Luther: The Lord Commonly Gives Riches To Foolish People

This showed up in my Facebook feed this morning:

This was posted in a Facebook public group entitled, Martin Luther and the Reformation.  The group is an oddity in that it wants nothing to do with authentic Lutheranism: "A word of WARNING: We are not here to 'defend Lutheranism'...and those who teach baptismal regeneration and Sacramentalism will be REMOVED from the group."

Documentation
I was curious about the quote, so I dug around to see if it was authentic. Most basic searches do attribute this quote to Martin Luther (there are though some that attribute it to Martin Luther King).  The majority of early English usage comes from 19th century quote books. For instance:

Riches — The Gift of
Riches are the pettiest and least worthy gifts which God can give a man. What are they to God's Word ?—Yea, to bodily gifts, such as beauty and health; or to the gifts of the mind, such as understanding, skill, wisdom? Yet men toil for them night and day, and day and night, and take no rest. Therefore our Lord God doth commonly give riches to foolish people, to whom He gives nothing else.—Luther.

In all the instances I located in my cursory search of the popular form of this quote search, none gave any more documentation other than attributing the quote to Luther.  That the quote had a longer form typically indicates a level of authenticity in some regard. That the quote was used in a 19th century English anthology led me to check the Table Talk. It was during the 19th century that English editions of the Table Talk gained mass popularity. Sure enough, the very first early English edition of the Table Talk (1818) I checked contained the following:

A fearful Example of Covetousness.

A COVETOUS farmer, well known at Erfurt, carried his corn to sell there in the market; but holding it at too dear a rate, no man would buy of him, nor give him his price; he being thereby moved to anger, said I will not sell it cheaper, but will rather carry it home again and give it to the mice. As he came home therewith, an innumerable number of mice and rats flocked about his house and devoured up all his corn. And the next day following, going out to see his grounds, which were newly sown, he found, that all the seed was eaten up, and no hurt at all done upon the grounds belonging to his neighbours; this certainly was a just punishment from God, and a token of his wrath against the unthankful world.

Three rich farmers have lately hanged themselves: such wretches that do rob the whole country, are worthy of those punishments; for the dearth at this time is a wilful dearth. God hath given enough, only the devil hath possessed such wicked cormorants wilfully to make this dearth. They are thieves and murderers of their poor neighbours. Christ will say unto them at the last day, "I was hungry, and ye have not fed me, etc." Do not think (thou that sellest thy corn so dear) that thou shalt escape punishment; for thou art an occasion of the deaths and famishing of the poor; the devil will fetch thee away. They that fear God, and trust in him, do pray for their daily bread, and against such robbers as thou art, that either they may be put to shame, or be reformed.

A man that dependeth upon the riches and honour of this world, and forgets God, and the welfare of his soul, is like to a little child that holdeth a fair apple in the hand, which on the outside is pleasing to behold, and thinketh it hath also some goodness within, but it is rotten and full of worms. 

Where great wealth is, there are all manner of sins; for through wealth cometh pride; through pride, dissention; through dissention, wars; through wars, poverty; and through poverty, great distress and misery. Therefore they that are rich, must yield a strict and great account; for to whom much is given, the same must give an account of much. Riches, understanding, beauty, and comeliness are fair gifts of God, but we abuse them shamefully. Yet, notwithstanding, worldly wisdom, and a witty brain are evil things, when the cause engaged in is evil; for we used to say, No man will yield from his own conceit; every one will be right. Much better it is, that one be of a fair and comely complexion in the face, for a sickness may come and take that away; but the mind and conceit, is not so soon altered. It is written, Ye shall be like God: yea, I suppose we are like God. This disease is from Adam conveyed unto us, "Ye shall be as Gods."

Riches is the smallest thing on earth, and the least gift that God bestowed on mankind. What is it in comparison of God's Word? yea, what is it to be compared with corporal gifts; as beauty, health, etc? nay, what is it to the gifts of the mind; as understanding, art, wisdom, etc. Yet are men so eager after it, that no labour, travel, nor danger is regarded in getting of riches, there is in it neither matter, form, effect, or cause, or any thing else that is good; therefore our Lord God commonly giveth riches to such, from whom he withholds all spiritual good.

The early English editions typically do not provide documentation back to the primary sources. In fact, the paragraphs above are different Table Talk utterances strung together to form one text. Some of the paragraph breaks can be seen in Captain Henry Bell's version of the Table Talk. Here's Bell's 17th Century version:

Context
This text be located in a Latin / German mix in WA 5:240. It was a Table Talk utterance recorded by Caspar Heydenreich. LW includes this text (LW 54:452).

No. 5559: Wealth the Most Insignificant Gift of God Winter of 1542–1543
 “Riches are the most insignificant things on earth, the smallest gift that God can give a man. What are they in comparison with the Word of God? In fact, what are they in comparison even with physical endowments and beauty? What are they in comparison with gifts of the mind? And yet we act as if this were not so, The matter, form, effect, and goal of riches are worthless. That’s why our Lord God generally gives riches to crude asses to whom he doesn’t give anything else.” Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 54: Table Talk. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald andH. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 54, p. 452). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Conclusion
I've mentioned this often during the years: Luther didn't write the Table Talk. It is a collection of second-hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written. Certainly Luther spoke out against greed and placing false hope in riches. What would Luther have written about the person pictured above? One can only speculate, but the words would probably not be as kind as those recorded in the Table Talk utterance documented in this entry.

Luther Acknowledged His Errors on the Real Presence in the Lord's Supper?

Here are two quotes attributed to Luther about Christ's not being present in the Sacraments.

The first is more indirect. Luther purportedly said in the Lord's Supper the body and blood of Christ are received by faith (in other words, not literally):

 Of the Cause of the Sacrament.

THE operative cause of this sacrament, is the Word and institution of Christ, who ordained it. The substance is bread and wine; they prefigure the true body and blood of Christ, which is spiritually received by faith; the final cause of instituting the same, is the benefit and the fruit, the strengthening of our faith, not doubting that Christ's body and blood was given and shed for us, and that our sins by Christ's death certainly are forgiven. Now these graces and benefits we have obtained, in that he is our Saviour, our Redeemer and Deliverer; For though in Adam we are altogether sinners and guilty of everlasting death, and condemned; but now, by the blood of Christ, we are justified, redeemed, and sanctified; therefore let us take hold of this by faith.

Along with this, the second quote (from the same source) Luther is recorded as saying the pope forces people to believe in the real presence:

Of the Pope's Proceeding touching the Sacrament.
THE Pope denieth not the sacrament, but he hath stolen from the laity the one part or kind thereof; neither doth he teach the true use of the sacrament. The Pope rejecteth not the Bible, but he persecuteth and killeth upright, good, and godly teachers. Like as the Jews persecuted and slew the Prophets that truly expounded and taught the Scriptures. The Pope Well permitteth the substance and essence of the sacrament and Bible to remain: but yet he will compel and force us to use the same according to his will and pleasure, and will constrain us to believe the falsely feigned and invented Transubstantiation and the real presence. The Pope doth nothing else, but perverteth and abuseth all that God hath commanded and ordained.

Besides my Lutheran readers howling "no way!", what's going on here? Did Luther contradict his well-established view of the real presence of Christ in the sacrament? We'll see below these quotes may have been the result of one man's efforts in the seventeenth century to get a book of Luther's published in England. He appears to have added a few words to the text in order to appease the powers that be. The following is a representation of the research of Gordon Rupp from his book, The Righteousness of God (New York: The Philosophical Library, Inc., 1953), p. 76.

