Luther: "I Prefer a Dead Rather Than a Disobedient Son." Child Abuse?

 Here's a strange one I came upon:

Luther was a stern disciplinarian with his children. On one occasion, he commented that he would prefer to have a “dead rather than a disobedient son” (Luther, WA, TR 5: 489, n. 6102). On another occasion, he forbade his son to see him for three days as punishment for his disobedience. At the end of the period, he required the boy to write a letter begging his father' forgiveness.

This is the first time I've run across this quote. It must not be one that Luther's detractors find all that compelling! However, after digging around a bit I discovered it's one of the passages used to prove Martin Luther's abuse of children. Let's take a closer look to see what's going on.

Documentation

This snippet above comes from a 2012 article entitled, Martin Luther on Marriage and Family from Andrews University by a member of the faculty. A quick Google search immediately linked me to a snippet from an old 1932 periodical:

Finding a full view of this old article was futile. The similarities though between the two snippets strongly suggests to me that the former may have relied on this old article, unattributed. It looks like some of the words have been altered in order to avoid plagiarism. It's either a bizarre coincidence, or the former utilized the historical content of the later. 

However, what is provided in a meaningful reference:  "Luther, WA, TR 5: 489, n. 6102." This refers to the standard German collection of Luther's writings, the Weimar edition (WA). The "TR" refers to "Tischreden," in English known as the Table Talk. I never tire of pointing out the Table Talk is a collection of secondhand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. It often falls on deaf ears when I point out that 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. " 5: 489" refers to the volume and page number in WA TR. "n. 6102" refers to the utterance number of the statement from Luther found on page 489. Unfortunately, I was not able to determine which of Luther's associates recorded this particular remark.

Table Talk utterance 6102 is not contained in the standard English edition of Luther's Works (LW). to my knowledge, none of the earlier English editions of the Table Talk include this utterance. The line in question is "Ich wollt lieber einen todten denn einen ungezogenen Sohn haben." 

Context 

Google AI rendering:

6102. (B. 1, 253) Martin Luther refused to accept his eldest son John for three whole days, although he had humbly supplicated in writing, interceding with his mother, Doctor Iona, Doctor Cruciger and Philip. To whom he replied: I would rather have a dead son than a disobedient one. Paul did not say in vain that a bishop (B. 1, 254) should be such as rules his house well and educates his children well, so that others may be edified and not scandalized. We are set in a high place as an example to all, and our children are a scandal to others; so the boys want to take advantage of our privileges. Finally, even though he often sins, I never or rarely repent, and it happens to us according to the proverb: The evils of our house are the last to be experienced; when all the people have carried us through all the streets, we will experience them first. Therefore he must be punished, and we must not be connived at.

Conclusion

Contrary to the paper from Andrews University, it appears to me this Table Talk statement is not referring to two separate instances of discipline of Luther's oldest son. Rather, not talking to his son for three days and then saying he would rather have a “dead...  than a disobedient son” is the same occurrence. Also of note is Luther's oldest son was named Hans. The Table Talk says "loannem" (John). Lest there be any confusion, this is the Latin way to write "Hans."

I certainly see that this second-hand statement demonstrates Luther was a strict disciplinarian.  On the other hand, the statement does not prove Martin Luther abused his children... there's no record of that. The usual canard is that Luther was an abused child, not that he himself was an abuser of children.  However, I did discover that there are those sifting Luther's writings and charging him of child abuse.  In another on-line paper a writer makes insightful observations:

Anne Waldschmidt kindly mentioned work by Christian Mürner (1996), a disability activist who denounces the usual catalogue of supposed Luther-crimes, i.e. wanting to kill disabled children, rebellious peasants and Jews, with focus on the strange boy at Dessau. That work hardly aims for a balanced view of Luther and disabled people in historical context; yet it does discuss some primary Luther texts and quotes a few more writers in German on allied topics.

-snip-

Christian Mürner (1996), weaving together sources out of context, seems to suggest that little Hans really was in danger: in disciplining his children, supposedly Luther "would not even shrink from murder" (quoting Carl-Heinz Mallet, "nicht einmal vor einem Mord zurückgeschreckt"). This is supported by Luther's 'threat' that "Ich wollt lieber einem toten denn einen ungezogenen Sohn haben", with an unspecified Biblical saying that the Parents' will is God's will, and one should kill disobedient children ("Er beruft sich auf die Bibel, 'der Eltern Diener, under der Eltern Wille is Gottes Wille. Der heisst under gebeut, dass man ungehorsame Kinder töten soll.'") The latter could perhaps refer to the Torah provision, that parents might bring their son before the city elders and accuse him of being stubborn and rebellious, profligate, drunken and leading a riotous life. If proven, the community could stone the delinquent (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21); though in practice, such a penalty was not carried out without serious warnings and community action to correct the behaviour problems (Hertz, 1952, pp. 841-842, 845). One can apply this kind of rhetoric to Luther only by imagining that he was a wild, crazy man in his home, liable to break out and attack his own small children with axe or hammer. Luther's many students and companions, friends and guests, who saw and recorded his everyday behaviour, somehow never met this homicidal maniac.