It is in the middle of the paragraph under “II. Canonicity” if you would like the context.
**Here ? - **
II. Canonicity.
Though older than both Dan and Esther, this book was never admitted into the Jewish Canon. There are numerous quotations from it, however, in Talmudic and rabbinic literature, (see a list in Zunz, Die Gottesdiens
tlichen Vortrage(2), 101 f; Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte der jud. Poesie, 204 f; Schechter, JQR, III, 682-706; Cowley and Neubauer, The Original Hebrew of a Portion of Ecclesiasticus, xix-xxx). It is not referred to explicitly in Scripture, yet it is always cited by Jewish and Christian writers with respect and perhaps sometimes as Scripture. It forms a part of the Vulgate (Jerome’s Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) of the Tridentine Council and therefore of the Romanist Canon,
but the Protestant churches have never recognized it as canonical, though the bulk of modern Protestant scholars set a much higher value upon it than they do upon many books in the Protestant Canon (Chronicles, Esther, etc.). It was accepted as of canonical rank by Augustine and by the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397, 419), yet it is omitted from the lists of accepted books given by Melito (circa 180 AD), Origen, in the Apostolic Canons and in the list of the Councils of Laodicea (341 and 381). Jerome writes in Libri Sol.: “Let the church read these two books (Wisdom and Sirach) for the instruction of the people, not for establishing the authority of the dogmas of the church.” It suffered in the respect of many because it was not usually connected with a great name; compare the so-called “Proverbs of Solomon.” Sirach is cited or referred to frequently in the Epistle of James (
Jas 1:2-4–compare Sirach 2:1-5;
Jas 1:5–compare Sirach
1:26;
41:22;
51:13 f;
Jas 1:8 (“double minded”)–compare Sirach
1:28, etc.). The book is often cited in the works of the Fathers (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, etc.) and also in the Apostolical Constitutions with the formula that introduces Scripture passages: “The Scripture says,” etc. The Reformers valued Sirach highly, and parts of it have been incorporated into the Anglican Prayer-book.
- net.bible.org/dictionary.php?word=Sirach, Book Of
**Books are valued for different reasons - so that choice is not something Protestants need to defend. (Or Catholics, many of whom probably are of the same mind.) ****To think that Sirach is more valuable than Esther, does not imply anything about the canonical status, or lack of it, of either - some canonical books are of lower quality or value in various ways than some that are not in the canon. Is that so remarkable ? **
