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

Allegedly Luther stated, "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 . . ." What are the implications of this brief snippet? Did Luther denigrate a book of Sacred Scripture? Did Luther deny the book of Esther to be Holy Scripture?

This has been a favorite Luther quote for Rome's defenders. This version of the quote came from a person who was "moving beyond being a life-long Mormon into full communion with the Body of Christ, which is His Church." By "His Church," Rome is meant. Elsewhere in cyberspace, this defender of Rome uses a version of the quote as an example of "Luther's Narcissism." This online Roman Catholic periodical uses it to imply Luther was "an enemy of the Bible." The quote also made it's way on to Luther, Exposing the Myth. Shoebat.com says the quote displays Luther's "contempt for Holy Scripture." Examples could easily be multiplied. We'll see there's a case to be made that this quote doesn't prove Luther was a narcissist an enemy of the Bible, or holding Scripture in contempt. I'll demonstrate below this isn't one quote, it's actually two different quotes put together from an unreliable source. The first sentence is not about the book of Esther at all.

Documentation: Secondary Source, Patrick O'Hare, The Facts About Luther
When the quote is documented on-line, often the source given is either to Roman Catholic author Msgr. Patrick O'Hare or his book, The Facts About Luther. This old book had sunk into obscurity until it was revived by the Roman Catholic publisher Tan Books in 1987.  In their zeal, some of Rome's 1990's early e-pologists put O'Hare's content on the Internet without checking his facts about Luther. Here is how Father O'Hare presents the quote:

But even for the books he chose to retain, he showed little or no respect. Here are some examples of his judgments on them. Of the Pentateuch he says: "We have no wish either to see or hear Moses." "Judith is a good, serious, brave tragedy." "Tobias is an elegant, pleasing, godly comedy." "Ecclesiasticus is a profitable book for an ordinary man." "Of very little worth is the book of Baruch, whoever the worthy Baruch may be." "Esdras I would not translate, because there is nothing in it which you might not find better in Aesop." "Job spoke not as it stands written in his book; but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book." "The book entitled 'Ecclesiastes' ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it. It has neither boots nor spurs; but rides only in socks as I myself did when an inmate of the cloister. Solomon did not, therefore, write this book, which was made in the days of the Maccabees of Sirach. It is like a Talmud, compiled from many books, perhaps in Egypt at the desire of King Evergetes." "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 history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible." "The first book of the Maccabees might have been taken into the Scriptures, but the second is rightly cast out, though there is some good in it." (p.207-208, p.202 Tan)

O'Hare does not say where he took this material from (his documentation is often sketchy). The trail does not stop here. These quotes had been circulating in English for quite some time previous to The Facts About Luther.

Documentation: Secondary Source, Sir William Hamilton
There were a number of English sources previous to Father O'Hare presenting versions of this quote. One of the closest English translations previous to O'Hare is from an 1865 work:

"The book of Esther," he exclaims, "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" [link].

I mention this source because there are striking similarities with it and some of O'Hare's other Luther quotes (O'Hare appears to have borrowed from this source). This author cites "Edinburgh Review, No. 121" which refers to an article from 1834 entitled, On The Right Of Dissenters To Admission Into The English Universities. This appears to be the main source from which all the English translations of the quote stem from. This article was put together by Sir William Hamilton. Hamilton was not a Roman Catholic theologian but rather a Scottish philosopher and academic. The article has to do with the issue of whether or not those with dissenting religious views should be allowed into universities and compelled to follow the religious views of the English universities.

A number of Luther's statements are brought up to explore Luther's views and contemporary Lutheran orthodoxy and heterodoxy. Hamilton states, "We can easily show... there is hardly an obnoxious doctrine to be found among the modern Lutherans, which has not its warrant and example in the writings of Luther himself." Hamilton then provides a "hasty anthology of some of Luther's opinions." He provides a few pages of Luther citations broken down into categories. Under the heading of "Biblical Criticism" he quotes Luther saying,

"The book of Esther, I toss into the Elbe. I am so an enemy to the book of Esther that I would it did not exist; for it Judaises too much, and hath in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness" [link].

This appears to be the main English source for the quote. Hamilton does not admit to doing the English translations (but he did have the ability to do them) nor does he provide a reference as to where the quote comes from.

Documentation: Primary Sources
In response to a critic, Sir Hamilton revised his article and included documentation: "Colloquia c. lx.§ 10." "Colloquia" refers to Luther's Table Talk. His documentation though is less than adequate. Which version of "Colloquia" was being used? Hamilton doesn't say. In this revised version, buried in a footnote, he does say in passing that originally he "copied...Walch from whom... I translated." "Walch" refers to the German edition of Luther's works compiled by Johann Georg Walch between 1740-1753. This was one of the standard sets used by academics in the early nineteenth century. The actual text Hamilton probably used originally was page 2079 from Walch 22 (1743). The text reads, "Esther",

The documentation Hamilton added does not match up to this edition. Later editions of Walch's text correct the  Esther / Esdras error. For instance, in Dr. Martin Luther's sämmtliche Werke, Volumes 60-62 (1854) states,

The same corrected text is found in WA TR 1:208. This text only accounts for the first sentence used by Hamilton ("The book of Esther, I toss into the Elbe").  This utterance was not translated into English in LW 54. However, an English translations was provided in William Hazlitt's edition of the Table Talk:

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." 

The rest of the quote used by Hamilton is from a different Table Talk utterance. Hamilton originally took it from page 2080 from Walch 22.  In a later edition of Walch (Dr. Martin Luther's sämmtliche Werke, Volumes 60-62, 1854), the text reads,

This text can be also be found in WA TR 1:208. An English translation was provided by Sir Hamilton in his revised article. There is also a corrupted English translation in Hazlitt's edition of the Table Talk (link).

Hamilton's Translation: And when the doctor was correcting the second book of the Maccabees, he said: I am so an enemy to the book of Esther, that I would it did not exist; for it Judaizes too much, and hath in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness. Then said Magister Foerster," — "The Jews rate the book of Esther at more than any of the prophets; the prophets Daniel and Isaiah they absolutely contemn. Whereupon Dr. Martinus:—It is horrible that they, the Jews, should despise the noblest predictions of these two holy prophets; the one of whom teaches and preaches Christ in all richness and purity, while the other pourtrays and describes, in the most certain manner, monarchies, and empires along with the kingdom of Christ." 

Hazlitt's Translation: 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 preceding it. Jeremiah comes but after them.

Hazlitt was probably working from the same text as Hamilton. One noticeable difference is Hazlitt's addition of the phrase highlighted in red lettering,  "though they were forbidden to read it before they had attained the age of thirty, by reason of the mystic matters it contains." I highlighted this phrase because it is not in the context of the German text cited above. It appears Hazlitt made a copyist error and took this partial sentence from a different Table Talk comment that occurs in the same section in which Luther is said to have explained that Genesis 1 was forbidden until age thirty:

Conclusion
There is clearly a variant in the first Table Talk statement used by sir Hamilton therefore discounting it as evidence on Luther's view of Esther. This mistake of Esther for Esdras dates back to the sixteenth century (for instance, here is the same variant in a 1567 edition). There does not appear to be any similar variant in the second Table Talk utterance. Below in Addendum #2 there is some evidence presented in regard to Forster's recorded complaint that the Jews esteemed Esther higher than some of the other Old Testament books. Luther's recorded response to Forster isn't necessarily about the book of Esther.

