In the Bibliotheque Sacnfe, by the Rev. Domi nican Fathers Richard and Giraud (Paris, 1822), the term is defined to signify—(t) anonymous or pseudepigraphal books ; (a) those which are not publicly read, although they may be read with edification in private ; (3) those which do not pass for authentic and of divine authority, although they pass for being composed by a sacred author or an apostle, as the Epistle of Barnabas ; and (4) danger ous books composed by ancient heretics to favour their opinions. They also apply the name ' to books which, after having been contested, are put into the canon by consent of the churches, as Tobit, etc.' And Jahn applies it in its most strict sense, and that which it has borne since the fourth century, to books which, from their inscription, or the author's name, or the subject, might easily be taken for inspired books, but are not so in reality. It has also been applied, by Jerome, to certain books not found in the Hebrew canon, but yet publicly read from time immemorial in the Christian church for edification, although not considered of authority in controversies of faith. These were also termed Ecclesiastical books, and consisted of the books of Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesi asticus, Baruch, the two first books of Maccabees, the seven last chapters (according to Cardinal Hugo's division) of the book of Esther, and those (so called) parts of the book of Daniel which are not found in Hebrew, viz. the Song of the Children, the Speech of Azariah, the History of Susannah, and the Fable (as Jerome calls it) of Bel and the Dragon. These have been denominated, for dis tinction's sake, the deutero-canouical books, in as much as they were not in the original or Hebrew canon. In this sense they are called by some the Antilegomena of the Old Testament. The un canonical books,' says Athanasius, or the author of the Synopsis, 'are divided into and apocrypha.' 2. Apocryphal Books received by some into the Canon, called also Ecclesiastical and Deutem-cano nical. —It is acknowledged by all that these books never had a place in the Jewish canon. The Roman Catholic Professor Alber, of Pesth (who considers them as of equal authority with the re ceived books of the Hebrew canon), observes The Deutero-canonical books are those which the Jews had not in their canon, but are notwith standing received by the Christian Church, con cerning which, on this very account of their not having been in the Jewish canon, there has existed some doubt even in the Church' (Institut. fferme neut. vol. i. ch. viii. ix.) Josephus, a contempo rary of the apostles, after describing the Jewish canon (Contr. A. i. 8), which he says consists of 22 books, remarks : but from the reign of Ar taxerxes to within our memory 'there have been several things committed to writing, which, how ever, have not acquired the same degree of credit and authority as the former books, inasmuch as the tradition and succession of the prophets were less certain.' It has been shewn by Hornemann (Observatt. ad Nast. doctr. de Canon. V. T. ex Phllone) that, although Philo was acquainted with the books in question, he has not cited any one of them, at least with the view of establishing any proposition.
Among the early Christian writers, Jerome, in his Prefaces, gives us the most complete informa tion that we possess regarding the authority of these books in his time. After enumerating the 22 books of the Hebrew Canon, consisting of the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa, he adds : This prologue I write as a preface to the books to be translated by us from the Hebrew into Latin, that we may know that all the books which are not of this number are apocryphal; therefore Wisdom, which is commonly ascribed to Solomon as its author, and the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and the Shepherd, are not in the canon.' Again, in the preface to his translation of the books of Solomon from the Hebrew, he observes :--` These three books (Pro verbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles) only are Solo mon's. There is also the Book of 7esus the son of
Sirach, and another pseudepigraphal book, called the Wisdom of Solomon; the former of which I have seen in Hebrew, called not Ecclesiasticus, as among the Latins, but the Parables ; with which likewise have been joined Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs, that the collection might the better resemble the books of Solomon both in matter and design. The second is not to be found at all among the Hebrews, and the style plainly evinces its Greek original : some ancient writers say it is a work of Philo the Jew. As, therefore, the church reads Judith and Tobit, and the books of Macca bees, but does not receive them among the Cano nical Scriptures ; so likewise it may read these two books for the edification of the people, but not as of authority for proving any doctrines of religion (ad adificationem plebir, non ad authoritatern eccle siasticorum dognzatzent con firmandam).' Of Baruch he says, that he does not translate it, because it was not in Hebrew, nor received by the Jews.' He never translated Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, or either of the books of Maccabees, and observes, that 'such books as are not of the twenty-four* letters are to be utterly rejected' (Pref. to Ezra). In his Preface to yudith he says, in like manner, Among the Hebrews this book is read among the haglosmpha (or, according to some manuscripts, apocrypha), whose authority is not judged sufficient to support disputed matters.' He adds, at the same time, that the Council of Nice is said to have included it in the catalogue of the Holy Scrip tures.' We have, however, no authority for sup posing that the Council of Nice ever formed such a catalogue. There is no account of the matter in any of its acts which have reached us.
Jerome's remarks respecting the additions to the book of Daniel will be noticed elsewhere. [DANIEL, Apocryphal Additions to.] In reference to these, Jerome's contemporary, Rufous, once his familiar friend, but now his bitter enemy, violently attacked him in his second invective against him. The invectives of Rufinus, however, have no refe rence to any other writings than the history of Susanna and the Song of the Three Children. In fact, Rufinus himself made the same distinction in regard to the books of Scripture that Jerome did. After enumerating the books of the Old and New Testament 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 canonical, but have been called by our forefathers ecclesi astical; as the Wisdom of Solomon, and another called the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, which among the Latins is called by the general name of Ecclesiasticus, by which title is denoted not the author of the book, but the quality of the writing. 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 authority for proving articles of faith. Other Scriptures they call apocryphal, which they would not have to be read in churches' (In Synth. Apost.) It is maintained by Professor Alber that, when Jerome and Rufinus said the Ecclesiastical 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 authority. These Fathers, however, certainly put them into the same rank with the Shepherd of Hermas.