"Even today" or "also today"? Korey Maas on Rome & Bible, and on Martin Luther

      Dr. Korey Maas, an LC-MS theologian, is the Chairman and Associate Professor of History at Hillsdale College.  He authored a helpful article "On the Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture" in the January 2021 number of Concordia Theological Quarterly. It is an essay to help Lutherans when they have their "faith shaken if and when they encounter some fairly standard objections." Luther is consulted along with other orthodox theologians of the past.  I was quite pleased with this essay, but two statements mar this otherwise helpful essay: 

1. Rome and Holy Scripture:

      In the very paragraph that he quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this topic, he goes on to state (p. 52-53):

“…even today Rome essentially concedes that Luther was correct in understanding her position to restrict 'authentic' interpretation [of the Bible] to the papacy.”

Dr. Maas, who chooses his words carefully, chose to use the word "even": "even today".  The Cambridge Dictionary describes what "even" here means: “We use even to add emphasis or more information to a surprising or unexpected thing”. Another way of expressing Dr. Maas's statement is to say that "It is surprising that today Rome essentially concedes…her position to restrict 'authentic' interpretation to the papacy.”  But why would he be surprised that Rome still teaches that the Holy Scriptures are to be interpreted by the Pope?  The Roman Catholic Church has taught this since the Council of Trent. So why would Dr. Maas weaken his defense of Lutheran doctrine on the sufficiency of Holy Scripture in the same article that he defends it? (Could it be the high standing of Vatican II that is held within the LC-MS?)

      What Dr. Maas should have stated was “…also today Rome essentially concedes … her position to restrict 'authentic' interpretation to the papacy.” No surprise here.

2. Martin Luther:

      On the same p. 52, Dr. Maas stated: 

“Because it is well known that Luther himself often spoke in unhelpfully exaggerated and hyperbolic terms to get his points across…”

I was a bit surprised by the forcefulness of Dr. Maas's criticism of Luther.  Ostensibly he uses it to forestall charges of "Luther worship".  But let us examine this.  

      The Apostle Paul spoke of “dung” in Philippians 3:8: "[I] do count them but dung, that I may win Christ"; and Christ spoke in strong terms against the Pharisees (Matt. 3:7: “generation of vipers”), etc. to “get his point across”. More examples could be multiplied. So where does it come from Dr. Maas’s critical remark against Luther?  Is he saying Luther was unhelpful because his “point” was not valid?... or just because he spoke in what he calls “exaggerated” and “hyperbolic” terms? — Is he referring to Luther’s frequent grouping of Jews, Turks, and Papists?  If so, how would he say that this grouping is “exaggerated and hyperbolic”? Don't all of these groups deny the Holy Scriptures as the source and norm of true faith? — Is Dr. Maas saying that the Pope is not the Antichrist because that is “exaggerated” and “hyperbolic”? Many would say that Luther's assertion is "well known", "unhelpful", “exaggerated", and “hyperbolic”. — Is Dr. Maas stating this to satisfy some at Hillsdale College who object to Luther's polemical writings? Is he not raising a "fairly standard objection" that could cause Lutherans to have their "faith shaken"?

      Dr. Maas's statement could have just as easily come from a Roman Catholic theologian. Was it really necessary to use this statement to make his point about Luther's objection to Rome's teaching on the Pope's authority to interpret Scripture? A good antidote to Dr. Maas's characterization of Luther would be Walther's and Pieper's defense of Luther's polemics here. Dr. Maas’s “exaggerated and hyperbolic” characterization of Luther is unhelpful for his otherwise helpful essay… “On the Sufficiency and Clarity of Scripture”.

Walther on an erring conscience (Der Lutheraner 1872)

      When I ran across this short blurb by Walther, I wanted to read it because the subject of our conscience is widely misunderstood.  And Walther, also Luther, sets us straight on how our conscience can go wrong.  It also provides the means with which we may defend ourselves against an erring conscience, in ourselves and in others.  From Der Lutheraner, volume 29 p. 174 (August 15, 1873, No. 22) [EN], underlining is Walther's emphasis:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Fabricated conscience.