There is though some evidence in this second comment in regard to Luther's view of Esther. Luther calls himself an "enemy" of the book of Esther, wishing that it did not exist due to "heathenish" attributes. What exactly does this mean? To my knowledge, there is no text from Luther clarifying his meaning. The closest explanation I could locate comes from late in Luther's life in his 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]. 

This explanation though is purely speculative. This is one of the main problems with the Table Talk: devoid of a broader context and historical setting, the statements contained therein are open to interpretation. This Table Talk utterance stands as the only purely negative comment Luther is said to have about the book Esther. The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. It often appears to fall on deaf ears when I point out to the defenders of Rome 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 (this will be explored in addendum #1). As it stands, neither Table Talk utterance proves conclusively that Luther was a narcissist, an enemy of the Bible, or holding sacred scripture in contempt.


Addendum #1: Luther on the Canonicty of Esther
 A basic search of his writings reveals that Luther freely quoted from the book of Esther, assuming it's value in the Bible. There is at least one instance though in which Luther seems to speak negatively about its canonicity.  Erasmus had used a passage from the book of Ecclesiasticus in defense of the freedom of the will,

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

In De Servo Arbitrio, Luther responded to Erasmus:

“...[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]

"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)." [The Bondage of the Will (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1957), Reprint October 1999, 143].

In this comment, Luther appears to assume that Esther was not in the Jewish canon, therefore non-cannonical. But in his translation of the Bible, Luther translated and included Esther (as early as 1524). He did not offer any negative criticism as to its non-canonicity in his Bible prefaces (Luther did not write a preface for the canonical Esther). 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 his Bible prefaces, Luther distinguishes the particular non-canonical parts of Esther, and place them with the other apocryphal writings:

Preface to Parts of Esther and Daniel 1534

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).  And yet, to keep them from perishing, we have put them here in a kind of special little spice garden or flower bed since much that is good, especially the hymn of praise, Benedicite,  is to be found in them. But the texts of Susanna, and of Bel, Habakkuk,  and the Dragon, seem like beautiful religious fictions, such as Judith and Tobit,  for their names indicate as much. For example, Susanna means a rose,  that is, a nice pious land and folk, or a group of poor people among the thorns; Daniel means a judge,  and so on. Be the story as it may, it can all be easily interpreted in terms of the state, the home, or the devout company of the faithful.[LW 35:353]

The editors of Luther’s Works state,

Luther’s ordering of the apocryphal books is his own. It does not follow the sequence in which they appeared either in the Vulgate or in the Septuagint where they were interspersed among the canonical books in positions which varied with the different manuscripts. In the older German Bibles, Judith had followed Tobit and preceded Esther; Wisdom had followed Song of Solomon and preceded Ecclesiasticus [LW 35:339, fn 9 ].

Luther abandoned the ordering of the Vulgate, the Septuagint, and the older German Bibles. He placed the apocryphal books at the end of his Old Testament translation, clearly separating them from those Old Testament books he considered canonical. He included Esther with the canonical books. Roger Beckwith (author of 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)” (Beckwith, p.1), Bardke assembled around seventy instances in which Luther referred to Esther (see pages 88-90).

Addendum #2: The Debate Between William Hamilton and Julius Charles Hare
Sir William Hamilton was challenged for his Luther citations and lack of documentation by Julius Charles Hare. Hare demonstrated that the entire section on "Biblical Criticism" was taken from Luther's Table Talk, an unreliable source. On the quote in question, Hare states:

...[W]hen our eyes run through the Reviewer's anthology, one of the most startling sentences is this: "The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe." If a person familiar with Luther's style lights upon this sentence, he will recognize the great Reformer's unmistakable mark in the words, I toss into the Elbe; and it will be a pang to him to find Luther applying such rude words to any book, even the least important, in the Holy Scriptures. But he did not. The Reviewer asserts that he gives us Luther's "own words literally translated: "Mr Ward asserts that the Reviewer's name is "a sufficient voucher for the accuracy of his quotations:" and yet Luther never said anything of the sort about the book of Esther. The original of this "literal translation" is plainly the following sentence in Luther's Tabletalk; Das dritte Buch Esther werfe ich in die Elbe: The third boot of Esther I toss into the Elbe. Why the Reviewer left out the word third in his "literal translation," it is for him to explain. Were one to follow the example he sets in imputing the vilest motives to all persons in authority in the University of Oxford, one should call this a fraudulent imposition. Was he puzzled to make out what could be meant by the third book of Esther and did he intend tacitly to correct the text? When words are made the ground of an accusation, they should be examined with scrupulous care; and if it appear requisite to alter them, this should be expressly stated. Here the next sentence plainly shews that a totally different correction is needed. "In the fourth book; in that which Esther dreamt, there are pretty, and also some good sayings, as, Wine is strong, the king stronger, women still stronger, but truth the strongest of all." I quote from Walch's edition, Vol. xxii 2079, and have no means of examining older copies of the Tischreden; but the old English translation speaks of the third book of Hester. So that the errour, gross as it is, seems to have belonged to the original text. For there can be no question that Luther had been talking, not of a nonexistent third and fourth book of Esther, but of the books of Ezra or Esdras; though there is still much confusion in the report of his words, since the argument about strength does not stand in the fourth book, but in the third, the first of the apocryphal ones; those of Ezra and Nehemiah being numbered as the first two. Thus Luther's words are nothing but a Lutheran mode of saying what Jerome actually did, when he cast these apocryphal books out of his Version, as he says in his Preface to the book of Ezra: "Nee quemquam moveat quod unus a nobis editus liber est; nee apocryphorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur; quia et apud Hebraeos Ezrae Neemiaeque sermones in unum volumen coarctantur, et quae non habentur apud illos, nee de viginti quatuor senibus sunt, procul abjicienda." Nor can anything well go beyond Jerome's contemptuous expressions about the same books in his pamphlet against Vigilantius. Assuredly too the next sentence quoted by the Reviewer,—" I am so an enemy to the book of Esther that I would it did not exist; for it Judaizes too much, and hath in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness,"—though here again the English Translation agrees with Walch in applying Luther's words to the Book of Esther, was in fact spoken of the apocryphal books of Esdras. For the whole passage in the Tabletalk is as follows: "When the Doctor was correcting the translation of the second Book of the Maccabees, he said, I dislike this book and that of of Esther so much, that I wish they did not exist; for they Judaize too much, and have much heathenish extravagance. Then Master Forster said, The Jews esteem the book of Esther more than any of the prophets." The combination of the book with that of the Maccabees,—which the Reviewer ought not to have omitted,—as well as Forster's remark, leaves no doubt that Luther spoke of the book of Esdras. These blunders shew how unsafe it is to build any conclusions on the authority of the Tabletalk [link].

Seemingly provoked by Hare, some years later Hamilton republished his article and added lengthy clarifications and retractions of his Luther material. In regard to this quote, he extended it and added documentation:

"The book of Esther, I toss into the Elbe" [Colloquia c. lx.§ 10].  —["And when the doctor was correcting the second book of the Maccabees, he said:—] I am so an enemy to the book of Esther, that I would it did not exist; for it Judaizes too much, and hath in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness. [Then said Magister Foerster," (the great Hebrew professor):— "The Jews rate the book of Esther at more than any of the prophets; the prophets Daniel and Isaiah they absolutely contemn. Whereupon Dr. Martinus:—It is horrible that they, the Jews, should despise the noblest predictions of these two holy prophets; the one of whom teaches and preaches Christ in all richness and purity, while the other pourtrays and describes, in the most certain manner, monarchies, and empires along with the kingdom of Christ"  [Colloquia c. lx.§ 10] [link].