Documentation

Both of these quotes come from the Table Talk. Luther didn't write the Table Talk. It is a collection of second-hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. For these two quotes in the form they are in presented above, they come from the earliest English edition of Luther's Table Talk translated by Captain Henry Bell in 1652: Dris Martini Lutheri Colloquia Mensalia: Or, Dr Martin Luther's Divine Discourses at His Table, etc. The account of how Bell came across Luther's German Table Talk and had it translated into English can be found here.  It is a fantastical story, almost sounding made-up. Preserved Smith's critical study of Luther's Table Talk refers to Bell's account as "such a tissue of mistakes and improbabilities that it is hardly worth serious criticism," and also, "The whole thing has the air of being invented to heighten the interest of the translation." On the contrary though, Gordon Rupp sifted through the details of Bell's story and deems it a plausible account (See Rupp. pp. 56-77).

The Luther quotes occur on page 263 of Bell's translation:

Captain Bell translated these quotes from Aurifaber's edition of the Table Talk, but, as Rupp point out, "Bell's edition corresponds to known edition of Aurifaber" (Rupp, 75). Rupp compares what Bell translated against Aurifaber's 1566 edition (published in Eisleben). The quotes above can be found in German on page 232 of the 1566 Eisleben edition:

A later version of this German  text can be found here (p. 305 for the first quote, p. 306 for the second) The first quote can also be found in WA TR 3:281, including a Latin version, 3354b (p. 280-281). The Latin version is attributed to being recorded by Conrad Cordatus. The second quote can be found in WA TR 3:203.

 Of these texts, note Rupp's analysis on page 76. He mentions that the quote had English words inserted in that are not to be found in the German text of  Aurifaber:

But the most interesting section is the drastic abridgment by Bell of the long section in the original on "Vom Sacrament des Waren Leibs und Blutes Christi," now translated as "Of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper." It will have been noted that the Parliamentary committee which examined Bell's book specially noted that in it Luther had acknowledged "his error which he formerly held touching the real presence corporaliter in coena domini." 

Luther, of course, never did anything of the kind, and as far as I know there is no German edition of the Table Talk in which he makes any such dramatic retraction. It is obvious that this was the price paid by Bell to get his book authorized and published. The two alterations will be found in Bell's edition of Luther's "Divine Discourses" (1652), p.263: 

"Of the cause of the Sacrament of the Altar. 'The operative cause... of this Sacrament is the Word and Institution of Christ who ordained and erected it. The substance is bread and wine, the form is the true body and blood of Christ which is spiritually received by faith."(1)

That could conceivably hold the Lutheran interpretation. The next is more explicit: 

"The Pope well permitteth the substance and essence of The Sacrament and Bible to remain: but yet he will compel and force us to use the same according as his will and pleasure is to describe it, and will constrain us to believe the falsely feigned and invented transubstantiation, and the real presence corporaliter." (2) 

1.TR. (1566) Dieses Sacraments, sprach Dr. Martinus Luther, Ursach ist Das Wort und Einsetzung Christi der es gestifftet und aufgerichtet hat. Die Materia ist Brot und Wein, die Form ist der Ware Leib und Blut Christi, die endliche ursach warurmb es eingesetzt ist der Nutz und Frucht das wir unsern Glauben starcken. 232. 

2. TR. (1566). Was die Substanz und das Wesen belanget, so lasst der Bapst die Sacramente und Bibel bleiben, allein will er uns zwingen das wir derselben Brauch sollen wie er will und zuschreibet. 232.

The sentence about transubstantiation and the real presence has no place in the original. 

Conclusion 
Lest anyone get lost in the details, Rupp is pointing out that in the first quote, the phrase "which is spiritually received by faith" has been inserted into the English text. In the second quote, "and will constrain us to believe the falsely feigned and invented transubstantiation, and the real presence corporaliter" has been inserted into the text. These same insertions were picked up in later English editions of the Table Talk:

Martin Luther's Colloquia Mensalia Vol. 1 (1840), p. 382-383.

The Table Talk or Familiar Discourses... (Hazlitt) (1848), p. 168, 203.

That there was an attempt by Bell to appease the powers that be has corroborating evidence in the prefatory material to Bell's translation. Note these words from the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons in Bell's edition (also mentioned by Preserved Smith):

Luther, the Tower Bathroom, and Faith Alone

In commemoration of Reformation day 2016, here's a wild and weird one from a Roman Catholic on the CARM boards (and also Catholic Answers):

For Luther the bathroom was also a place of worship. His holiest movements came when he was seated on the privy (Abort) of the Wittenberg monastery tower. It was there, while moving his bowels, that he conceived the revolutionary Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone. Afterward he wrote: "these words 'just' and 'justice of God' were thunderbolt to my conscience.... I soon had the thought [that] God's justice which justifies us and saves us. And these words became a sweeter message for me. This knowledge the Holy Spirit gave me on the privy in the tower."

The above is a crude description of what Reformation studies refer to as Luther's Turmerlebnis or "Tower Experience." This refers to the place (and setting) where Luther came to his understanding of justification by faith alone. As the popular version goes, Luther was in the tower of the Augustinian monastery when the "gate to paradise" of the gospel came to him. Luther recollected this experience a year before he died:

Though I lived as a monk without reproach, I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed conscience. I could not believe that he was placated by my satisfaction. I did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry with God, and said, “As if, indeed, it is not enough, that miserable sinners, eternally lost through original sin, are crushed by every kind of calamity by the law of the decalogue, without having God add pain to pain by the gospel and also by the gospel threatening us with his righteousness and wrath!” Thus I raged with a fierce and troubled conscience. Nevertheless, I beat importunately upon Paul at that place, most ardently desiring to know what St. Paul wanted.

At last, by the mercy of God, meditating day and night, I gave heed to the context of the words, namely, “In it the righteousness of God is revealed, as it is written, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live.’ ” There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, “He who through faith is righteous shall live.” Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me. Thereupon I ran through the Scriptures from memory. I also found in other terms an analogy, as, the work of God, that is, what God does in us, the power of God, with which he makes us strong, the wisdom of God, with which he makes us wise, the strength of God, the salvation of God, the glory of God.

And I extolled my sweetest word with a love as great as the hatred with which I had before hated the word “righteousness of God.” Thus that place in Paul was for me truly the gate to paradise. (LW 34:336-337)

Contrary to these tender autobiographical words, how did a coarse tale about Luther's bathroom habits find its way over to Catholic Answers and CARM? Is it just another one of those myths floating around cyberspace?

Origin of The Story 
The words just cited were from Luther's detailed account of his discovery of justification by faith alone (see The Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther's Latin Writings, 1545, LW 34:323). Even with this firsthand information, historians have not been able to conclusively determine the exact date or exact place in which it occurred. There have been a number of theories as to the specific date in which Luther came to his understanding of justification by faith alone. An exact date has importance because there are those who want to read the Ninety-Five Theses with a Luther who already understood "faith alone" as a backdrop for his complaints against indulgences. There are others who posit Luther had his  Turmerlebnis sometime after the Theses were posted. While it might appear to be a silly quibble, it does impact how one interprets Luther's earlier writings. While scrutinizing for the date, any information about the place has been scrutinized in order to concretely fix the date. Did Luther, the agonizing monk in Augustinian monastery have his "tower experience" while still an obedient monk previous to October 31, 1517? Luther doesn't say where he was. Here's second-hand testimony enters the debate.

