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
As to what the Jewish canon (whatever that means) was at the time is simply irrelevant. Obviously they used Hebrew scriptures in their worship. We know that the deuterocanonicals specifically are inspired because St. Paul made a reference to "all scripture" without excluding anything and without qualifying the language, -- so that was then the Septuagint of the 1st century that is wholly inspired.