When, in 1526, the priests of the Altenburg Abbey did not want to publish their false divine service because it would be against their “conscience”, but also “they refused to prove their conscience and conduct with Scripture, or to let themselves be instructed”, but rather declared that “they did not want to engage in Scriptural disputation, but rather to remain in their established custom, as proven by the Christian Church”, Luther wrote: “In this way they bear sufficient witness against themselves that they fabricate such consciences and use them only as a pretense. For a right good conscience does and desires nothing better than that it may hear the instruction of the Scriptures and dispute its matters with the Scriptures”. (XXI, 147 [§ 3] [St. L. 21a, 837]) — What those papal priests once did, many still do even now who want to be good Lutherans. If something is against their own will, they are quick with the pious speech that it is against their conscience. But whoever says this and yet does not want to let his conscience be told by the Word of God, shows clearly enough that he is only pretending to have a conscience. But this is a great sin, because such men pass their old Adam off as God's voice. W. [Walther]”

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      I recall in my past that I was quite guilty of a "fabricated conscience" and "only pretending to have a conscience", not realizing that my unbelief was blocking the way to a good conscience — I was not listening to God's Word.

Dr. Albert Mohler… and the "means of grace"?

      If one reads conservative Christian commentary on the Internet, one will likely come across the writings and media presentations of Dr. Albert Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, which is an institution of the Southern Baptist Convention, essentially Reformed in its doctrine. Much of his commentary is encouraging for its defense against the anti-Christian policies being promoted or enacted within the United States.  He was especially inciteful for publicizing to a wider audience the events happening in West Lafayette, Indiana in 2022. The city council was debating an ordinance that could impact Christian counseling against sexual sin, in this case the so-called "transgenderism". One may read his Jan. 19, 2022 "The Briefing",  a local television report of a city council meeting, and a World Magazine report of the same city council proceedings. The "Christian counseling" method under indirect attack was, as reported by World, "popularized by the late Presbyterian pastor Jay Adams."  I personally was under this type of counseling for a period of time over 25 years ago, but later discovered its Calvinist basis, since Adams explicitly taught against Universal Justification. In his 1970 book Competent to Counsel, p. 70, Adams states (emphasis mine):

"As a reformed Christian, the writer believes that counselors must not tell any unsaved counselee that Christ died for him, for they cannot say that."

That is pure Calvinism which teaches "Particular Grace".  So I had to leave this counseling, for what good is it if they withhold the Gospel because they are not sure if I am saved or not. Admittedly there was some benefit for me, but not for my Christian faith. I had to return to Lutheranism for my assurance of salvation. The Gospel is, at its core, Universal, Objective Justification (UOJ), 2 Cor. 5:19, John 3:16.

      But this blog post addresses a very surprising phrase that Dr. Mohler used in his Jan. 19 "Briefing" (emphasis and highlight is mine):

"Biblical counseling emerged as an intentional effort to reject the integrationism that claimed you could combine humanistic secular psychology and biblical truth, and instead to counsel just on the basis and on the authority of biblical truth. And biblical counseling doesn't seek licensure, programs like the one at Southern Seminary and at Boyce College, do not lead to the seeking of certification by the state. We're not looking for state licensure, we're looking to equip Christian churches and Christian ministers to conduct truly Christian counseling on an authentically biblical basis. The biblical counseling movement is very well represented by this church in this Indiana town. It is operating on the basis of its own biblical convictions and it understands counseling rightly, not as seeking some form of therapeutic intervention by psychology or psychiatry.

That is not the church's proper role. The church's role is to apply what is preached in the pulpit, in the lives of individual Christians, helping them to make connections and application by the sufficiency and authority of the Word of God so that their lives are conformed to obedience to Christ. And thus, by the power of the Holy Spirit in the means of grace, our lives are conformed as Christians to Christ, to Christ's likeness.

"Means of Grace"?  From a Southern Baptist?  So I decided to research the official doctrines of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary which is an institution of the Southern Baptist Convention.  They are "Baptist" in their teaching.  On their web page it states:

"VII. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.

The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming."

No "means of grace" here, only Reformed doctrine that denies the God-given Sacraments as "means of grace" They are only "act(s) of obedience" and performed to "memorialize". — While we appreciate Dr. Mohler's news and analysis on many issues of our day, yet he cannot escape the fact that his doctrine, confessed as a Southern Baptist, calls into question, i.e. destroys, the very doctrines that he otherwise professes: Grace Alone, sola gratia. 