The crude story finds its genesis from an interpretation of one sentence from the Table Talk. The Table Talk is a collection of second-hand comments and anecdotes written down by Luther's friends and students published after his death. In other words, Luther didn't write the Table Talk. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written. In Reformation history studies, particularity those put together by Roman Catholics and secularists, it is not uncommon to find the Table Talk used as a primary source over Luther's actual writings.  The tenuous nature of this method becomes readily apparent when one actually reads the Table Talk. Often the purported utterances hang without a broader context (or in some instances, any context) and lack the background historical setting in which they were stated.

This particular utterance is found in a 1532 utterance (number 1681) from WA TR 2:177 (and not found in English of the Table Talk in LW 54). Other variations of this utterance can be found in WA TR 3, nos. 3232a, b, c. P. 228 (see Addendum #2 below). Luther is purported to have described his feelings in discovering justification by faith alone sometime between July and September of 1532:

The sentence which has caused this controversy is found at the very end of the second paragraph. The entirety of the second paragraph is in Latin except for the last sentence being a mixture of German and Latin:  Dise Kunst hatt mir der Spiritus Sanctus auf diss Cl[oaca]. eingeben.   In a helpful article Kenneth G. Hagen has described what in this text sentence has provoked this controversy. He points out that there are different versions of what Luther is purported to have said (from Cordatus, Lauterbach, and Schlaginhaufen). The first two say the experience happened in a hypocauslum (warm room or secret place). Hagen states, "However, Schlaginhaufen reports that Luther said that it occurred in or on a "Cl." (auf diss Cl.)." Hagen continues:

The abbreviation "Cl," as the place where the Holy Spirit revealed to Luther a new understanding of Rom 1:17, has caused much speculation and some embarrassment. Some later editors of the Table Talk have suggested that "Cl" means cloaca (toilet). Hartmann Grisar argues that cloaca is the only possible reading. Other suggestions have been that "Cl." means cella (chamber), claustrum (a confined place), capiiulum (chapter), c(apite) 1 (chapter one) or darissimum (very clear).  The last three suggestions refer to Scripture. According to Gordon Rupp, "Most scholars now believe it to have been a warmed room in which Luther studied."

Erik Erikson: Young Man Luther

In the twentieth century some approached Luther by applying psychoanalysis to his writings. Psychologist Erik Erikson took this controversial sentence and interpreted it literally to mean Luther was in the bathroom when he had his evangelical breakthrough. From his Freudian perspective Erikson concluded Luther's spiritual issues were tied up with biological functions.  He presented this in his book, Young Man Luther, a Study in Psychoanalysis and History (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1958). Erikson states on pages 204-206:

Responses To Erikson

If the word "cloaca" is the word in question, a basic response to the phrase Erikson interpreted literally is that in actuality it was simply conventional speech. Luther really was saying that his breakthrough came during a time when he was depressed, or in a state of melancholy. A brief overviews by both Dr. Scott Hendrix and James M. Kittelson in Christian History, Issue 34 (Vol. XI, No. 2).  Kittelson states,

Luther writes elsewhere that the breakthrough occurred when he was In cloaca, which literally means “in the toilet.” Some writers have thus suggested that Luther was sitting on the toilet at that moment; the revelation was a release from parentally induced anal retentiveness.

Dispensing with the toilet theory is easy. “in cloaca” was a bit of monastic slang better rendered as “in the dumps” or “in the pits.” Luther meant that the realization occurred when he was despondent or depressed. He wrote that the event transpired “at last (after) meditating day and night and by the mercy of God. ...” Hence, he was likely in his study, which was located not in the tower but in the arch over the main gate into the monastery.

A more detailed review of this counter-argument to Erikson was described succinctly by Reformation historian Lewis Spitz:  

In his table talk between June 9 and July 12, 1532, however, Luther described his struggle to achieve clarity about faith and righteousness and said that "the Holy Spirit had given him this understanding in this tower." In one of the three rescripts the words auft diser cloaca are added. The phrase looms large in the Catholic-Protestant polemic early in this century and has stimulated analysts to a veritable frenzy of speculation about psycho-physiological relationships, oral anal release, and the Grand Canal controversy. In fact, however, the east tower room on the second floor of the Black Cloister contained the small library reading room with a large Bible where the monks went to read and meditate. It was not a facility. Two explanations of the phrase auff diser cloaca seem far more probable than the defecatory hypothesis. As early as 1919 Ernst Kroker, who had edited these passages in the Tischreden, argued in an article in the Lutherjahrbuch that the term cloaca had to be used in a transferred sense in order is to fit the usage of that day. The psychoanalytic explanation is all but untenable in the light of what we now know about the usage of the term by monks, and specifically by Augustinian hermits. In connection with the experience of accedia, the Klosterkrankheit, the phrase in cloaca was used not only with reference to the locus but to describe a state of melancholy in a way similar to our colloquial expression "down in the dumps." Thus Luther, troubled in conscience, fearful and anxious, suddenly understands that St Paul is speaking of the righteousness God bestows on man through forgiveness, and he is lifted out of the depths into the joy of paradise. [Pychohistory and Religion (Philadelphia: fortress Press, 1977), p. 80].

And finally, Reformation historian Steven Ozment has said,

On the meaning of cloaca, however, the historians have done their homework better than the psychologists. In the late Middle Ages, the descriptions of oneself as being in cloaca, in stercore, or in latrina were common religious rhetoric, actually derived from the Bible and connoting a state of utter humility and dependence on God. When Luther described his Reformation insight as occurring "in cloaca," he was saying no more than that he received his understanding of the righteousness of God after a long period of humble meditation in the tower room- actually the library- of the monastery. Once again an understanding of the religious culture of the period proves more illuminating than conjectures based on modern clinical psychology [Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), p. 230].

It's important to reiterate that Erikson formulated these multiple pages of psychological theory based on one sentence from something Luther did not write (a Table Talk utterance) and in that sentence, the key word in question "Cl." is not certain beyond doubt.  Historical scholars are fairly unified that Erikson made poor use of the evidence. He did not discriminate carefully enough among primary sources, secondary sources and hostile sources. Hearsay functioned as "fact." To my knowledge, Erikson refused to answer his many critics in print.

Addendum #1: Was There a Tower Bathroom?
Yes, there was a tower at Luther's Augustinian monastery in Wittenberg. Some scholars have contended there was no bathroom sort of feature in the tower at all. In 2004 though, excavation around the monastery (while building a garden) unearthed a "stone room" (BBC News) (see picture above of the excavation).

The 450-year-old toilet, which was very advanced for its time, is made out of stone blocks and, unusually, has a 30-square-centimetre seat with a hole. Underneath is a cesspit attached to a primitive drain (link).

A more recent article notes that artifacts from the excavation have been "copiously published in a catalog in 2009" (link). This archaeological discovery though does not necessarily validate that Luther's evangelical breakthrough came while sitting on the toilet. This article states,

What both parties seemed to have missed, though, is the profound medieval roots of the expression. Already in 1012, Thietmar of Merseburg can tell us that demons arise from the cloaca to tempt monks, while others debated whether it was allowed to pray in unclean places. Opinions were divided, but there is evidence that Luther as a good Augustinian believed you could pray everywhere – even in hell. In Augustine’s time, Father Licentius had sung a verse from a psalm while labouring to rid himself of the filth of this earth. Monica had censured him, but Augustine defended the act, arguing that prayer was appropriate anywhere. Later, in the middle ages, to fall into the “cloaca” came to mean “to fall into sin”. It is indeed possible the reformator meant it both metaphorically and literally, when he claimed to have been inspired while shi**ing; as he did a lot. Probably, because of excessive fasting in his youth he suffered from obstipation and chronic disorders in his bowls; as did Ignatius of Loyola too.

