Martin Luther Rejected Revelation Because of Verses 1:3 and 22:18?

Here's a comment I came across in an old commentary on Revelation from a reputable source:

The obscurity of the Revelation has been felt by scholars in all ages. Jerome complained that the Revelation contained as many riddles as it does words. Luther would have banished it from the pages of the New Testament. He cited Rev. 1:3 and 22:18 where threats are made against the man who breaks the commandments of this book, and promises to the man who keeps them, and demanded how any man could possibly keep the commandments of a book which no man has even been able to understand. 

I realize this title of this blog entry is somewhat misleading... because the erudite author of the words above, William Barclay, does not exactly say "Luther rejected Revelation" but rather wrote, "Luther would have banished" Revelation. Well... why would he have banished it? Let's take a closer look.

Documentation

William Barclay does not provide any documentation, however, it's easy to discover where he's pulling from. Luther's most famous statements about the book of Revelation come from his Prefaces to the New Testament. The exact statement Barclay is referring to is Luther's original 1522 preface (later deleted). It can be found in German at WA Db 7:404. It can be found in English at LW 35:398-399.

 Context

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly [Revelation 22]—indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important—and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep (LW 35:398-399).

Original text: Dazu dunckt mich das allzu viel seyn, das er so hartt solch seyn eygenbuch, mehr denn keyn ander heylige bucher thun, (da viel mehr angelegen ist)befilht, vnnd drewet, wer etwas davon thue, von dem werde Gott auch thun &c.Widderumb sollen selig seyn, die da halten, was drynnen stehet, so doch niemantweys was es ist, schweig das ers halten sollt, vnd eben so viel ist, als hettenwyrs nicht, Auch wol viel edler bucher fur handen sind, die zu hallten sind (WA Db 7:404).

Conclusion

Even though William Barclay quoted Martin Luther accurately from his 1522 Preface to Revelation, this does not necessarily mean Luther held a lifelong rejection of the canonicity of Revelation. He did not! Maybe in 1522 Luther thought to banish Revelation (though he did a poor job of banishment by translating Revelation and including it his German translation of the New Testament). Luther went on to do a complete positive rewrite of his Preface to Revelation in 1530. The revised rewrite is the one Luther wanted his readers to have as representative of his opinion. Why did William Barclay pigeonhole Luther's lifelong opinion on Revelation to something he deleted and then entirely revised? This is poor scholarship on Barclay's part. 

There is further proof of Luther's positive opinion of Revelation: see Luther's positive commendatory Preface to [Nicholas Hereford?] Commentary on the Apocalypse Published One Hundred Years Ago [CA. 1400] (LW 59:203-207), as well as Luther's Sermon on the Festival of St. Michael and All Angels (Rev. 12:7-12) 1544 (LW 58:171-186). Luther positively preached two other times on texts from Revelation "Sermons of September 29, 1534, WA 37:539–44; and September 28, 1537, WA 45:142–44" (LW 58:171, fn.2). There isn't a hint of skepticism toward Revelation in any of these texts. Why do scholars not take them into account when discussing Luther's view of Revelation? I see it as an example of poor scholarship, similar to Barclay.

For those of you wrestling in the mud online and someone brings up Martin Luther's rejection of Revelation, ask: why is it that not long after his original preface, he deleted it, then revised it completely, then adhered and promoted a positive opinion of Revelation to the end of his life? I suspect that if Luther's detractors come up with a reason, they'll still charge him with nefarious motivations. Shake the dust from your feet and move on. 

Addendum #1: Revelation 1:3; 22:18, Luther, and Jerome 

Barclay quoted Luther accurately. He was careful enough to link two verses together that the editors of Luther's Works did not:

Rev. 22:18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book.

Rev. 1:3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.

In the English version of LW 35, the text adds "Revelation 22" in brackets. This was not in the original text but added in by modern editors. It seems to me the editors should have also included Revelation 3, because those two passages seem to be what Luther was drawing from. 

Addendum #2: Jerome on Revelation

Interestingly, William Barclay may have taken his Jerome comment directly from Luther's Preface to Revelation. Luther goes on to write:

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous (LW 35:399).

Original text: Es haben auch viel der veter dis buch vorzeyten verworffen, vnnd obswol Sanct Hieronymus mit hohen wortten furet, vnd spricht, es sey vberalles lob, vnd so viel geheymnis drynnen, als wortter, so er doch des nichtsbeweysen kan, vnnd wol an mehr ortten seyns lobens zu milde ist (WA Db 7:404,).  

Both Luther and Barclay are referring to this comment from Jerome:

Apocalypsis Joannis tot habet sacramenta, quot verba. Parum dixi pro merito voluminis. Laus omnis inferior est: in verbis singulis raultiplices latent intelligentiae (Migne, Patrologia, Series Latina 22:548-549.

The apocalypse of John has as many mysteries as words. In saying this I have said less than the book deserves. All praise of it is inadequate; manifold meanings lie hidden in its every word NPNF (second series) 6:102.

This is not to infer Jerome rejected the canonicity of Revelation. In fact, Luther seems to inadvertently admit this (Jerome's "praise at numerous places is too generous").