It's obvious that the extension and documentation of this quote was the result of Hare's critique. Hamilton went on to give the following response to Hare:

Soon after the publication of this article, I became aware, that Esther was a mistake for Esdras; and this by the verse quoted. The error stands in all Aurifaber's editions of the Table Talk, and from him is copied by Walch, from whom again I translated. It is corrected, however, in the recensions by Stangwald and Selneccer, and, of course, in the new edition by Bindseil. It was therefore without surprise, that I found Mr. Hare for once to be not wrong in finding me not right. In excuse, I can only say, that at the time of writing the article, not only was I compelled to make the extracts without any leisure for deliberation; but I recollected, though the book was not at hand, that Luther, in his work on the Bondage of the Will, had declared that Esther ought to be extruded from the canon—a judgment indeed familiar to every tyro even in biblical criticism. His concluding words are:—"dignior omnibus, me judice, qui extra Canonem haberetur." (Jena Latin, iii. 182.) Esther, I thus knew, was repudiated by Luther, and among his formulae of dismissal the preceding recommended itself as at once the most characteristic and the shortest. Mr. Hare speaks of Luther as "a dear friend." But it appears from his general unacquaintance with even this, the Reformer's favorite, and perhaps most celebrated book, certainly from its two recent translations into English by two Anglican clergymen, the book of his best known in this country—that Luther, instead of being "a dear friend," is almost an utter stranger to the Archdeacon. For Mr. Hare knows nothing (even at second hand), of Luther's famous repudiation of Esther, in his most famous work.—As for myself, I relied also on the following testimony; and which, had we nothing else, would be alone decisive in regard to Luther's rejection of Esther [link].

On this Mr. Hare, inter alia, remarks: "The combination of the book with that of the Maccabees—which the Reviewer ought not to have omitted—as well as Forster's remarks, leaves no doubt that Luther spoke of the book of ESDRAS." I have now given the whole relative context; and had Mr. Hare possessed the sorriest smattering of the Rabbinic lore which he affects—had he, in fact, not been unread even in the most notorious modern works on biblical criticism, he would certainly have had "no doubt," but no doubt that Luther spoke, and could speak only of the book of Esther. I shall simply quote the one highest Jewish authority in regard to the comparative estimation among the Jews, of Esther and the Prophets; while, as for Christian testimonies, I may refer to almost every competent inquiry into the canonicity of the books of the Old Testament. Let us listen then to the "Rabbi of Rabbis," Rambam, Moses Ben Maimon, Moses Maimonides; to him whom the learned Hebrews delight to honor with every title of Oriental admiration; and who, by the confession of the two greatest among Christian scholars,

"Solus nugari Judaeos desiit inter." 

"All the Prophetic books, and all the [Hagiographic] Writings are of the things to be abolished in the days of the Messiah, saving alone the roll of Esther. For, lo, this endureth, like the Law of Pentateuch and the Oral Law [Talmud]; and these, they shall not cease, even unto eternity. For howbeit the memory of all other persecutions shall die out; . . . . yet, as it is written,'the days of Purim shall not fail from among the Jews, nor the memorial of them perish from their seed. [Esther, ix 28."] (Yad Chasaka, B. iii. tr. x., Hilchot Meghilla, c. 2, § 18; and passages to the same effect are to be found in his Ikkarim. Compare also the Midrasch Meghilla; and the margin of the Jerusalem Talmud, where, among the commentators, the Rabbi Jochanan and the Rabbi Resch-Lakisch, from the texts, of Deut. v. 22; and Esth. ix. 28, deduce the same result, by a marvelous and truly Jewish reasoning.) On the other hand, who has ever heard, as Mr. Hare assumes, and would have it understood, that Esdras was, at any time, not to say always, held, even as a prophet, in any special estimation among the Israelites? Besides these, there are sundry elementary errors in Mr. Hare's relative observations on this book; but these, as they do not directly concern the question, may pass. Traveled in the Ghemara, and stumbling on his own Church's threshold ! [link].

Addendum #3
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2006. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

I've been examining Luther's opinion on Esther for over ten years. In that time, I've interacted with Rome's defenders on this subject. The following are a record of some of those encounters:

Luther & Esther: Response to a Defender of Rome

Luther and Esther: Another Response To a Defender of Rome

Luther’s Preface To Parts of Esther, 1534

Luther's View of Esther: A Response to "Nazaroo"

Tossing Blog Comments into the Elbe, Save One (The Book of Esther)

Luther: “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 foolishness.”

This is a follow-up to my earlier critique of  Shoebat's Martin Luther- The Bare Truth Unfolded. Their recent hit piece includes some Luther quotes I've never gone into detail on or have never covered, or deserve a fresh look. For instance, they state:

His contempt for Holy Scripture does not end at just the book of James, but also extends to attacking even the book of Esther and Jonah in the Hebrew Bible, which he supposedly based his version of the Bible on for the Old Testament. Here are his words on the matter: “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 foolishness.” (‘The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p202) And also: “The history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.” (Ibid.) Are we not surprised therefore that Lutheranism was the first to succumb to the blasphemous and ridiculous theories of Higher and Lower Criticism, and also to find her priests wanting to eliminate both James and Revelation? Let us not forget the earlier example of the Lutheran pastor/priest who stated on a radio program that both the Epistle of James and the Apocalypse/Revelation should be eliminated from our Bible. They are only following their wicked founder! Luther has in fact incurred God’s anathema on himself already. Many of these modern day Lutherans have become twice the sons of hell than Luther. Let us be warned.

This blog entry is going to cover Shoebat's Esther quote. For responses to Shoebat.com on Luther's view of James and Revelation, see these links: Luther: We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg] and Luther on Revelation: "I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is sufficient reason for rejecting it.". For an exposition on the Jonah quote, see: Shoebat: Luther Attacked the book of Jonah in the Hebrew Bible.

Documentation
Shoebat.com cites this Luther quote from: "The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books, 1987, p202." I've mentioned this book often throughout the years (it has been a perpetual source of propaganda for Rome's defenders). In an earlier paper, I documented Father O’Hare's analysis of Luther: Luther was crazy, depraved, and corrupt. He was in contact with Satan. He lived indecently and sanctioned adultery. He dishonored marriage and authorized prostitution and polygamy. He was a drunkard blasphemer, and a revolutionary. To learn more about Father O'Hare, see this link. For this present quote, O'Hare states:

But even for the books he chose to retain, he showed little or no respect. Here are some examples of his judgments on them. Of the Pentateuch he says: "We have no wish either to see or hear Moses." "Judith is a good, serious, brave tragedy." "Tobias is an elegant, pleasing, godly comedy." "Ecclesiasticus is a profitable book for an ordinary man." "Of very little worth is the book of Baruch, whoever the worthy Baruch may be." "Esdras I would not translate, because there is nothing in it which you might not find better in Aesop." "Job spoke not as it stands written in his book; but only had such thoughts. It is merely the argument of a fable. It is probable that Solomon wrote and made this book." "The book entitled 'Ecclesiastes' ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it. It has neither boots nor spurs; but rides only in socks as I myself did when an inmate of the cloister. Solomon did not, therefore, write this book, which was made in the days of the Maccabees of Sirach. It is like a Talmud, compiled from many books, perhaps in Egypt at the desire of King Evergetes." "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 history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible." "The first book of the Maccabees might have been taken into the Scriptures, but the second is rightly cast out, though there is some good in it."