Addendum #2 Table Talk 3232c

No. 3232c: Description of Luther’s “Tower Experience”
Between June 9 and July 21, 1532

“The words ‘righteous’ and ‘righteousness of God’ struck my conscience like lightning. When I heard them I was exceedingly terrified. If God is righteous [I thought], he must punish. But when by God’s grace I pondered, in the tower and heated room of this building,65 over the words, ‘He who through faith is righteous shall live’ [Rom. 1:17] and ‘the righteousness of God’ [Rom. 3:21], I soon came to the conclusion that if we, as righteous men, ought to live from faith and if the righteousness of God contribute to the salvation of all who believe, then salvation won’t be our merit but God’s mercy. My spirit was thereby cheered. For it’s by the righteousness of God that we’re justified and saved through Christ. These words [which had before terrified me] now became more pleasing to me. The Holy Spirit unveiled the Scriptures for me in this tower.”

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 54: Table Talk. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 54, pp. 193–194). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.


Addendum #3 Hartmann Grisar on The Tower Incident
I want to make mention of one of the most detailed and tedious studies on the tower experience and the phrase "in cloaca" available in English. This study (first published in German) actually precedes the interpretation of Erikson by many decades: Hartmann Grisar, Luther vol. 6 p. 504- 510 (cf. vol. 1, p.396-397). Grisar was a Roman Catholic historian who belong to the period of destructive criticism of Luther and the Reformation. While one may disagree with his interpretations of the facts in regard to his overall opinion about Luther, over the years I've found his documentation to be useful.  In his analysis of the Table Talk statements in question, Grisar concludes that the word abbreviated "Cl." can only mean "cloaca." Grisar states that it is probable that a later copyist of the Table Talk notes was embarrassed by the word so made it into an abbreviation:

The mention of the cloaca explains the entry of Johann Schlaginhaufen in his notes of Luther's own words in 1532: "This art the Spiritus sanctum infused into me in this Cl." Cloaca is abbreviated into Cl., probably because Schlaginhaufen's copyist, was reluctant to write it out in full alongside of the account of the inspiration which Luther had received from the Holy Ghost; the editor suggests we should read "Capitel"; but the chapter-house is not to be thought of. Strange indeed are the interpretations which have been given, even in recent times, by the unlearned to many of the expressions in our texts. The " locus secretus " was supposed to be " a special place allotted to the monks in the tower," whereas it is clear that the " secret chamber " was simply the closet or privy, a word which occurs often enough in Luther's later abuse of the Papists. In olden times it was very usual to establish this adjunct on the city wall and its towers, the sewage having egress outside the town boundaries[link]

In response, Lutheran historian J.M. Reu commented,

It is characteristic for Grisar's mind and method when starting from a very doubtful text, that he attempts to prove that Luther found this important and saving explanation in the privy; but even if he were right, what would it matter ? Kawerau and Scheel on this point strike Grisar home in a way deserved by him [link]

The expression "locus secretus," which Cordatus uses, does by no means necessarily mean privy, and when Khumer's text reads "Turm und Kloake," so this reading is entirely uncertain, being very probably only an incorrect solution of the abbreviation "cl." found in Schlaginhaufen's text. The correct solution seems to be claustrum or cella. Lauterbach's text offers : "in hac turri et hypocausto" [link].

Luther claimed to Be Isaiah?

Here one from the CARM Christadelphianism forum in which Luther was said to consider himself on par with the Old Testament prophets, considering himself of the same caliber as Isaiah:

Luther interestingly claims himself as "Isaiah", a most excellent prophet:

"Daniel and Isaiah are most excellent prophets. I am Isaiah - be it spoken with humility - to the advancement of God's honor, whose work alone it is, and to spite the devil. Philip Melancthon is Jeremiah; that prophet stood always in fear; even so it is with Melancthon" (Table Talks, Of Gods word, XXIV).

Documentation
The source given is "Table Talks, Of Gods word, XXIV." Despite the incorrect use of the plural, the source is indeed the Table Talk. The version being used appears to be taken from an early English edition of the Table Talk. An earlier English version includes a much broader context, while later English versions edit it down (see for instance, this Hazlitt 1848 edition).

In regard to the German, the text from the early English editions appear to be based on the older German edition of the Tischreden found in Dr. Martin Luthers' sämmtliche Werke, p. 132. The English (bottom of page 91) follows the same content (top of page 129) of the German. One thing the German brings out that the English does not is that the section was not one long Table Talk, but rather many separate statements that the English rendering put together as one context. When one reads the English in this edition, the entire section is headed, On Solomon's Proverbs, but obviously far more is discussed than Proverbs: Esther, Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, etc. The discussion does not flow naturally because it wasn't one natural discussion. These entries were probably put together because they similarly discuss Old Testament and apocryphal books. The Table Talk the quote under scrutiny comes from was recorded by Conrad Cordatus between 1532-1533. The German text indicates it was an isolated statement. WA TR 2 records the statements as 2296a and 2296b (p.410).

Context
The broader contexts located in this English version and this truncated English version  have no bearing on the quote. The isolated quote simply states,

Daniel and Isaiah are the most excellent prophets. I am Isaiah (said Luther, be it spoke with humility) to the advancement of God's honour (whose work alone it is), and to spite the devil. Philip Melancthon is Jeremiah; "that prophet stood always in fear," even so it is with Melancthon. [link]

Conclusion
The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. Since Luther didn't write the Table Talk, the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther and should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written.

Yes, there were times in which Luther spoke of himself as a biblical prophet, but what was his prophecy? It was not the divine forth-telling the future as "thus saith the Lord," but rather the proclamation of the Word of God, not in the sense of new revelation, but the biblical inscripturated Word of God. Lutheran scholar Robert Kolb points out, 

Luther had no illusions about being an Enoch or Elijah returned from the grave…. What counted for Luther- and what linked him in his own mind with Elijah- was the Word of God in their mouths. He was firmly convinced that his tongue and pen proclaimed the same Word of God which Elijah proclaimed. Only because of this could he place himself in the ranks of prophets and apostles. Thus, much of the medieval notion of the prophet was not of importance for Luther. He claimed to possess no special gift beyond the Word which had been present in the mouths of the biblical prophets. His estimate of himself, as constructive promoter of the gospel or as destructive critic of false teaching, was only and only connected with the Word of God” [Robert Kolb: Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer 1520-1560 (Michigan: Baker Books, 1999), p.31-32].

What can we learn from this Table Talk  statement? The statement appears to be a contrast between the personalities of Luther and Melanchthon. Simply do a search on Melanchthon and the word "timid." It's no wonder that one of the main English biographies of Melanchthon is entitled, 

Melanchthon: The Quiet Reformer. In letters to Melanchton, Luther refers to him as "too gentile" (LW 48:257] and that he did not approve of Melanchthon's timidity [LW 48:365]. Or, consider these other purported statements said to be from Luther about Melanchthon:

“Philip stabs, too, but only with pins and needles. The pricks are hard to heal and they hurt. But when I stab I do it with a heavy pike used to hunt boars.” [LW 54:50]

“In the Acts of the Apostles you have a description of us. James is our Philip, who in his modesty wanted to retain the law voluntarily [Acts 15:13–21]. Peter signifies me, who smashed it: ‘Why do you put a yoke on the neck of the disciples’ [Acts 15:10]? Philip lets himself be devoured. I devour everything and spare no one. So God accomplishes the same thing in two different persons” [LW 54:355].