      Dr. Albert Mohler is a Baptist, not a Lutheran, in his confession, and so is being disingenuous by using the term "means of grace" when he actually means no such thing. The use of the term will certainly confuse some Lutherans into thinking there is no real difference, when it actually concerns, what Franz Pieper calls, "The Foundation of the Christian Church".

Kolb schools Luther and Formula on Free Will ("correction", "codicil", "cautioned"?)

      While researching my recent project on an essay by Dr. Walther on Melanchthon, a rather disturbing situation came to light regarding Dr. Robert Kolb's history and theology.  In particular, his analysis and reporting of matters relating to the doctrine of Free Will differ from orthodox teaching and history. Dr. Kolb does not hide his differences, but attempts to present his history in such a way that he appears to be orthodox while maintaining his differences. His readers are expected to accept his opinions because of his scholarship. But as Luther said to Amsdorf in 1534, scholarship is to serve Christ or it tramples Him under foot. Dr. Kolb places Luther's writing against Erasmus On the Bondage of the Will, or De Servo Arbitrio, under scrutiny. But does he keep in mind what Christ's Word says, that we are dead in our sins? (Eph. 2:5). — Now I present a "dialogue" between Drs. Robert Kolb and Martin Luther (emphasis mine):

Dr. Kolb says, in his book Bound Choice, p. 26: 

• "Luther may have regarded De servo arbitrio highly…" (may?)

But Dr. Luther says: 

• "For I acknowledge none of them to be really a book of mine, except perhaps the one On the Bound Will and the Catechism." (StL 21b, 2176; AE 50, 173)
• "He (Erasmus) endeavors to defend his book On Free Will, against which I wrote my book On the Enslaved Will, which as yet he has not refuted, and will never in eternity be able to refute. This I know for certain, and I defy and challenge the devil together with all his minions to refute it." (Table Talk StL 22, 1081, Bente 225)

Dr. Kolb says, ibid. p. 26:

Luther "did not regard it [De Servo Arbitrio] as infallible."

But Dr. Luther says:

• “These thoughts must be opposed by the true and firm knowledge of Christ… For this is what He affirms of Himself, Mal. 3, 6: ‘I am the Lord, I change not,’ and Rom. 11:29: ‘For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.’ Accordingly, in the book De Servo Arbitrio and elsewhere I have taught that we must distinguish when we treat of the knowledge of God or, rather, of His essence. For one must argue either concerning the hidden or the revealed God." (StL 2, 176-177, Bente 224. Luther based his work on Holy Scripture, the infallible source and norm.)
• “It was my desire to urge and set forth these things, because after my death many will quote my books and by them try to prove and confirm all manner of errors and follies of their own. Now, among others I have written that all things are absolute and necessary; but at the same time (and very often at other times) I added that we must look upon the revealed God" (StL 2, 184-185;  AE 5, 50; Bente 224)

Dr. Kolb says:

• "…the reformer’s own 'correction' of his position [in De Servo Arbitrio] in his comments on Genesis 26 some fifteen years later." (Bound Choice, p. 9), 
• Luther "offered codicils to what he had be­queathed to his followers in De servo arbitrio." (p. 26)
• Luther ''cautioned against possible misinterpretations of De servo arbitrio" (p. 271)

But Dr. Luther says:

"He (Erasmus) endeavors to defend his book On Free Will, against which I wrote my book On the Enslaved Will, which as yet he has not refuted, and will never in eternity be able to refute. This I know for certain, and I defy and challenge the devil together with all his minions to refute it." (Table Talk StL 22, 1081, Bente 225)

And the Formula of Concord says:

"Even so Dr. Luther wrote of this matter also in his book De Servo Arbitrio, i. e., Of the Captive Will of Man, in opposition to Erasmus, and elucidated and supported this position well and thoroughly, and afterward he repeated and explained it in his glorious exposition of the book of Genesis, especially of Gen. 26. [See StL 2, 174-177; AE 5, 42 ff.] There likewise his meaning and understanding of some other peculiar disputations introduced incidentally by Erasmus, as of absolute necessity, etc., have been secured by him in the best and most careful way against all misunderstanding and perversion; to which we also hereby appeal and refer others." SD 2, 44 (On Free Will)