O'Hare provides no exact documentation for these quotes. He does say on page 201-202, "In his prefaces to these books [the apocrypha] he gives at length his opinion as to their character and authority," and then a little later, "But even for the books he chose to retain, he showed little or no respect. Here are some examples of his judgments on them." The assumption therefore, is that these comments come from Luther's Prefaces to the books of the Bible. When one looks at the Prefaces though, the quote is not there.  The statement appears to find its genesis in the Table Talk. The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. O'Hare probably didn't mine these quotes out of Luther's writings.

If  the quote cited by Father O'Hare is not in the Prefaces, the Table Talk is probably the culprit.  The source used originally may have been the text that now exists in WA TR 1:208 (it was probably an earlier edition of Luther's works used). If so, it would have been from a comment made between 1531 and 1533 recorded by Veit Dietrich, from lines 3 and lines 29-31. It isn't really one quote. It's actually from two different Table Talk entries.:

This text has been translated into in English in older versions of the Table Talk (It is not in LW). For instance, it can be found in William Hazlitt's 19th century Table Talk translation.

Context
Line 3 is supposed to be "The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe." (Das dritte Buch Esdrae werfe ich in die Elbe), but note the German text says "dritte Buch Esdras" (third book of Esdras). The English translation is bogus. It doesn't say "Esther" at all. Julius Charles Hare speculates "Esdras" became "Esther" because old English translations of the Table Talk read, "the third book of Hester." I was not able to locate one to verify this. Regardless, the German text says "Esdras" not Esther. Here's how the text of lines 3-6 read in English:

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.” (source)

Line 30-31 is supposed to be "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" (Und da er, der Doctor, das ander Buch der Maccabaer corrigirte, sprach er: Ich bin dem Buch und Esther so feind, das ich wollte, sie waren gar nicht vorhanden; denn sie judenzen zu sehr, und haben viel heidnische Unart). Here's how lines 29-32 read in English:

When the Doctor was correcting the translation of the second Book of the Maccabees, he said, I dislike this book and that of Esther so much, that I wish they did not exist; for they Judaize too much, and have much heathenish extravagance. Then Master Forster said, The Jews esteem the book of Esther more 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. (source)(source).

Notice that Maccabees was not included in Father O'Hare's rendering. In this case, "Esther" is in the German (line 30).  Julius Charles Hare speculates once again that contextually "Esdras" is meant because it's combined with "Maccabees": "The combination of the book with that of the Maccabees,... as well as Forster's remark, leaves no doubt that Luther spoke of the book of Esdras. These blunders shew how unsafe it is to build any conclusions on the authority of the Tabletalk." This is speculation on Hare's part, but his conclusion makes sense, particularly if one reads the entirety of the Table Talk entry being cited. Luther's comment goes in this order: Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, 3 Esdras, 4 Esdras, Judith, Tobit, 2 Maccabees, Esther. Proverbs receives no criticism, but the other books mentioned do.

One other interesting clue as to whether "Esdras" was meant instead of "Esther" are Foster's words, "The Jews esteem the book of Esther more 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." First, this fact, if indeed it's about the book Esther, appears quite strange given the importance of Esther to the Feast of Purim in Judaism. Esther is read during Purim! Second, as far as I can tell, Esther does not contain overt "mystic matters" but the Books of Esdras do. On the other hand, there were Jewish allegorical interpretations of Esther as well, and some Jewish interpreters see her as a prophet. The final deciding  factor would be to find out if there's any Jewish tradition as that recorded in Foster's words to either Esther or Esdras. I searched around a bit, and came up with nothing either way.  

Conclusion

In my view, there is only one legitimate Luther quote speaking poorly of Esther in regard to canonicity. It comes from The Bondage of the Will:

“...[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].

This quote was a direct response to the following from Erasmus:

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

Luther prefaces his comment by granting the canonicty of Ecclesiasticus so as not waste time on tangents with Erasmus. In both quotes above, It seems to me the apocryphal books (including Esther) are being compared to Proverbs and the Song of Solomon. I say this because his comment is a direct response to Erasmus, who indeed compared Proverbs and the Song of Solomon to the "two books of Esdras, the story in Daniel about Susanna and Bel the dragon, Judith, Esther, and several others." That is, Luther is simply repeating back what Erasmus said in his response. If the it of "despite their inclusion of it in the canon" refers to Esther and not the group of apocryphal book in general being discussed, Luther would be admitting that the Jews considered Esther canonical, but his opinion was that it should not have been.

Luther translated Esther in his Bible without offering any negative criticism as to its non-canonicity in his Bible prefaces (there is no Preface to Esther). In one place in his Bible prefaces, Luther distinguishes the particular noncanonical parts of Esther, and places 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]. 

So, whatever Luther's gripe may have been in regard to the Book of Esther, he translated it, not with the apocryphal books, but with the canonical books, thus treating it as canonical. Shoebat.com says Luther's Tabletalk comment on Esther shows "contempt for Holy Scripture." This  is a bit strong, considering the fact that the first part of the quote they use was mis-translated, and the second part may very well not refer to the book of Esther at all. 

Luther: "The Book of Esther I Toss into the Elbe" a 19th Century Explanation

A few years back I explained how the famous Table Talk quote from Luther "The book of Esther I toss into the Elbe" was actually a mis-citation that was actually in regard to Esdras. I've mentioned this a number of times over the years.

What's interesting about this Luther quote is it was corrected some time ago, at least as far back as the  19th Century, yet it still pops up on fresh on the Internet.  Here was a great overview of the quote from the 19th Century, in which Julius Charles Hare corrected the great Sir William Hamilton:

 For instance, when our eyes run through the Reviewer's anthology, one of the most startling sentences is this: "The Book of Esther I toss into the Elbe." If a person familiar with Luther's style lights upon this sentence, he will recognize the great Reformer's unmistakable mark in the words, / toss into the Elbe; and it will be a pang to him to find Luther applying such rude words to any book, even the least important, in the Holy Scriptures. But he did not. The Reviewer asserts that he gives us Luther's "own words, literally translated:" Mr Ward asserts that the Reviewer's name is "a sufficient voucher for the accuracy of his quotations:" and yet Luther never said anything of the sort about the book of Esther. The original of this "literal translation" is plainly the following sentence in Luther's Tabletalk, Das dritte Such Esther werfe ich in die Elbe: The third book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. Why the Reviewer left out the word third in his "literal translation," it is for him to explain. Were one to follow the example he sets in imputing the vilest motives to all persons in authority in the University of Oxford, one should call this a fraudulent imposition. Was he puzzled to make out what could be meant by the third book of Esther? and did he intend tacitly to correct the text? When words are made the ground of an accusation, they should be examined with scrupulous care; and if it appear requisite to alter them, this should be expressly stated. Here the next sentence plainly shews that a totally different correction is needed. "In the fourth book, in that which Esther dreamt, there are pretty, and also some good sayings, as, Wine is strong, the king stronger, women still stronger, but truth the strongest of all" I quote from Walch's edition, Vol. xxn. 2079, and have no means of examining older copies of the Tischredren; but the old English translation speaks of the third book of Hester. So that the error  gross as it is, seems to have belonged to the original text. For there can be no question that Luther had been talking, not of a non-existent third and fourth book of Esther, but of the book of Ezra or Esdras: though there is still much confusion in the report of his words; since the argument about strength does not stand in the fourth book, but in the third, the first of the Apocryphal ones; those of Ezra and Nehemiah being numbered as the first two. Thus Luther's words are nothing but a Lutheran mode of saying what Jerome actually did, when he cast these Apocryphal books out of his Version, as he says in his Preface to the book of Ezra: "Nec quemquam moveat quod unus a nobis editus liber est; nec apocryphorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur; quia et apud Hebraeos Ezrae Neemiaeque sermones in unum volumen coarctantur, et quae non habentur apud illos, nec de viginti quatuor senibus sunt, procul abjicienda." Nor can anything well go beyond Jerome's contemptuous expressions about the same books in his pamphlet against Vigilantius (bI). Assuredly too the next sentence quoted by the Reviewer,— "I am so an enemy to the book of Esther that I would it did not exist; for it Judaizes too much, and hath in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness,"—though here again the English Translation agrees with Walch in applying Luther's words to the Book of Esther, was in fact spoken of the Apocryphal books of Esdras. For the whole passage in the Tabletalk is as follows : " When the Doctor was correcting the translation of the second Book of the Maccabees, he said, I dislike this book and that of Esther so much, that I wish they did not exist; for they Judaize too much, and have much heathenish extravagance. Then Master Forster said, The Jews esteem the book of Esther more than any of the prophets" The combination of the book with that of the Maccabees, — which the Reviewer ought not to have omitted, — as well as Forster's remark, leaves no doubt that Luther spoke of the book of Esdras (b j). These blunders shew how unsafe it is to build any conclusions on the authority of the Tabletalk.