The point of the Table talk appears to be nothing more than a comparison of the personalities of Luther and Melanchthon. There is no corroborating evidence that either Luther or Melanchthon considered themselves to be giving forth extra-Biblical new revelation as modern-day incarnations of Isaiah and Jeremiah.

Luther Believed Prophecy to be Active Today?

This one comes up every so often: either that Luther considered himself a prophet in the Biblical sense of forth telling the future, or that he believed the Biblical gift of prophecy was active in the church of his day. Here's a recent sample from the CARM Christadelphianism board. The person using it appears to think Luther believed in the active gift of prophecy based on a few Table Talk quotes. Here's the first:

Luther believed prophecy to be active today:

"Astronomy, on the contrary, I like; it pleases me by reason of her manifold benefits. General prophecies and declarations, which declare generally what in future shall happen accord not upon individuals and particular things" (Table Talks, Of Astronomy and Astrology, DCCXCVIII).

Context
In regard to the German, the quote was probably taken from a source similar to Dr. Martin Luthers Sämmtliche schriften, Volume 22, 1550. Both sentences are separated by a fair amount of text, including a sub-heading. The first line is "Astronomiam nehme ich an, und gefällt om wohl umb ihres mannigfältigcn Nutzes willen." The second line further down is "Gemeine Weissagungen und Verkündigung, da man etwas insgemein zuvor verkündiget, wie es ergehen soll, reimet noch zeucht sich nicht auf einzelne und sonderliche Dinge und Personen."

This quote as it's been cited in English above was taken from an early English edition of the Table Talk. The version being used appears to be from a later reprint of the Hazlett edition (also found on the CCEL website). The number DCCXCVIII appears to be a later renumbering of the earlier edition. Earlier editions number this entry DCCCXLII.  I'm absolutely certain the quote as it's cited above and found in early Hazlett editions is an edited version of a much lengthier utterance in English from Luther on Astrology. The unedited English can be found here starting at the bottom of page 309. Compare this with other later English editions.


Context

An astrologer and a star-peeper, is to be likened to one that selleth dice, and saith, Behold here I have dice that always run upon twelve; the rest of the fifty casts, they run upon two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven. Even thus it is with the astrologers; when once or twice their conceit and fantasies do hit, then they cannot suficiently extol and praise the art; but touching the other so often failing, of the same they are altogether still and silent. I accept of astronomy (said Luther), it pleaseth me well for the sake of her manifold profits. David, in the 19th Psalm remembereth the wonderful works and creatures of God in the firmament of heaven, he taketh therein his delight; Job also remembereth Orion, which they call Jacob's staff, the seven stars, &c. To conclude, the example of Esau and Jacob maketh astrology merely a juggling and confounded work, therewith the astrologers always have enough to do to plaster themselves.

Concluding arguments against Astrology. 

First, that doctrine which dealeth and handleth a matter is uncertain; for materia est informis, is without shape and form, without any quality and fitness; the doctrine of the astrologers and star-peepers dealeth and handleth touching matters, therefore astrology is uncertain. Secondly, General prophecies and declarations, when they will declare a thing generally before what in future shall happen, neither do accord nor draw themselves upon singular and particular things or persons; non competunt specialibus & individuis, they agree not to specials and individuals; but the astrologers and star-peepers do teach general predictions and presages which cannot be directed to and upon particular things and persons, therefore the astrologers and star-peepers do wrong, in drawing and directing there predictions to and upon particular and certain persons and things. Thirdly, When at one time many are slain together in a battle, are shot, struck dead, &c. No man can truly affirm, that they were all born under one planet, yet they die altogether in one hour, yea oftentimes in one moment, especially before the mouths of great cannon and ordnances.

Conclusion

Even without the extended context, the subject matter of the truncated quote is about astronomy, not prophecy. I can see though how someone not being careful read the sentences as the separate subjects of astronomy and "general prophecies and declarations." In context, the comparison is between astrology and astronomy, and that Luther rejected the former and was pleased by the later. Then, the second sentence appears in the next section under the concluding arguments. The "General prophecies and declarations" are in regard to that put forth by astrology. 

Luther: I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ

Here's an obscure Table Talk quote that makes the rounds: “I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ” (Table Talk, 2397b). It surfaces on Internet discussion boards. as well as on Roman Catholic web pages like Luther Exposing the Myth, The 38 Most Ridiculous Things Martin Luther Ever Wrote, Martin Luther the Bare Truth Unfolded, and many others.

Documentation
The most common documentation given is "Table Talk, 2397b." This is a good indicator that the quote came from Peter F. Wiener's Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor (1945). Wiener states,

"Luther does not always see eye to eye with God or Christ. 'I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ,' he said on one occasion quite shamelessly (“Table Talk”, 2397b).

The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. It is not something he actually wrote, but rather contains utterances he's purported to have said. "2397b" is not a page number. The utterances are numbered, so  "2397b" refers to the actual statement purported to have been made by Luther. LW 54 explains of this numbered statement, "The pieces numbered 1950 to 3416 in WA, TR 2 and 3 belong to the years 1532 and 1533 and were collected, though not necessarily recorded, by Conrad Cordatus" (LW 54:169). The actual reference then would be to WA 2:446.

Context

2397a and 2397b say similar things, but the text is purported to come from 2397b. The text in 2397b does say " Ego uxori meae et vobis singulis plus confido quam christo," but then comes a comma with the conclusion: "cum tamen nullus vestrum haec pro me faceret, ut crucifigeretur et moreretur pro me." The conclusion of the sentence is left out of the popular form circulating around the Internet, and actually gives the utterance quite a different meaning than that implied by Rome's defenders. 

Neither of these statements are contained in the English Luther's Works vol. 54. However, an old edition of the Table Talk (The Familiar Discourses of Dr. Martin Luther)  includes the following:

That God is more loving unto us than a Father towards his Children
GOD hath a better and more friendly heart towards his faithful ones, than a father or mother can have towards their children; as God himself saith in the Prophet Isaiah, Chapter xlix. Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion of the son of her womb? yea, they, may forget, yet will not I forget thee, etc. But God must have patience with us. I believe that St. Paul was at enmity with himself, because he could not believe and love Christ so entirely as willingly he would have done. Fie on the devil, and on our wicked flesh, that we cannot believe and trust in God, who hath given us so great and manifold benefits, and still doth give us all his goodnesses, I myself must confess, that I can put more trust in my wife, and in every one of my friends, than in Christ: when as, notwithstanding, I well know, that none among them all would do and suffer for me that which he suffered, namely, to be crucified and slain for me.

Some form of the text of 2397a / 2397b appears to be at the conclusion of this paragraph:

Fie on the devil, and on our wicked flesh, that we cannot believe and trust in God, who hath given us so great and manifold benefits, and still doth give us all his goodnesses, I myself must confess, that I can put more trust in my wife, and in every one of my friends, than in Christ: when as, notwithstanding, I well know, that none among them all would do and suffer for me that which he suffered, namely, to be crucified and slain for me.

As to the former part of the paragraph, it appears to come from a different Table Talk statement all together. Or, it could very well be two other Table Talk statements that precede the quote in question.