The Formula speaks of Luther's De Servo Arbitrio in nothing but laudatory terms. And while Dr. Kolb asserts that Luther himself portrayed the elucidation in his Genesis Commentary as a "correction", the Formula says the opposite. The Formula of Concord is an integral part of the Lutheran Book of Concord and yet Dr. Kolb openly contradicts it. To assert that Luther's Genesis Commentary "corrects" his De Servo Arbitrio is unconfessional and is fiction. So how can he claim to be a "confessional" Lutheran? How can he claim "much greater precision" in his histories? (Kolb even goes so far as to say (Bound Choice, 28) "…the two were sometimes arguing past each other", essentially charging Luther with "arguing past" Erasmus!)

      By all appearances, Dr. Kolb is a follower of Germany's theologians at the time of the 1948-1949 Bad Boll conferences where it was reported by Prof. F. E. Mayer that

“Dr. [Werner] Elert maintained furthermore that the recent Luther studies…have shown that the Lutheran Confessions show a deviation from Luther. German Lutheran scholars therefore are interested more in the study of Luther than of the Confessions.” (The Story of Bad Boll, p. 16)

Reading the works of Dr. Robert Kolb, like those of Werner Elert, is an exercise in trying to follow circumlocutory, philosophical, nebulous language, where one ends up being confused on Christian doctrine, and even questioning one's faith. Kolb thought so highly of his Bound Choice book that he used it as an authority for his other historical writings. Shame on him for criticizing Nikolas von Amsdorf for standing with Luther on this very same doctrine against Free Will (Amsdorf, p. 164).

>>>   Back To Luther, not Kolb.   <<<

Missing CTM motto: preaching is paramount, but not in newer editions of Book of Concord

[2023-08-15: note added in red at bottom.]

      The newer editions of the Lutheran Book of Concord have been shown to be deficient elsewhere.  But another example of this has been pointed out to me recently.  The very first issue of the periodical Concordia Theological Monthly (or CTM) in 1930 contained a 3-part motto, one of which was in the German language.  Below is the image of the Contents page of Volume 1, No. 1 with the German motto highlighted: 

     The highlighted German text on the right comes from the Apology to the Augsburg Confession, Article 24 (Of the Mass), paragraph 50.  However this text was only in the German version, not in the Latin version. But there it is, as one of the mottos chosen to appear every month on the title/contents page. — The German text is "Es ist kein Ding, das die Leute mehr bei der Kirche hehaelt, denn die gute Predigt."  In the English of the Triglotta it reads: 

"There is nothing that so attaches people to the church as good preaching." 

In McCain's edition, it reads (p. 228):

"There is nothing that keeps people at church more than good preaching." 

So we see a real benefit of Bente's Triglotta is that it merges the German with the Latin, giving a more complete version. The sad thing is that both the Tappert and Kolb/Wengert editions which replaced the Triglotta, because they do not follow Bente's lead, leave out important parts of the German edition. And while McCain's edition follows the Triglotta, even it did not include the full quote from the German which reads:

"There is nothing that so attaches people to the church as good preaching. But our adversaries preach their people out of the churches; for they teach nothing of the necessary parts of Christian doctrine; they narrate the legends of saints and other fables." 

Why McCain's edition left out the remaining highlighted portion is a mystery.  — This a problem within the LC-MS, where certain factions want to place the Lord's Supper as the chief part of the worship service, demoting the importance of the preached sermon.  These are the Romanizing followers of the German theologian Wilhelm Loehe.

      So while the Old Missouri Synod was being transformed into a different church body in 1930, later called the "LC-MS" in 1947, yet even then it was recognized that proper preaching was of paramount importance. This is confessed in the Lutheran Confessions, even if it is not in their current Kolb/Wengert edition of the Book of Concord.

[2023-08-15: It may be noted that Dr. Jack Kilcrease still makes reference to Bente's Triglotta, not to Kolb/Wengert's Book of Concord - see his 2020 CTQ essay "The Challenge of Karl Barth’s Doctrine of the Word of God", p. 67 ff.]