Tossing Blog Comments into the Elbe, Save One

-Updated Below- 8/27/11

Here are a few general comments in regard to Luther and the book of Esther.

Blog reader Brigitte stated, Let's play "Who has the strongest 'you will never convince me attitude." This is a ridiculous thread. Bottom line, knowing Luther, he could have easily said either or both. If the book did not preach Christ or have prophecies, etc. it just simply is not on par with those who do. This is a good rule.

Those are good points from Brigitte in regard to Luther studies, and not to be tossed into the Elbe. I've been maintaining that the information is simply to vague and sparse to come down strongly either way. It could easily be as Brigitte describes. What Luther thought about this or that ultimately doesn't matter anyway.

It's the polemical nature of things like this that I find fascinating. What troubles me is when Roman Catholics like Paul Hoffer say, "And to top it off, all this huffing and puffing is over a quote that probably accurately reflects Luther's disdain for Esther even if the quote itself is inaccurate." That's a big assumption, and I'd simply have to ask Paul if he's surveyed the entire corpus of Luther's writings. It could "probably" be a number of possibilities. It doesn't surprise me at all that Mr. Hoffer would lean towards a negative perspective on Luther's view. We are all motivated by our presuppositions.

Last night I briefly went through some archived web pages saved on an extra hard drive. Some of the web pages go back almost 10 years. I found a number of instances of Roman Catholics citing the very bogus quote in question. One old page stated, "Martin Luther, in accord with his posture of supreme self-importance as restorer of Christianity, even presumed, inconsistently, to judge various books of the Bible, God's holy Word." Patrick O'Hare was then cited:

"Of the Pentateuch he says: 'We have no wish either to see or hear Moses. Job . . . is merely the argument of a fable . . . Ecclesiastes ought to have been more complete. There is too much incoherent matter in it . . . Solomon did not, therefore, write this book . . . 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 history of Jonah is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible . . ."

Now if anyone were to search this blog, you'll find I've probably worked through all of the quotes, and in each instance, O'Hare proved to be a propagandist. Go ahead and Google search any of the quotes above. This was only one instance from one old web page. I can post more examples if needed from various Roman Catholic websites and discussion boards. Regardless of who was responsible for rendering this Table Talk quote inaccurate, this has been a favorite quote of Roman Catholic Internet apologists. That is simply the truth. When I looked back on my older entries about this quote, you'll notice I never picked a fight with anyone specifically about this quote.

It was after I posted this second link that a Roman Catholic left a comment stating, "See my thorough refutation." To which I responded, “Refute what? Stop being silly. To refute this would be to prove Luther meant Esther and not Esdras in this comment. I don't think even you would be foolish enough to attempt this, but you never know. Good luck slaying windmills.” So, I never picked any fight over this quote. I simply posted the facts of the matter.


Update 8/27/11
I began responding to Paul Hoffer's comment below, but it became so long I thought it best to post as part of this entry. Paul's words will be in blue.

Hi Mr. Swan,

Hello Paul.

you quote Fr. O'Hare as if his works are on the bedstand of every Catholic apologist.


As I mentioned, the book was quite popular for awhile with Roman Catholic Internet apologists, and even some of the bigger name Roman apologists. Here's a sample:

Steve Ray, Crossing the Tiber, page 46.

Steve Ray, Upon This Rock, page 104.

Steve Ray: Book Recommendations "Even though this book is a bit polemic, it is nevertheless, an important read, telling the whole story of Luther that Protestant authors and historians have failed to tell. This book is a sobering, eye-opening, record-straightening analysis of the life, thought, and work of Martin Luther"

Phil Porvaznik: Recommended Catholic and Christian Books

Catholic Culture: The MOST Theological Collection

These were only a few hits from among dozens, go ahead and check for yourself. As I mentioned previously, I became interested in Luther quotes while dialoging with Roman Catholics on discussion boards. I found over and over again that if O'Hare wasn't being cited directly, he was often the source from which many Luther quotes were being taken. Now with so much more available on the Internet, O'Hare isn't as popular as he once was amongst those on your side of the Tiber. If you search my blog, you'll notice that over the years I spent a lot of time on O'Hare's book.

In this link, you'll notice this:

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.

The text above contains no bibliographic references, but its similarities are so similar to O’Hare’s work, I would be surprised if another source other than O’Hare was being used. Compare it to this. While every Roman apologist doesn't have O'Hare's book, it obvious to me that a lot of Roman Catholics do indeed have the book. The Esther / Esdras quote was just one of a number of quotes taken primarily from O'Hare's book over the last 10 years, and popularized on the Internet. I recently went through the Roman Catholic web page, Luther Exposing the Myth. The Esther quote is cited from O'Hare's book (see footnote #64). The Catholic Apologist Network cites it here. These are only a few examples. Search some of the discussion boards, or even the Catholic Answers boards. you'll simply have to trust me on this one: I've had the Esther / Esdras quote cited to me a more than a few times, along with many other quotes taken from O'Hare. Go ahead and blame Protestants for the origin of the quote (which I think is ridiculous), it still doesn't excuse the fact that many in your camp simply take Luther quotes from secondary sources without ever looking them up.

I do not own any books written by him nor have I ever read any of his books. Thus your linking of my comments with his is not well placed.

They were actually two different thoughts. Notice I began by saying I was posting "a few general comments." I was not inferring that you were an O'Hare supporter.

I would note in passing that my opinion was formed in part by reading Bondage of the Will, statements made by folks like Bainton, Bruce, and Filson as well as something a guy who went by the appellation of Tertiumquid wrote in 2004. Perhaps you have may have heard of that last gentleman?

While I respect scholarship, I don't worship scholarship. For instance, Bruce is certainly in error when he quoted Luther as follows, "he is reported as saying, ‘I hate Esther and 2 Maccabees so much that I wish they did not exist; they contain too much Judaism and no little heathen vice' ". On the other hand Bruce is certainly correct when he immediately adds this footnote: "too much weight should not be laid on many of the obiter dicta in Luther’s collected Table Talk."

More importantly, please note I did not challenge if Fr. Luther thought Esther was canonical.

That's refreshing. Your friend appears to think differently. As I've looked at this issue off and on for a number of years, I simply don't know.