Conclusion
Despite the fact that the Table Talk is often devoid of context, the popular version of this statement leaves out the entirety of the sentence: "cum tamen nullus vestrum haec pro me faceret, ut crucifigeretur et moreretur pro me." This is captured and expanded upon in the English rendering, "notwithstanding, I well know, that none among them all would do and suffer for me that which he suffered, namely, to be crucified and slain for me." Perhaps the author putting this into English utilized both 2397a and 2397b. Whatever liberties may have been taken with the English rendering, the sentence even in a bald literal form presents a sentiment expressing the fact that it is wrong and sinful to put trust in anyone more than in Christ. This is much different than Wiener saying it means, "Luther does not always see eye to eye with God or Christ."

Addendum
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2009. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Luther: Christ was an Adulterer

This is a follow-up to my earlier critiques of Shoebat's Martin Luther- The Bare Truth Unfolded. Their recent hit piece includes some Luther quotes I've never gone into detail on or have never covered, or deserve a fresh look. For instance, they repeat a version of the charge that Luther believed Christ was an adulterer:

Blasphemous references to both our Lord Jesus Christ, to God the Father, and also to the Holy Prophets and the Blessed Apostles. This comes as a great shock to many Christians who have had high hopes in Martin Luther. However, if we were to actually look at what he said regarding our Lord Jesus Christ, God the Father and also the Holy Prophets and Blessed Apostles, it should cause even the most elementary of Christian believers to cringe with disgust. In regards to our Lord Jesus Christ, Luther had the gall to accuse Him of committing fornication with the Samaritan woman at the well (Photini in Holy Tradition) as well as with Mary Magdalene. [Maybe one should wonder where the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, got some of his heresies from, seeing that he too taught the same thing in Doctrines and Covenants!]. He stated:

“Christ committed adultery first of all with the women at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: ‘Whatever has He been doing with her?’ Secondly, with Mary Magdalen, and thirdly with the women taken in adultery whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus even, Christ who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died.” (Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107)

This particular charge about Luther and Mary Magdalene goes beyond Shoebat.com. It's been alluded to in such mainline periodicals as Time Magazine: "Martin Luther believed that Jesus and Magdalene were married, as did Mormon patriarch Brigham Young." Or consider this Huffington Post comment, "later Martin Luther embraced the Cathar view of Jesus' liaison with Mary Magdalene." The same author makes a similar point in his book (here as well). Note this particular interpretive commentary from Dr. Sippo in his old article from the  St. Catherine Review: 

Luther lived an immoral and unprincipled life. In "Table Talks" Luther got drunk one night and told some of his fawning sycophants that Jesus must have been an adulterer because even He could not resist temptations of the flesh. He went on to claim that Jesus had an affair with Mary Magdalene, Mary and Martha of Bethany, and the Samaritan woman at the well.

I've written about it before, Luther Said: Christ Committed Adultery? back when I started this blog. Now, over ten years later, I'd like to take a fresh look.

Documentation

Shoebat.com cites "Trishreden, Weimer Edition, Vol. 2, Pg. 107." The first blaring problem with this reference is the word, "Trishreden." What's meant is actually, Tischreden. "Weimer Edition" refers to D. Martin Luthers Werke.  "Vol. 2" is misleading, as the correct reference should be something like "WA TR 2" (signifying volume 2 of the Tischreden). My speculation is that Shoebat.com cut-and-pasted this from Luther Exposing the Myth (see footnote #57). This later webpage may have taken it from Peter Wiener's Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor (London: Hutchinson Co. 1945, p. 29) and amended Wiener's reference. It's unclear to me whether or not Wiener was the first to introduce this English translation in 1945 or if he relied on some other source (Wiener's documentation is often lacking).  Wiener did utilize Frantz Funck-Brentano's 1936 biography of Luther, and this quote appears word for word on page 243. That this quotation is cited in word-for-word agreement for all these sources leads me to conclude that borrowing was occurring, even if my chain of citation is inaccurate.  

One other reference floating around cyberspace for this quote is "D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33." This reference appears to be the work of one of Rome's cyber-apologists from early in the 2000's (follow the trail from the link). The reference neglects "Nachfolger" (see image of the title page above), the year appears to be wrong (it was 1913, not 1893), and the page number was not 33 (it was page 107). The quote typically attached to this reference is the same as that used by Wiener, so it appears to me that Wiener gave this quote it's cyber-notoriety.  

Here is WA TR 2 page 107. The text reads as follows:

  This text is the recollection of John Schlaginhafen who recorded remarks allegedly made by Luther from 1531-1532.  It has been translated into English in LW 54:154 (just goes to show the compilers of LW didn't necessarily avoid the controversial writings of Luther.

Context

No. 1472: Christ Reproached as Adulterer Between April 7 and May 1, 1532

[Martin Luther said,] “Christ was an adulterer for the first time with the woman at the well, for it was said, ‘Nobody knows what he’s doing with her’ [John 4:27]. Again [he was an adulterer] with Magdalene, and still again with the adulterous woman in John 8 [:2–11], whom he let off so easily. So the good Christ had to become an adulterer before he died.” (LW 54:154)

Alternate Translation

In revisiting this quote I came upon Did Luther TeachThat Christ Committed Adultery? by Arthur Carl Piepkorn (Concordia Theological Monthly Vol. xxv June, 1954 No.6). Piepkorn actually locates a similar culprit that I did, Peter Wiener. He also translates it including a footnote:

1472. (Schlag. 239; Clm. 943, 175) Christus miulter. hristus ist am ersten ebrecher worden Joh.4. bei dem brunn cum muliere, quia illi dicebant: Nemo 17 significat 18 quid facit cum ea? Item cum Magdalena, item cum adultera Ioan. 8., die er so leicht davon lies. Also mus der from Christus auch am ersten ein ebrecher werden, ehe er starb.

17) So ist wohl zu lesen und nicht mit Preger: Nro. 

18) Text undeutlich: Stat oder Scat, oder ist scit zu lesen?"  

In literal translation:

1472. (Schlag. 239; Clm. 943, 175) Christ an adulterer. Christ first became an adulterer St. John 4 at the well with the woman, because they said: Nobody (17) indicates,(18) what is He doing with her? Again, with Magdalen; again, with the adulteress St. John 8, whom He dismissed so lightly. Thus the righteous Christ must first become also an adulterer before He died. 

17) This is the probable reading rather than Preger's: Nro. 

18) Text unclear: Stat or Scat, or should the reading be scit?"

Piepkorn states, 

In both instances we have reproduced the item completely. There is no context. It is simply a briefly scribbled note of part of a conversation, none too intelligibly recorded or transmitted, with several important words illegible. 

And also:

The sole manuscript containing this item is a quarto volume that found a final resting place in the State Library at Munich, where it was catalogued as Codex latinus 943. The page containing our item was copied from an earlier copy - possibly Schlaginhaufen's original manuscript-between November 4, 1551, and some time in 1567. The copyist may have been Schlaginhaufen's son-in-law, the Rev. John Oberndorfer of Ratisbon. 

Thus the "hair-raising blasphemy" turns out to be an inaccurately translated version of a somewhat uncertain, uncontrolled and unverifiable quotation of an offhand remark of blessed Martin Luther, without a shred of context or any indication of the circumstances that evoked the words it purports to reproduce. Since the item was destined to remain in manuscript form for 356 years after it was set down, it is quite probable that blessed Martin Luther himself never saw what Schlaginhaufen had written down. 

