[Springfield Reformer]

Beckwith does acknowledge a gradual interest in the deuterocanonicals among Christian writers, but 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, but books we would both regard as securely canonical, namely Ruth, Song of Solomon, and Esther.  This is the canon that would be relevant to Timothy's Bible.  

As for bias, there could be no testimony at all in this subject matter if every expert witness was required to have no personal affiliation with a religion. Bias in this case must be found, if at all, in the approach the scholar takes to evidence.  Not that he must agree with our conclusions to avoid a charge of bias, but that he must demonstrate reasonable consideration of the available evidence and logical, consistent analysis of the data. After that, if he's got valid credentials and a good reputation among his peers as an expert in his field, his opinion can be presented, even if his conclusions are disagreeable to us. At that point, to discredit him would require other expert testimony shown in some way to be superior, better evidence, better analysis, etc.  But a decisive expert opinion is not bias, and would not, by itself, discredit his testimony.

Peace,

SR

[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.