Obviously, he must have thought part of it was since he included it in his Bible and thought enough of the "added" parts that Catholics like to print them in his Bible as well in a different part.

Why, that would be the same point I've been making for a number of years now.

My comment that you quote reflects the fact that based on what I know of the matter, (which is very little to be sure) Fr. Luther did not think very highly of it, a fact borne out by his words in "Bondage of the Will" and some other works of his besides Table Talk.

I don't really put much weight on the Table Talk utterances in general, and certainly not the one in question specifically. The quote from Bondage of the Will though is certainly the only quote worth taking seriously, and even that quote has ambiguity. Nor do we know if Luther's view of Esther was in flux throughout his career (it can be proven that his opinion of Revelation and Hebrews certainly varied over the years, so why not Esther?).

One of the few favorable references I recall Luther ever make about Esther has to do with the deuterocanonical parts which he called "cornflowers" deserving to be planted in its own garden, if memory serves. Fr. Luther may have included Esther in his canon, but he was probably pinching his nose shut when he did so.

The cornflowers reference can be found here. One line of evidence I have not quoted (if I recall my own blog posts) is Luther's citing of Esther, which he did occasionally throughout his career. I guess one could consider some of those instances as "favorable." I don't think though that such favorable references mean all that much, because Luther also cites from the Apocrypha in a favorable way throughout his career. 

Nope, the problem I had was not whether Fr. Luther considered the work to be canonical, but the fact that you denigrated the work of someone who once had used the maligned quote in a book which he himself later acknowledged to be a false quote and had withdrawn it from later editions of his work, a small fact that you gloss over if mention at all.

That's quite a sentence, to read out loud, one must take a good deep breath.

I think you've missed my real target here Paul. If you go back and read my post (which I really hope you will), you'll notice my target was an Anglican who primarily regurgitated someone else's work. He referred to one of my arguments as "lame" and denigrates me throughout his posts. I'm portrayed quite negatively, as if I don't know what I'm talking about. He puts forth your friend's article as a "must read." Well if I'm such an idiot according to this Anglican (who at one point mocks me for my desire to have solid references), I think it's highly comical that the first thing he cites by regurgitation is a direct benefit from one of my blog posts. Of course, you wouldn't know that from reading this, which, if I recall originally said the following, but now no longer does:

“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.”

As I stated in my blog entry, my Anglican detractor appears to think the Roman e-pologist he cited simply was hit with a cosmic meatball of clarity one day and posted a correction to his previous years of error. Don't you get it Paul? My target was a far different person than you think. It was the Anglican who portrayed me quite negatively. That Anglican didn't even realize that the very first thing he cited was a direct benefit from something I put together.

My problem was that there was a high road to present your information and a low one and you chose the latter.

I'm hopeful my comment above cleared this up for you. As to low and high roads, you need to deal with the people on your side of the Tiber first before you even look my way and attempt to be a moral guide of Internet discourse. You've certainly got your work cut out for you. I should not have to explain myself here. Simply look for the blog that posts pictures of toilet paper.

Now you point fingers at how others treat you as justification for treating someone else poorly,

I was hopeful you'd see the very person you defend and want me to treat fairly (whatever that means) had no problem accepting Richard's comments. I don't recall ever talking about Romanist families, or family members. In my opinion, that little Facebook banter was despicable. Shame on all of you for the little laugh.

but if one were to reflect upon it, that is merely a rationalization or an excuse for not treating others as Our Lord commanded us to do.

I've explained my intended target. It's up to you now to re-read my post, the entire thing, and ask yourself who Swan was after, and what was the overall point of the entire entry? None of you seemed to even notice 99% of the entry was about specific Luther quotes.

If you do not like what some Catholic apologists and commentators say about you, why not lead the way and show them how people should be treated, not repeat what you point to as a poor example. Perhaps a dip in the Elbe would well serve all of us who tend to get all worked up over what others write about us. Would you like to join me?

Actually, it's you guys that made a big deal about all of this. I simply pointed out to the anonymous Anglican that I'm not as clueless as he thinks. If you guys couldn't interpret that properly, that's your problem, not mine. As to Internet discourse, I wrote on that recently here. I know this sounds like I'm ending on a sour note, but this entire discussion has gone on long enough.

Luther's View of Esther: A Response to "Nazaroo"

While searching around for something else I ended up on BaptistBoard.Com, viewing a discussion thread entitled The Book of Esther and Martin Luther.  I was surprised to find an Anglican physicist (named "Nazaroo") throwing me under the bus for my opinion of Luther's view of the book of Esther. He was doing so also with the help of Roman Catholic e-pologist blog entries.

The Bogus Esther Quote
He first began by citing a Roman Catholic web page addressing a botched Luther quote on Esther. What he doesn't appear to realize is that it was I who pointed this error out to the verydefender of Rome he's citing. For quite a number of years a number of Roman Catholics had been citing this Luther quote:

“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.”

I pointed out here that Esther was a mistake for Esdras. I love finding little tidbits like this, because whatever Luther's view, such quotes show how poorly some of Rome's defenders do their homework. My Anglican detractor didn't mention this. He appears to think his champion simply was hit with a cosmic meatball of clarity one day and posted a correction to his previous years of error.

Long Live Luther's Table Talk
"Nazaroo" Began by quoting Luther's Table Talk (via a Roman e-pologist blog entry). Perhaps he's unaware that the Table Talk is not a reliable vehicle for determining Luther's opinions or theology. I must sound like a broken  record at this point: Luther didn't write the Table Talk. I was extremely gratified when Roman Catholic scholar Franz Posset recently stated, "the real distortion of the Luther image occurred with the Table Talk." Posset notes that the Table Talk should be read for entertainment rather than as a serious historical guide.

"Nazaroo" argues (via a Roman e-pologist blog article) that after the bogus Table Talk Esther quote comes the following legitimate Table Talk Esther quote:

"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."

If one looks at the version of the Table Talk being cited by "Nazaroo", it does indeed appear that while Esdras reads first (instead of Esther), this other mentioning of Esther does appear to be an example of Luther denigrating the book of Esther. However, such is not always as it appears. Here was a fascinating review of both Table Talk "Esther" quotes put forth in the book, Vindication of Luther by Julius Charles Hare:

