Philo

I came across this interesting statement on New Advent which again gives weight to the fact that the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books should not be considered in the same way as those included in the Hebrew canon. (Philo was apparently a Jewish philosopher and exegete from Alexandria, who lived around the time of Christ) :

Philo, a typical Alexandrian-Jewish thinker . . . while indicating acquaintance with the deutero literature, nowhere cites it in his voluminous writings. True, he does not employ several books of the Hebrew Canon; but there is a natural presumption that if he had regarded the additional works as being quite on the same plane as the others, he would not have failed to quote so stimulating and congenial a production as the Book of Wisdom. Moreover, as has been pointed out by several authorities, the independent spirit of the Hellenists could not have gone so far as to setup a different official Canon from that of Jerusalem, without having left historical traces of such a rupture. So, from the available data we may justly infer that, while the deuterocanonicals were admitted as sacred by the Alexandrian Jews, they possessed a lower degree of sanctity and authority than the longer accepted books, i.e., the Palestinian Hagiographa and the Prophets, themselves inferior to the Law.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm (Emphasis mine)