DEUTERO-CANONICAL BOOKS (d'uVr-6 k3Tn8n'i-kal a term applied in modern times to denote those sacred books which, originally denominated eeelesiastiealand apocryphal, were not the Jewish or I lebrew Canon, but, as being con tained in the old Greek versions, were publicly read in the early Christian Church. (See CANON; AI.00RYt'11A.) It is acknowledged by all that these books never had a place in the Jewish Canon.
Rufinus made the same distinction in regard to the books of Scripture that Jerome did. After enumerating the hooks of the 01(1 and New Tes tament exactly according to the Jewish canon, saying: 'These are the volumes which the Fathers have included in the canon, and out of which they would have us prove the doctrines of our faith,' —he adds: 'However, it ought to be observed that there are also other books which are not canon ical, but have been called by our forefathers ec clesiastical; as the Wisdom of Solomon, and an other called the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach. Of the same order is the book of Tobit, Judith and the books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament is the book of the Shepherd of Hermas, which is called the "Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter ;" all which they would have to be read in the churches, but not alleged by way of author ity for proving articles of faith. Other Scriptures they call apocryphal, which they would not have to be read in the churches' (In Synth. Apost).
1. Early Catalogues. There were three di visions made by the ancient authorities, viz., the Canonical Scriptures, the Ecclesiastical, and the Apocryphal, or otherwise the canonical and apoc ryphal, of which latter there are two kinds, viz., those which, having nothing contrary to the faith, may be profitably read, although not authen tic, and those which are injurious and contrary to the faith It is, however, maintained by Professor Alber that, when Jerome and Rufinus said the Ec clesiastical books were read for edification, but•not for confirming articles of faith, they only meant that they were not to be employed in controversies with the Jews, who did not acknowledge their au thority. These fathers, however, certainly put them into the same rank with the Shepherd of Hermas.
(1) Earliest Catalogue. The earliest cata logue which we possess of the books of Scripture is that of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, preserved by Eusebius. From his statement, written in the year
170, it seems evident that there had been no cata logue authorized by the church or any public body. He enumerates the books of the Jewish canon only, from which, however, he omits the book of Esther. (See ESTHER.) (2) Council of Laodicea. The first catalogue of the Holy Scriptures drawn up by any public body in the Christian church which has come down to us is that of the Council of Laodicea, in Phrygia, supposed to be held about the year 365. According to a canon of this council the books of the Old Testament which ought to be read are these: (I) Genesis; (2) Exodus; (3) Leviticus; (4) Numbers; (5) Deuteronomy; (6) Joshua, son of Nun; (7) Judges, with Ruth; (8) Esther ; (9) 1 and 2 Kingdoms; (to) 3 and 4 Kingdoms; (1 1) 1 and 2 Remains; (12) 1 and 2 Esdras; (t3) the book of 15o Psalms; (14) Proverbs; (15) Ecclesiastes; (t6) Canticles; ( t7) Job; (18) the Twelve Prophets; (19) Isaiah; (2o) Jeremiah and Baruch, the Lamentations and the Epistles; (21) Ezekiel; (22) Daniel. We have already given the books of the New Testament as enumer ated by this council (see ANTILEGOMENA). This catalogue is not, however, universally acknowl edged to be genuine.
But besides the Hebrew Canon there were cer tain other books publicly read in the primitive church, and treated with a light degree of respect, although not considered by the Hebrews, from whom they were derived, as of equal authority with the former. Josephus, a contemporary of the apostles, after describing the Jewish Canon (Contr. Ap. 1:8), which he says consists of 22 hooks, remarks: 'but from the reign of Artaxerxes to within our memory there have been several things committed to writing, which, however, have not acquired the same degree of credit and au thority as the former books, inasmuch as the tradition and succession of the prophets were less certain.' These books seem to have been in chided in the copies of the Septuagint, which were generally used by the sacred writers of the New Testament. It does not appear whether the apos tles gave any caution against the reading of these books; and it has been even supposed that they have referred to them.