Luther: "The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe..."

Synopsis: Another anti-Luther quote used by Roman Catholics bites the dust

I received a recent comment on an older blog entry entitled, A Roman Catholic Luther Quiz. This entry included a brief mention of Luther’s opinion on the canonicity of the book of Esther. Before I address the comment, it’s best to provide a little background.

This oft-quoted saying from Luther finds its way onto numerous anti-Reformation web pages:

“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 quote is probably derived from John Aurifaber’s version of the Table Talk. Luther is recorded as saying, “I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities.”

I received the following comment on this topic:

“Dear James, Perhaps this was already noted, but it may not have been Esther Luther wanted to toss into the Elbe, but Esdras, and even then not the whole. See WA TR 1.208.3: 'Das dritte Buch Esdrae werfe ich in die Elbe'. One instance of Luther's comments on Esther follow on the same page.”

The nearest copy of the Weimar edition of Luther’s Works that I use is about two and half hours away, so I won't be able to check the quote for a while to see if it’s the same as the popular one used in all the anti-Luther web pages. I do though find this very intriguing, and its on my ad fontes “to do list”.Interestingly, Roger Beckwith (author the outstanding book The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church) has said, “It is sometimes said that Luther, following certain of the Fathers, denied the canonicity of Esther, but Hans Bardtke has questioned this, as not taking into account of all the evidence (Luther und das Buch Esther, Tubingen Mohr, 1964).” That’s another one on my list to check out.

It wouldn’t surprise me one bit to find out that this type of translating mistake has happened. That Luther would speak negatively about Esdras in the same breath as Maccabees make a bit more sense. The reference to WA TR 1.208.3 is probably the same material from Aurifaber's Tabletalk. Note how the entry reads:

"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...."

and then further down in the same entry:

"I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities. The Jews much more esteemed the book of Esther 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. They utterly condemn Daniel and Isaiah, those two holy and glorious prophets, of whom the former, in the clearest manner, preaches Christ, while the other describes and portrays the kingdom of Christ, and the monarchies and empires of the world preceeding it. Jeremiah comes but after them."

The quote as it used in cyber-space appears to have originated from Patrick O'Hare's book, The Facts About Luther, page 202. I've yet to find any other secondary source using the quote in its popular internet-polemical form. I'm strongly tempted to say Father O'Hare miscited Luther's Tabletalk when he quotes Luther saying, "“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.” He either worked from an earlier version of the Table talk, or in scaling down the quote in the Table talk, he wrote down Esther instead or Esdras. Unless someone can find me a citation or source, my position is that Father O'Hare botched the citation. Roman Catholics seem to have extreme difficulty doing ad fontes research on Luther, they usually never check a quote like this before they use it, nor do they really care. Father O'Hare said it, Tan published it, so it must be true.

A question though remains about the Table talk quote. Assuming that the translation is correct, why would Luther be such a "great enemy" of the Book of Esther? The quote mentions of Esther: "The Jews much more esteemed the book of Esther 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." It seems to me, Luther was more the enemy of the Jews and the way he thought they interpreted and used the book, rather than the book itself. Compare this with a particularly negative anti-Jewish sentiment Luther put forth in the book, The Jews and Their Lies: "They are real liars and bloodhounds who have not only continually perverted and falsified all of Scripture with their mendacious glosses from the beginning until the present day. Their heart’s most ardent sighing and yearning and hoping is set on the day on which they can deal with us Gentiles as they did with the Gentiles in Persia at the time of Esther.  Oh, how fond they are of the book of Esther, which is so beautifully attuned to their bloodthirsty, vengeful, murderous yearning and hope."[LW 47:156]. Of course, this has nothing to do with canonicity. It is only further documentation of how Luther's later writings wrongfully attacked the Jews. Other than this, a search of the English edition of Luther's Works will provide only documentation that Luther quoted from the Book of Esther, and never referred to it as apocryphal. He seems to assume it's canonical, and freely quotes from it to prove particular theological points in his treatises.

There is at least one instance in which Luther seems to speak negatively about the canonicity Esther recorded in the English edition of Luther’s Works. Luther comments on a proof-text from Ecclesiasticus (15:14-17) Erasmus uses to prove free will is biblical:

“...[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].

Note also the more recent translation of this section the J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston translation of The Bondage of the Will) :

"Though I might with justice repudiate this book [Ecclesiasticus], yet for the present I receive it, so as not to lose time by entangling myself in a dispute about books received into the Jewish canon. You are somewhat biting and derisive yourself about that canon, when you compare the Proverbs of Solomon and the Love-song (as with a sneering innuendo you term it) to the two books of Esdras and Judith, and the History of Susanna and of the Dragon, and the book of Esther (though they have this last in their canon; in my opinion, however, it is less worthy to be held canonical than any of these)." [Source: The Bondage of the Will [Grand Rapids: Revell, 1957, Reprint October 1999, 143].

