Sometimes I can speculate on how a correspondent gets to a conclusion, even if I disagree with it. In this case, I'm not even that far along. I have no idea how you're getting that out of what I said. I am open to elucidation.

Peace,

SR