Thanks for your response. I'm not sure everyone would agree with your first paragraph, but you make an interesting point. Whether or not it was printed, it's possible that there was an accepted canon by the majority of the Church. Have you read Armiger's two articles?

I wasn't saying that I agreed with Maqsood – she obviously has an agenda. As I said in the article, I was merely seeking further debate and clarification, and of course I was also trying to inform readers about these alternative texts.

You may well be better informed than her; you seem to be. However, I'm personally not keen on rejecting writers, merely because they are not scholars. Scholars are just as capable of having an agenda, and try to protect their status by dismissing the good work of others.