Now this tricky paragraph, and one should read it over a few times. Is Luther criticizing Erasmus for comparing the canonical books of Proverbs and Song of Solomon to the apocryphal books of Esdras and Judith, and also criticizing Erasmus for comparing the history of Susanna and the Dragon with the book of Esther? Or is Luther criticizing Erasmus for comparing Proverbs and the Song of Solomon to the apocryphal books of Esdras, Judith, and and the History of Susanna and of the Dragon, as well as Esther? The answer is found in the words of Erasmus when commenting on Ecclesiasticus:

"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.” [Source:Erasmus, The Diatribe, as cited in Luther's Works 33:110]

It seems to me the answer is the later: the apocryphal books (including Esther) are being compared to Proverbs and the Song of Solomon.

Another problem with Luther's words is the statement, “though they have this last in their canon; in my opinion, however, it is less worthy to be held canonical than any of these.” To what is Luther referring? To what does the word “this” refer to? The “this” could refer to the apocryphal books, or the singular book of Esther, or possibly the book of Ecclesiasticus. Perhaps the clearest way to come to a conclusion is to read the old Henry Beveridge translation of the this Table talk utterance:

"Although I might justly refuse this book, yet, nevertheless, I receive it; lest I should, with loss of time, involve myself in a dispute concerning the books that are received into the canon of the Hebrews: which canon you do not a little reproach and deride, when you compare the Proverbs of Solomon, and the Love-song, (as, with a double-meaning sneer, you call it,) with the two books Esdras and Judith, the History of Susannah, of the Dragon, and the Book of Esther, though they have this last in their canon, and according to my judgment, it is much more worthy of being there, than any one of those that are considered not to be in the canon."

From this translation, Luther appears to be saying that of all the apocryphal books, Ecclesiasticus is the best, and it is the only one that comes close to being canonical. Does Luther then assume that Esther is noncanonical? One must recall, here is not the place to quibble over the canon for Luther, as he himself says. Luther doesn't comment one way or the other on the canonicity of Esther in this quote. He simply points out that it is one of the books last in the Jewish canon.

Luther translated Esther and allowed it in his Bible, and I don’t recall him offering any negative criticism as to its non-canonicity in his Bible prefaces. He translated it, not with the apocryphal books, but rather with the canonical books. If he considered it apocryphal, why didn't he translate it with apocrypha? Why didn't he place it with the apocrypha when he placed the Biblical books in order? In fact, in one place in his Bible prefaces, Luther distinguishes the particular noncanonical parts of Esther, and place 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].

Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar cites O. Scheel commenting on Luther and canonicity. The citation reads in part: “The Book of Esther deserved no place in the Canon any more than the second Book of Machabees, though the first was worthy of canonization" [Hartmann Grisar, Luther IV, 401]. Unfortunately, Grisar provides no documentation from either Luther or Scheel. Its common for Catholics to think Luther held Esther to be non-canonical, even well-researched historians like Hartmann Grisar. Unfortunately, in my studies, the evidence to prove their case has been sparse and inconclusive. Look for instance at this citation from a Catholic apologist:

"Luther was not content even to let the matter rest there, and proceeded to cast doubt on many other books of the Bible which are accepted as canonical by all Protestants. He considered Job and Jonah mere fables, and Ecclesiastes incoherent and incomplete. He wished that Esther (along with 2 Maccabees) "did not exist," and wanted to "toss it into the Elbe" river. " [Source:The Apocrypha: Why It's Part of the Bible]

This paragraph is nothing more than an O'Hare summary, and it's filled with inaccurate information. Luther did not consider Job to be a “fable.” In all the instances I checked in which Luther spoke of Job, he referred to him as a historical figure and treated the events that transpired in his life as actually occurring. To my knowledge, Luther did not consider Jonah a fable. Luther clearly valued Ecclesiastes- One can read Luther’s extensive exposition of it in LW 15. And finally, it was a Table talk in which Luther may have said he wished Esther "did not exist", but for reasons he gave (as demonstrated above), and he never denied its canonicity. And of course, finally, this Catholic apologist informs us Luther wanted to toss Esther into the Elbe river. Did he really? I am not convinced Luther ever said it. It is up to Roman Catholic apologists to present proof for their facts when challenged.