Of course I did not effectively impeach him for bias. To do that I would actually have to read his book and see how he treats the issue of the pre-Nicaean fathers making references to the Deuterocanonical books of the Septuagint. I would also look to understand how the esteemed professor explains the motivation of the “4-5th Century Christians” to write a voluminous historical work on the subject of the struggle of the Maccabees, culminating in heroic refusal to eat pork. Or how the touching epic of Tobit profits specifically Christianity. However, it was your job, not mine. You brought up an assertion that is absurd on its face and the passage you quoted as damning to Roman Catholicism is cooly mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia, because of course it does not prove anything, while the writings of the Early Father prove the opposite.
The post to which I think you are responding, #766, is reproduced here:
***************************
The codices of the LXX that have the deuterocanonicals were the not the immediate product of the Jewish magisterium, but were apparently the result of 4th-5th Century Christian scholarship. See Roger Beckwith here (also see his book, “The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church: and its Background in Early Judaism”):
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/evangel/04-1_012.pdf
So Timothy’s OT was, best we know, absent the deuterocanonicals, and your claim for their inspiration cannot be substantiated.
Peace,
SR
***************************
So I need some clarification here. Because you didn’t spell it out, I am assuming the “absurd on it’s face” assertion to which you refer is that Timothy’s OT didn’t have the deuterocanonicals, therefore your argument for their inspiration is unsubstantiated. Am I understanding you correctly in this? Or were you referring to some other assertion?
Because if you say you have not impeached Beckwith, how can his conclusion be regarded as facially absurd? If Beckwith’s testimony stands, so does the assertion. Facial absurdity would be something like, “the moon is made of green cheese.” We know too much to accept that as even a remote possibility. But the forgoing assertion about Timothy’s OT is at least as plausible as yours, and much more plausible than yours if you fail to dislogdge Beckwith.
Now I say all of this in the uncertainty that I’ve even understood you. Nevertheless, this is my best understanding of what you were trying to say. Please feel free to add the necessary specifics so I can give a less befuddled response on the next go-around. :)
Peace,
SR