Well, on the serious side Luther wrote that, "ancient fathers did not include this one among the books of sacred Scripture, but simply regarded it as the fine work of a wise man. And we shall let it go at that...That the book must be a compilation is suggested also by the fact that in it one part is not fitted neatly to the next, as in the work of a single author. Instead it draws on many books and authors and mixes them together, much as a bee sucks juices out of all sorts of flowers and mixes them. Moreover, as one may deduce from Philo, it appears that Jesus Sirach was descended from the royal line of David, and was either a nephew or grandson of Amos Sirach, the foremost prince in the house of Judah, living some two centuries before the birth of Christ, about the time of the Maccabees.
This is a useful book for the ordinary man. The author concentrates all his effort on helping a citizen or housefather to be Godfearing, devout, and wise; and on showing what the relationship of such a man should be to God, the Word of God, priests, parents, wife, children, his own body, his servants, possessions, neighbors, friends, enemies, government, and anyone else...
Should anyone like to know what labor it cost us to translate this book, let him compare our German with all the other versions, be they Greek, Latin, or German, old or new—the product will bear sufficient testimony concerning those who produced it. In all languages so many wiseacres have gone at this book that—quite apart from its inherent lack of order from the very outset—one should not be surprised if it turned out completely unrecognizable, unintelligible, and in every respect worthless. But we have put it together again like a torn, trampled, and scattered letter, and washed off the mud; we have brought it into shape as anyone can see for himself. God be praised and thanked. Amen. Christians will not criticize us for this, but the world will; in keeping with its virtues, it will manage to thank us as it has always done. [LW 35:347-348] - https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/11/luther-and-book-of-sirach.html
Of course, Catholics often parrot propaganda that Luther excluded these books from the Prot. Bible (though he actually included apocryphal books separately in his translation, while not setting the larger canon of Protestantism) - since they challenged his doctrine (usually just citing 2 Mac. 12 yet which does not teach Purgatory and challenges RC doctrine), Yet while Luther could be very blunt, caustic and prone to hyperbole in his fallible opinions (though RCs imagine him being some pope to us), and did not judge all books the same, in his translation apocryphal books "are grouped together at the end of the Old Testament under the title: ‘Apocrypha, i.e., books not to be regarded as equal to Holy Writ, but which are useful and good to read."
For this subject Luther’s View of the Canon of Scripture is a must read.
Then we have the book of which is clearly manifest as a fable, though some Catholics are offended by that classification. Which is about a women, Sarah, who has lost seven husbands because Asmodeus, the demon of lust, and "the worst of demons," abducts and kills every man she marries on their wedding night before the marriage can be consummated!
And about a man, Tobias, who was sleeping with his eyes open while birds dropped dung into in his eyes (sound sleeper!) and blinded him. And who later is attacked by a fish leaping out of the river to devour him! But Raphael has him capture it and later he burns the fish’s liver and heart to drive away the demon Asmodeus away to Upper Egypt [let the Coptics deal with him?], enabling Tobias and Sarah to finally consummate his marriage.
Thank you for that time invested. Always like learning new things.