Conclusion

How does one respond to this? The quote appears outrageous. First, the quote has no context. One does not know what exactly Luther had in mind. Was he kidding? Was he summarizing someone else's argument? Was he using hyperbole? It's really hard to say. If taken literally, it certainly is at odds with his other statements about Christ. Thus, even though one can't know exactly why he said this, we can have a strong assurance he didn't mean it literally. The editors of Luther's Works include a footnote for this comment of Luther's, and they offer the following speculation:

This entry has been cited against Luther, among others by Arnold Lunn in The Revolt Against Reason (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1951), pp. 45, 257, 258. What Luther meant might have been made clearer if John Schlaginhaufen had indicated the context of the Reformer’s remarks. The probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647) in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer.

Be careful with Luther’s Table Talk. The Table Talk is a collection of comments from Luther written down by Luther’s students and friends. It is not in actuality an official writing of Luther's and should not serve as the basis for interpreting his theology.

Luther: Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me

This is a follow-up to my earlier critiques of  Shoebat's Martin Luther- The Bare Truth Unfolded. Their recent hit piece includes some Luther quotes I've never gone into detail on or have never covered, or deserve a fresh look. For instance, they state:

To add insult onto injury, he goes so far as to elevate himself greater than the Fathers, St. Ambrose and St. Augustine by stating: “St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.” (Enlangen, Vol. 61, p422)To show his utter egotistical attitude, which has carried on down through the rest of Protestantism, he states:“Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He has on me” (Luther’s Works, Erlangen ed., 61:422). If this really is the attitude of Luther towards God and His Truth, then God help today’s Protestants who have behaved in the same manner, if not worse.

Documentation
The Shoebat article first quotes Luther stating, "St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me (Enlangen, Vol. 61, p422)." I've thoroughly covered this quote before. Shoebat's use verifies they probably relied on Luther, Exposing the Myth as their main cut-and-paste source. The documentation "Enlangen, Vol. 61, p422" is misspelled (it's "Erlangen") and completely bogus. The quote without background gives off the impression that Luther generally considered himself greater than Augustine and Ambrose in all areas. The context though concerns upholding secular authority. Luther was under attack for rebellion against the state and he rhetorically argues that neither Augustine nor Ambrose were his equals in upholding secular government and power.

Even though Shoebat provides an accurate reference for the quote under scrutiny, it was probably originally taken from books like Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor by Peter Wiener or Luther IV by Hartmann Grisar. Someone at some point (maybe Grisar?) said this quote comes from "Luther’s Works, Erlangen ed., 61:422." This can be found here, on page 422. This text comes from the Tischreden, or Table Talk.  The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. The comment dates from September, 1542 and was recorded by  Caspar Heydenreich (see LW 54:413). The text reads as follows:

The same text can be found in WA, TR 5:189-190. This text has been translated into English. There are translations found in various biographies of Luther, for instance, like this one.  For the standard English rendering, see LW 54:430.

Context

No. 5494: Illness of Luther’s Daughter Becomes Graver September, 1542
When the illness of his daughter became graver he [Martin Luther] said, “I love her very much. But if it is thy will to take her, dear God, I shall be glad to know that she is with thee.”Afterward he said to his daughter, who was lying in bed, “Dear Magdalene, my little daughter, you would be glad to stay here with me, your father. Are you also glad to go to your Father in heaven?” The sick girl replied, “Yes, dear Father, as God wills.” The father said, “You dear little girl!” [Then he turned away from her and said,] “The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak [Matt. 26:41]. I love her very much. If this flesh is so strong, what must the spirit be?” Among other things he then said, “In the last thousand years God has given to no bishop such great gifts as he has given to me (for one should boast of God’s gifts), i'm angry with myself that I’m unable to rejoice from my heart and be thankful to God, though I do at times sing a little song and thank God. Whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s [Rom. 14:8]—in the genitive singular and not in the nominative plural.” (LW 54:430)

The Life and Letters of Martin Luther provides a slightly different version:

As his daughter lay very ill, Dr. Luther said: "I love her very much, but dear God, if it be thy will to take her, I submit to thee." Then he said to her as she lay in bed: " Magdalene, my dear little daughter, would you like to stay here with your father, or would you willingly go to your Father yonder ? " She answered: " Darling father, as God wills." Then said he: " Dearest child, the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." Then he turned away and said: " I love her very much; if my flesh is so strong, what can my spirit do? God has given no bishop so great a gift in a thousand years as he has given me in her. I am angry with myself that I cannot rejoice in heart and be thankful as I ought."

Conclusion
For the defenders of Rome (or anyone for that matter) using this quote, the context is not their friend. The historical context surrounds the death of Luther's daughter Magdalene, and one of the "great gifts" was.... his daughter. To learn more about the death of Luther's daughter, see this link. Shoebat.com says the quote demonstrates Luther's "utter egotistical attitude, which has carried on down through the rest of Protestantism." Had they actually done a little research, they would have easily found an account of father grieving for his his child.

  Some years back a defender of Rome used this same quote (among others) so readers could "marvel at Luther's numerous self-exalting, comically surreal utterances placing himself far above the fathers." Yes, let's indeed marvel at Luther's statement: the reported statement of a father watching his daughter die. If anything is "comically surreal" it's the effort some put in to their propaganda at the expense of a the context.

Luther: “The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.”

This is a follow-up to my earlier critique of  Shoebat's Martin Luther- The Bare Truth Unfolded. Their recent hit piece includes some Luther quotes I've never gone into detail on or have never covered, or deserve a fresh look. For instance, they state:

His contempt for Holy Scripture does not end at just the book of James, but also extends to attacking even the book of Esther and Jonah in the Hebrew Bible, which he supposedly based his version of the Bible on for the Old Testament. Here are his words on the matter: “The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish foolishness.” (‘The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p202) And also: “The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” (Ibid.) Are we not surprised therefore that Lutheranism was the first to succumb to the blasphemous and ridiculous theories of Higher and Lower Criticism, and also to find her priests wanting to eliminate both James and Revelation? Let us not forget the earlier example of the Lutheran pastor/priest who stated on a radio program that both the Epistle of James and the Apocalypse/Revelation should be eliminated from our Bible. They are only following their wicked founder! Luther has in fact incurred God’s anathema on himself already. Many of these modern day Lutherans have become twice the sons of hell than Luther. Let us be warned.

This blog entry is going to cover Shoebat's Esther quote. For responses to Shoebat.com on Luther's view of James and Revelation, see these links: Luther: We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg] and Luther on Revelation: "I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.". For an exposition on the Jonah quote, see: Shoebat: Luther Attacked the book of Jonah in the Hebrew Bible.

Documentation
Shoebat.com cites this Luther quote from: "The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p202." I've mentioned this book often throughout the years (it has been a perpetual source of propaganda for Rome's defenders). In an earlier paper, I documented Father O’Hare's analysis of Luther: Luther was crazy, depraved, and corrupt. He was in contact with Satan. He lived indecently and sanctioned adultery. He dishonored marriage and authorized prostitution and polygamy. He was a drunkard blasphemer, and a revolutionary. To learn more about Father O'Hare, see this link. For this present quote, O'Hare states:

But even for the books he chose to retain, he showed little or no respect. Here are some examples of his judgments on them. Of the Pentateuch he says: "We have no wish either to see or hear Moses." "Judith is a good, serious, brave tragedy." "Tobias is an elegant, pleasing, godly comedy." "Ecclesiasticus is a profitable book for an ordinary man." "Of very little worth is the book of Baruch, whoever the worthy Baruch may be." "Esdras I would not translate, because there is nothing in it which you might not find better in Aesop." "Job spoke not as it stands written in his book; but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book." "The book entitled 'Ecclesiastes' ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it. It has neither boots nor spurs; but rides only in socks as I myself did when an inmate of the cloister. Solomon did not, therefore, write this book, which was made in the days of the Maccabees of Sirach. It is like a Talmud, compiled from many books, perhaps in Egypt at the desire of King Evergetes." "The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness." "The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible." "The first book of the Maccabees might have been taken into the Scriptures, but the second is rightly cast out, though there is some good in it."

