Luther & Esther: Response to a Defender of Rome

The following comments are in regard to an old version of my entry, Luther: "The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe...". From time to time, Rome's defenders offer rebuttals. The actual rebuttal directed towards me is no longer available on-line.

“See my thorough refutation”- A Defender of Rome on my analysis of Luther and the Book of Esther
Refute what? To refute this would be to prove Luther meant Esther and not Esdras in an obscure Table Talk comment. I have waded through some of a defender of Rome's recent comments directed toward me (many of those comments, since deleted). 

He holds I do not succeed in proving Luther didn't denigrate and even deny the canonicity of the book of Esther. In my on-going evaluation of Luther’s sparse comments on Esther, I said at one point: “the apocryphal books (including Esther) are being compared to Proverbs and the Song of Solomon.” Obviously, such a comment infers a denigration toward the book of Esther by Luther, doesn't it? For a Biblical book to be considered an apocryphal book is a denigration.

Say what you will about Luther’s degrading comments toward Esther, there is one piece of evidence that I would ask Rome's defenders to interpret. Luther translated Esther with the canonical books. He did so in his second installment of Old Testament translations which appeared in 1524, under the title Das ander Teyl des Alten Testaments. The books included spanned from Joshua to Esther. During the years 1531 to 1534 apocryphal books were translated by Luther, including the apocryphal additions to Esther. In his completed Bible, Esther is found among the canonical books, not the apocryphal books.
The editors of Luther’s Works state:

“In keeping with early Christian tradition, Luther also included the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. Sorting them out of the canonical books, he appended them at the end of the Old Testament with the caption, ‘These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.’”

I would simply ask Rome's defenders to consider this information as they seek to rid the world of my alleged poor research. It would be interesting to see how they factor this information in. Luther’s Bible and Prefaces tend to be his definitive statement as to how he felt about which books were canonical. Missing are comments about the non-canonicity of Esther. Found is Esther among the canonical books.

As to Luther making denigrating comments, one can find Luther making negative comments about canonical books. I have never denied it. For instance, of Leviticus he said, “A tiresome book that is read by very few.” That Luther makes a negative comment about a canonical book does not mean he didn’t think it was canonical.

This particular defender of Rome should make up his mind. He notes, “James "Dave got it wrong again" Swan would do better picking through exotic instruments rather than eccentric readings of Luther texts.” Yet, he then notes of my research into Luther Esther/Esdras quote:

“I accept this as a legitimate gripe, and the "Esdras" version of this particular quote. Mea culpa on behalf of all those (including yours truly) who have wrongly used this false citation in the past or present, and kudos to James for correcting the error. Falsehood of any sort (whether inadvertant [sic] or not) does no one any good.”

This is not the first time this defender has been corrected by my Luther research. I realize it must be embarrassing for him, as he seeks to build his apologetic empire, and also craves to be seen as a legitimate quotable source on Luther. He is more of a shoot first, do the research on Luther later type of writer. He claims to have done in-depth Luther research when he was converting to the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps if he had really done in-depth research back then, he wouldn’t have to explain why he freely quoted Patrick O’Hare’s Facts About Luther, and why he has to apologize now for mis-quoting Luther.

I have said more than once my blog is my workshop- I work through material I read. I interact with texts, trying to determine truth and error. It’s not my intention to make Luther anything than what he was. Remember: I am not a Lutheran. This little exercise with Luther’s view of Esther was just that- trying to work with all the information available.

The evidence of Luther’s view on this book is not clear-cut. I could present evidence from Luther’s writings in which he favorably quotes it. In other words, it is treated as canonical Scripture. On the other hand, are the negative comments from Luther that have already been put forth on this blog.