Re: What books did Luther consider including?
Swan's stuff is interesting reading, I've been through it once a long time ago, thanks for the refresh.
I find some of his tone a bit strained and defensive, but one can say the same about rather a number of catholic apologists too. In some ways, its the nature of the apologetics (and why one needs to do it in moderate doses). In particular, I think he misses the point when he points out how Luther did scholarly consultation with the best and brightests minds of his day rather than being the egomaniac self-appointed master of theology and Scripture many catholics accuse him of being. The problem with this defense is the lack of recognition that one can do all the proper homework and STILL fall victim to a fatal case of pride.
The difference is starkly visible when you compare Luther's approach to differing opinions on doctrine to someone like John Henry Newmann who managed to be both brilliant and humble at the same time. There's more to revelation than mere scholarship. Which isn't to denigrate scholarship; revelation would be largely wasted without good scholarship. But scholarship short on humility is as dangerous as ignorance.