O'Hare provides no exact documentation for these quotes. He does say on page 201-202, "In his prefaces to these books [the apocrypha] he gives at length his opinion as to their character and authority," and then a little later, "But even for the books he chose to retain, he showed little or no respect. Here are some examples of his judgments on them." The assumption therefore, is that these comments come from Luther's Prefaces to the books of the Bible. When one looks at the Prefaces though, the quote is not there.  The statement appears to find its genesis in the Table Talk. The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. O'Hare probably didn't mine these quotes out of Luther's writings.

If  the quote cited by Father O'Hare is not in the Prefaces, the Table Talk is probably the culprit.  The source used originally may have been the text that now exists in WA TR 1:208 (it was probably an earlier edition of Luther's works used). If so, it would have been from a comment made between 1531 and 1533 recorded by Veit Dietrich, from lines 3 and lines 29-31. It isn't really one quote. It's actually from two different Table Talk entries.:

This text has been translated into in English in older versions of the Table Talk (It is not in LW). For instance, it can be found in William Hazlitt's 19th century Table Talk translation.

Context
Line 3 is supposed to be "The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe." (Das dritte Buch Esdrae werfe ich in die Elbe), but note the German text says "dritte Buch Esdras" (third book of Esdras). The English translation is bogus. It doesn't say "Esther" at all. Julius Charles Hare speculates "Esdras" became "Esther" because old English translations of the Table Talk read, "the third book of Hester." I was not able to locate one to verify this. Regardless, the German text says "Esdras" not Esther. Here's how the text of lines 3-6 read in English:

The third book of Esdras I throw into the Elbe; there are, in the fourth, pretty knacks enough; as, “The wine is strong, the king is stronger, women strongest of all; but the truth is stronger than all these.” (source)

Line 30-31 is supposed to be "I am such an enemy to the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist, for it Judaizes too much and has in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness" (Und da er, der Doctor, das ander Buch der Maccabaer corrigirte, sprach er: Ich bin dem Buch und Esther so feind, das ich wollte, sie waren gar nicht vorhanden; denn sie judenzen zu sehr, und haben viel heidnische Unart). Here's how lines 29-32 read in English:

When the Doctor was correcting the translation of the second Book of the Maccabees, he said, I dislike this book and that of Esther so much, that I wish they did not exist; for they Judaize too much, and have much heathenish extravagance. Then Master Forster said, The Jews esteem the book of Esther more than any of the prophets, though they were forbidden to read it before they had attained the age of thirty, by reason of the mystic matters it contains. (source)(source).

Notice that Maccabees was not included in Father O'Hare's rendering. In this case, "Esther" is in the German (line 30).  Julius Charles Hare speculates once again that contextually "Esdras" is meant because it's combined with "Maccabees": "The combination of the book with that of the Maccabees,... as well as Forster's remark, leaves no doubt that Luther spoke of the book of Esdras. These blunders shew how unsafe it is to build any conclusions on the authority of the Tabletalk." This is speculation on Hare's part, but his conclusion makes sense, particularly if one reads the entirety of the Table Talk entry being cited. Luther's comment goes in this order: Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, 3 Esdras, 4 Esdras, Judith, Tobit, 2 Maccabees, Esther. Proverbs receives no criticism, but the other books mentioned do.

One other interesting clue as to whether "Esdras" was meant instead of "Esther" are Foster's words, "The Jews esteem the book of Esther more than any of the prophets, though they were forbidden to read it before they had attained the age of thirty, by reason of the mystic matters it contains." First, this fact, if indeed it's about the book Esther, appears quite strange given the importance of Esther to the Feast of Purim in Judaism. Esther is read during Purim! Second, as far as I can tell, Esther does not contain overt "mystic matters" but the Books of Esdras do. On the other hand, there were Jewish allegorical interpretations of Esther as well, and some Jewish interpreters see her as a prophet. The final deciding  factor would be to find out if there's any Jewish tradition as that recorded in Foster's words to either Esther or Esdras. I searched around a bit, and came up with nothing either way.  

Conclusion

In my view, there is only one legitimate Luther quote speaking poorly of Esther in regard to canonicity. It comes from The Bondage of the Will:

“...[T]hough I could rightly reject this book [Ecclesiasticus], for the time being I accept it so as not to waste time by getting involved in a dispute about the books received in the Hebrew canon. For you poke more than a little sarcastic fun at this when you compare Proverbs and The Song of Solomon (which with a sneering innuendo you call the “Love Song”) with the two books of Esdras, Judith, the story of Susanna and the Dragon, and Esther (which despite their inclusion of it in the canon deserves more than all the rest in my judgment to be regarded as noncanonical)." [LW 33:110].

This quote was a direct response to the following from Erasmus:

I do not think anyone will object against the authority of this work that it was not, as Jerome points out, regarded as canonical by the Hebrews, since the Church of Christ has received it by common consent into its canon; nor do I see any reason why the Hebrews felt they must exclude the book from theirs, seeing they accepted the Proverbs of Solomon and the Love Song. As to the fact that they did not receive into their canon the last two books of Esdras, the story in Daniel about Susanna and Bel the dragon, Judith, Esther, and several others, but reckoned them among the hagiographa, anyone who reads those books carefully can easily see what their reasons were. But in this work there is nothing of that kind to disturb the Reader” [Erasmus, The Diatribe, as cited in Luther's Works 33:110].

Luther prefaces his comment by granting the canonicty of Ecclesiasticus so as not waste time on tangents with Erasmus. In both quotes above, It seems to me the apocryphal books (including Esther) are being compared to Proverbs and the Song of Solomon. I say this because his comment is a direct response to Erasmus, who indeed compared Proverbs and the Song of Solomon to the "two books of Esdras, the story in Daniel about Susanna and Bel the dragon, Judith, Esther, and several others." That is, Luther is simply repeating back what Erasmus said in his response. If the it of "despite their inclusion of it in the canon" refers to Esther and not the group of apocryphal book in general being discussed, Luther would be admitting that the Jews considered Esther canonical, but his opinion was that it should not have been.

Luther translated Esther in his Bible without offering any negative criticism as to its non-canonicity in his Bible prefaces (there is no Preface to Esther). In one place in his Bible prefaces, Luther distinguishes the particular noncanonical parts of Esther, and places them with the other apocryphal writings: "Preface to Parts of Esther and Daniel. Here follow several pieces which we did not wish to translate [and include] in the prophet Daniel and in the book of Esther. We have uprooted such cornflowers (because they do not appear in the Hebrew versions of Daniel and Esther)" [LW 35:353]. 

So, whatever Luther's gripe may have been in regard to the Book of Esther, he translated it, not with the apocryphal books, but with the canonical books, thus treating it as canonical. Shoebat.com says Luther's Tabletalk comment on Esther shows "contempt for Holy Scripture." This  is a bit strong, considering the fact that the first part of the quote they use was mis-translated, and the second part may very well not refer to the book of Esther at all.