For instance, when our eyes run through the Reviewer's anthology, one of the most startling sentences is this: "The Book of Esther I toss into the Elbe." If a person familiar with Luther's style lights upon this sentence, he will recognise the great Reformer's unmistakable mark in the words, I toss into the Elbe; and it will be a pang to him to find Luther applying such rude words to any book, even the least important, in the Holy Scriptures. But he did not. The Reviewer asserts that he gives us Luther's "own words, literally translated : "Mr Ward asserts that the Reviewer's name is "a sufficient voucher for the accuracy of his quotations:" and yet Luther never said anything of the sort about the book of Esther. The original of this "literal translation" is plainly the following sentence in Luther's Tabletalk, Das dritte Such Esther werfe ich in die Elbe: The third book of Esther I toss into the Elbe. Why the Reviewer left out the word third in his "literal translation," it is for him to explain. Were one to follow the example he sets in imputing the vilest motives to all persons in authority in the University of Oxford, one should call this a fraudulent imposition. Was he puzzled to make out what could be meant by the third book of Esther? and did he intend tacitly to correct the text? When words are made the ground of an accusation, they should be examined with scrupulous care; and if it appear requisite to alter them, this should be expressly stated. Here the next sentence plainly shews that a totally different correction is needed. "In the fourth book, in that which Esther dreamt, there are pretty, and also some good sayings, as, Wine is strong, the king stronger, women still stronger, but truth the strongest of all." I quote from Walch's edition, Vol. XXII. 2079, and have no means of examining older copies of the Tischredren; but the old English translation speaks of the third book of Hester. So that the error, gross as it is, seems to have belonged to the original text. For there can be no question that Luther had been talking, not of a non-existent third and fourth book of Esther, but of the book of Ezra or Esdras: though there is still much confusion in the report of his words; since the argument about strength does not stand in the fourth book, but in the third, the first of the Apocryphal ones; those of Ezra and Nehemiah being numbered as the first two. Thus Luther's words are nothing but a Lutheran mode of saying what Jerome actually did, when he cast these Apocryphal books out of his Version, as he says in his Preface to the book of Ezra: "Nec quemquam moveat quod unus a nobis editus liber est; nec apocryphorum tertii et quarti somniis delectetur; quia et apud Hebraeos Ezrae Neemiaeque sermones in unum volumen coarctantur, et quae non habentur apud illos, nec de viginti quatuor senibus sunt, procul abjicienda." Nor can anything well go beyond Jerome's contemptuous expressions about the same books in his pamphlet against Vigilantius (bi).

Assuredly too the next sentence quoted by the Reviewer,— "I am so an enemy to the book of Esther that I would it did not exist; for it Judaizes too much, and hath in it a great deal of heathenish naughtiness,"—though here again the English Translation agrees with Walch in applying Luther's words to the Book of Esther, was in fact spoken of the Apocryphal books of Esdras. For the whole passage in the Tabletalk is as follows : "When the Doctor was correcting the translation of the second Book of the Maccabees, he said, I dislike this book and that of Esther so much, that I wish they did not exist; for they Judaize too much, and have much heathenish extravagance. Then Master Forster said, The Jews esteem the book of Esther more than any of the prophets." The combination of the book with that of the Maccabees, — which the Reviewer ought not to have omitted, — as well as Forster's remark, leaves no doubt that Luther spoke of the book of Esdras (bj). These blunders shew how unsafe it is to build any conclusions on the authority of the Tabletalk.

The German text of the Table Talk quote can be found here. Hare's statement "These blunders shew how unsafe it is to build any conclusions on the authority of the Tabletalk" is on the mark!

Other Luther / Esther Quotes
"Nazaroo" also argues (via the same Roman e-pologist blog article) from a quote found in Luther's On The Jews and their Lies, "Oh, how fond they are of the book of Esther, which is so beautifully attuned to their bloodthirsty, vengeful, murderous yearning and hope". I covered this quote here. This quote doesn't at all address the issue of canonicity, but rather involves the interpretation of Esther 9:5 ff.

The only legitimate Luther quote speaking poorly of Esther in  regard to canonicity comes from The Bondage of the Will (also covered here):

“...[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].

This quote was a direct response to the following from Erasmus:

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

Luther prefaces his comment by granting the canonicty of Ecclesiasticus so as not waste time on tangents with Erasmus.  In both quotes above, It seems to me the apocryphal books (including Esther) are being compared to Proverbs and the Song of Solomon. I say this because his comment is a direct response to Erasmus, who indeed compared Proverbs and the Song of Solomon to the "two books of Esdras, the story in Daniel about Susanna and Bel the dragon, Judith, Esther, and several others." That is, Luther is simply repeating back what Erasmus said in his response.

Luther's German Bible
Despite this quote from The Bondage of the Will, Luther translated Esther and allowed it in his Bible, without 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 places 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].

Oddly "Nazaroo" goes on to argue Luther translated and included Esther in the canon so as to mistranslate it and use it against the Jews. That though is a blatant admission for Luther treating the book as canonical. "Nazaroo" in essence argues Luther didn't think Esther was canonical, but included it as canonical in his Bible for ulterior motives. Luther though could've just as easily placed the book along with other apocryphal books. this simply doesn't explain why Luther would go through the trouble of separating the spurious parts of Esther from the genuine.

Conclusion
The information available on this subject is sparse, and I'm not so dogmatic as to insist my view is the only reasonable view. It could very well be Luther didn't think the book of Esther was canonical. I would though need some clear primary evidence as to this assertion.

Luther’s Preface To Parts of Esther, 1534

In making a point about the freedom of the will, Erasmus chose to quote from the apocryphal book of Ecclesiasticus. He takes the time to explain why this book should be considered as authoritative:

“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.”

Luther responded:

“The first is that from Ecclesiasticus 15[:14–17]: “God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel. He added his commandments and precepts. If thou wilt observe the commandments and keep acceptable fidelity forever, they shall preserve thee. He hath set water and fire before thee; stretch forth thine hand for which thou wilt. Before man is life and death, good and evil; that which he shall choose shall be given him.”  Although I could rightly reject this book, 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].

It is an interesting fact though that Luther translated and placed the book of Esther with the canonical books of the Old Testament. The editors of Luther’s Works state,

“Luther’s ordering of the apocryphal books is his own. It does not follow the sequence in which they appeared either in the Vulgate or in the Septuagint where they were interspersed among the canonical books in positions which varied with the different manuscripts. In the older German Bibles, Judith had followed Tobit and preceded Esther; Wisdom had followed Song of Solomon and preceded Ecclesiasticus.”

Yet, Luther abandoned the ordering of the Vulgate, the Septuagint, and the older German Bibles. He placed the apocryphal books at the end of his Old Testament translation, clearly separating them from those Old Testament books he considered canonical. Esther was included with the canonical books.

To make the situation even more interesting, he took the additions to Esther, which had originally been pointed out by Jerome, and placed them with the apocryphal books. The editors of Luther’s Works say, “Six additions to the book of Esther, comprising 107 verses not in the Hebrew text, were inserted into the text in the Greek Version, added on at the end in the Vulgate.” Through the centuries, Jerome’s clear delineation between the canonical and non-canonical parts of Esther was often ignored or left out in subsequent copies of the Vulgate, treating the book in its longer form as entirely canonical.

Even as early as 1521, Luther at times makes a distinction between the parts of Esther: “Queen Esther wore a precious crown upon her head, yet she said it seemed but a filthy rag in her eyes, Esther 14:16 (Apocryphal)” [LW 21:316]. Yet elsewhere from the same time period, Luther quotes from both sections of Esther and makes no such distinction (See LW 30:89, a writing from 1522).

Luther did not write a preface for the canonical Esther. In 1534 though, Luther did write a preface for the non-canonical part:

Preface to Parts of Esther and Daniel 1534

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).  And yet, to keep them from perishing, we have put them here in a kind of special little spice garden or flower bed since much that is good, especially the hymn of praise, Benedicite,  is to be found in them. But the texts of Susanna, and of Bel, Habakkuk,  and the Dragon, seem like beautiful religious fictions, such as Judith and Tobit,  for their names indicate as much. For example, Susanna means a rose,  that is, a nice pious land and folk, or a group of poor people among the thorns; Daniel means a judge,  and so on. Be the story as it may, it can all be easily interpreted in terms of the state, the home, or the devout company of the faithful. [LW 35:353]

Luther and Esther: Another Response To a Defender of Rome

This is a follow up to: Luther and Esther: Response to a Defender of Rome

I noted to a defender of Rome that Luther’s Bible and Prefaces tend to be his definitive statement as to how he felt about which books were canonical. In that material, missing are comments about the non-canonicity of Esther, found is Esther among the canonical books in his translation of the Bible. My basic question to Rome's defender is the following: how does this fact fit into a view that argues Luther rejected the canonicity of Esther? I sifted through the response offered to me, and it can be summarized in three basic points:

1. Luther was subjective in regard to the canon
Luther had a subjective view of the canon. Luther does not accept the canon as an extra-biblical infallible fact defined by an infallible church. Luther relies on his own opinion to establish the canon. Luther’s opinion on the canonicity of Hebrews and Revelation fluctuated, why couldn’t the same be said of his view of Esther?

