Chapter 12, it’s stated in the post.
>> Also, that book is Deuterocanonical, which means it is not used for doctrine, but for teaching.<<
LOL Teaching in that it supports unscriptural teachings of the church which are doctrine. What a crock. Somehow agreeing that it isn’t inspired but still using it. Is there any wonder we stick with “inspired” scripture?
The same clergy that was guided to put together the canon, also included the deuterocanonicals. Obviously they felt that they had value.
Like I have said, Protestants pick and choose what THEY consider to be canonical. They could care less what the venerable Church Fathers took into consideration. Even the 1611 KJV had them included!
By the way, do you not think that the history of the Jews under the Greeks, Selucids, and Hasmoneans is a valuable thing?