2. Luther accepted the received tradition to avoid disputes
Sometimes Luther accepts the received tradition of the church to avoid time-wasting disputes. Therefore, Luther kept a non-canonical book (Esther) in the canonical section of his Bible for such a reason.

3. The evidence supports Luther’s lifelong commitment to the non-canonicity of Esther
The evidence of Luther’s writings suggests he held a lifelong commitment to the non-canonicity of Esther. In The Bondage of the Will, Luther says Esther has less basis than any other apocryphal book to be regarded as canonical. In an older version of the Table Talk, Luther says Esther is at least as bad as 2 Maccabees, this proves Esther is non-canonical as well.


Here is an evaluation of these three points.

1. Luther was subjective in regard to the canon
This point allows for Luther to at least have held to the canonicity of Esther and then changed his mind, or vice versa, or even repeatedly changing  his view throughout his life. I do not have a problem with the logic of this answer. In applying this answer to Luther’s Bible and his Prefaces, it would be possible that Luther included Esther as canonical, and later changed his mind. This defender of Rome isn't really arguing this, he seems to simply raise it as a possibility. Thus, I grant this hypothetical point.

As a point of tedium, in his response this defender of Rome cites Paul Althaus as holding Luther was subjective on the canon, particularly page 336 of The Theology of Martin Luther. Had one continued reading Althaus, the next few sentences say: “Roman Catholic theology has up until the present day, frequently condemned Luther’s method of approaching and validating the authority of Scripture as subjective and arbitrary. But Luther is as far from heaven is from the earth in determining the center of Scripture by himself and self-confidently presenting his theology as this center” [Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, 336 – 337]. By “center of the Scripture” Althaus is referring to that which determined canonicity for Luther. Of course, this particular defender of Rome can list numerous scholars who hold Luther was subjective. That’s not the point. The point I’m making is Althaus cannot be lumped in with them, based on his own context. This was a clear misuse of Althaus.

2. Luther accepted the received tradition on the canon to avoid a dispute
In regard to his writing against Erasmus in Bondage of the Will, this appears to be the case. When compiling his Bible though, Luther made a strong effort to sort out the canonical material from the non-canonical material in both the Old and New Testaments. His method was to sort the books according to his own theological purpose combined with the testimony of church history. Perhaps this defender of Rome could argue Luther made a mistake, simply didn’t care, or was simply accepting a tradition to avoid a dispute. This would be an argument from silence, and to my knowledge, it would be his argument only (I've not encountered it previously). I have not read any scholar using it. Simply because it is his own personal theory does not mean it’s wrong. It would mean though, a case would need to be presented that included evidence from Luther’s Bible and Prefaces substantiating this claim.

The defender of Rome cites a quote I used from Jaroslav Pelikan about Luther’s “canon within a canon.” The citation should have been given a fuller context (which I provided in the paper he cited). Pelikan begins the quote by saying, “[Luther] did not pretend that the church could undertake the construction of the canon anew, or that it could function with a canon open at both ends. Never, even at the height of his criticism of James, did he drop it from his editions of the Bible, any more than he dropped the Old Testament Apocrypha.” True, Luther retained the Old Testament Apocrypha in his Bible, but he made sure to place these books in a clearly defined section at the end of the Old Testament. Recall, Esther was included with canonical books. The received tradition was all of the books purported to be Scripture in the 16th Century. Luther though made very specific points and arguments to substantiate what the canon within the canon was. Those books falling outside of the true canonical material were regulated to the back of both Testaments.


3. The evidence supports Luther’s lifelong commitment to the non-canonicity of Esther
The evidence available in English on this subject is sparse. In the standard English set of Luther’s Works, only The Bondage of the Will Esther quote addresses the canonicity of the book. The comment would be around the time Luther translated Esther for his Bible. Perhaps supporting point 2? Or perhaps supporting point 1? Or both? Or neither? I don’t know.

I noted previously, Roger Beckwith (author of 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).” I have this book. Bardtke offers around seventy instances in which Luther refers to Esther. Most often, these passing references demonstrate the canonicity of the book.

In regard to the Table Talk quote, the Table Talk cannot be used to dictate Luther’s opinion, as it is not an official writing of Luther’s. It can provide perspective on an already established fact, but it itself cannot establish Luther’s opinion. .

Conclusion
I think this defender of Rome's point #1 can be valid in regard to Luther’s Bible and prefaces. It is indeed possible his opinion fluctuated even if Esther was considered at first canonical, and then later rejected. To my knowledge, this did not happen to any of the books in Luther’s Bible. That is, I know of no book he considered canonical, and then later went on to doubt as being canonical. But it could be the case. Is it likely? I don’t think so, because there is no evidence of him ever doing this. Could it be Luther was simply using the apocrypha against Erasmus in The Bondage of the Will? Yes it could. Could it be Luther woke up every day with a different view of Esther? Indeed it could. When one bases an opinion on Luther’s subjectivity, anything is possible.

Point #2 is the obstacle for this defender of Rome. He needs to explain why Luther did not place Esther with the other apocryphal writings. It doesn’t help to suggest Luther accepted the received tradition on Esther to avoid disputes. If there is one thing Luther didn’t care about, it was avoiding disputes. He was very accurate in how he wanted his Bible laid out. It does not follow that the placement of Esther provoked him to avoid a dispute, as Esther is not nearly as important for Luther as the books of the New Testament and many of the Old Testament books. Also, there was already a dispute on Esther, so whatever Luther did would not have been so shocking. Also note, the dispute in The Bondage of the Will about the validity of biblical books would have indeed sidetracked the discussion with Erasmus. In the subject of the canon, Luther hit this head on in his Prefaces. It would not have been a sidetrack to the topic.

Point #3 really rests on one citation, The Bondage of the Will quote. The Table Talk is interesting, but it’s a Table Talk. It is evidence, but evidence that will always have more than an element of doubt, because of reasons I noted above, and also for the reason that brought about this entire discussion: a mis-citation that I brought back to the light, buried in books from the 1800’s.

First update after the posting of this blog entry: Ok, I tried to take this Roman defender seriously and I got back exactly what I expected. He has given me an entire response filled with mocking and silliness, mixed in with attempts at fruitful dialog.

Second update after the posting of this blog entry: Well, he has edited his response, after one his "fans" said:

"Please find below some highlighted portions of your discussion with Mr Swan, that if painlessly excised, would strengthen your argument by not denigrating your antagonist and removing from him any excuse about "mocking and silliness". I know it is very hard to avoid them, but sometimes an impartial "charity editor" on tone and connotation is important."

And then he posted these "highlights from his response:

-we get the usual tired, boring recourse
-(almost surrealistically)(again, time-tested textbook anti-Catholic methodology).
-pitifully weak
-mercilessly, absurdly butchering
-muddleheadedness and incomprehension here, in light of the numerous arguments I presented, boggle the imagination.
-(where does Jimbo think I got the idea, after all?; I didn't pull it out of a hat):Jimbo"

Addendum (2016)

This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2007. The original can be found here. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.