Pieper's Dogmatic, v. 2: new English translation (another BTL book); Rev. Boisclair's translation

     Dr. Franz Pieper's 3-volume classic Christliche Dogmatik in German, or Christian Dogmatics in English, was published about a century ago (1917) in the original German language.  Thirty years later faithful professors had it translated into English and this was used in LCMS seminaries for a few decades.  Today, I do not know if it is used, since it has been replaced by Dr. Samuel Nafzger's compilation of essays (Confessing the Gospel, 2 vols., CPH 2017) prepared by a number of LC-MS theologians, several of whom were no longer living at the time of publication.  But Pieper's masterful work is surely not dead because it continues to represent the pinnacle of truly orthodox (Biblical, confessional) Lutheran teaching. — With the advent of the English translations of Lehre und Wehre, Der Lutheraner, and many convention essays, these now have several references to Pieper's German language work that are in need of an immediate online English source.  And so, a new translation was needed that retains the original pagination, a feature missing in the later CPH translations from 1950 to 1953. 

Benefits 

• It is free.
• Unlike the CPH version, this translation retains the emphasis of certain words and phrases, and Pieper made frequent use of this, perhaps even more so than Walther. The emphasis in the German printing was by "sperrdruck" or spaced lettering, while this translation uses underlining.
• All references to Luther's works are hyperlinked to the exact page of the new English machine translations of the St. Louis Edition (St. L.) on the Internet Archive.  Those that want the CPH American Edition will have to go to Steve Born's cross-reference web page or CPH's own listings and the Aland cross reference. The St. Louis Edition is still the most complete edition.
• Most references to external works of German and American theologians have been hyperlinked to the page number of the original work. These works are past their copyright and so are immediately available in HathiTrust, Google Books, or the Internet Archive. Exceptions to this were the more difficult ones to locate — the older theologians, Quenstedt, Calov, Walch, Damascenus, etc. On very rare occasions, corrections were made. (Every attempt was made to locate the proper edition of the works of certain German theologians, but Pieper did not always specify this.)
• Although all Latin and Greek text is retained, not all of these are translated. In the case of longer Latin passages, I provided a link to immediately translate them in Google's Latin/Greek translator. Old Missouri Synod pastors had a good working knowledge of Latin and the Biblical languages.
• Of course, all text is included and there is no paraphrasing or amending of Pieper's work, unlike the 1950s CPH version. This is useful for those who own the CPH copy to compare with the original to see where there are slight differences or omissions.  I have tried to identify the major omissions with green highlighting. (See note at bottom.)
• All quotes from the Lutheran Confessions are taken from the Triglotta of 1921, to the exact page. Sometimes links were provided to the old archived BookOfConcord.org [last date of old version]. Pieper quotes from the German edition, while I have mostly used the English translation.  In a few cases I presented a translation from the original German.
• All references to articles in Lehre und Wehre link to the new English machine translations. This allows an immediate English voice for not only Pieper, but also Walther and others. For example, page 590 references Walther's article against the synergism of his time.
• Navigational hyperlinks (^) enable the user to jump to section headings or to the Table of Contents. Each page header contains a link (>) to the original page in Internet Archive or Google Books for ease of comparison. Links were also provided about every 10 pages to the 1951 CPH English edition available for 1-hour renewable borrowing periods from the Internet Archive.  Many of the Table of Contents items were also linked to the 1951 edition.

1951 CPH translation comparison:

• Not all material from the original German was retained, although most is.  The translators in many cases paraphrased Pieper's wording, in a few cases adding or subtracting small amounts of content. Of course, the work of Profs. Albrecht, Engelder and Mueller is still authoritative.
• Proper English translations of extended Latin and Greek texts are provided in most cases instead of the original language. My links to "Google Translate" will not be as authoritative as their translations, although Google Translate's Latin translations seem surprisingly good.

Notes:

• Capitalization: Some words were left uncapitalized because of the work involved, e.g. "gospel", "word", "law", "scripture", "his", "he", "person", "apostle", etc.
• Text: The DeepL "Translate files" app would sometimes not carry forward the exact Latin and Greek text from the original file, sometimes dropping words, sometimes duplicating them. I attempted to correct this but surely some errors remain.  The original publication on Internet Archive/Google Books, and the original German text file, should be consulted to verify the exact Latin and Greek text. For immediate comparison, each page has a link to the original published page.

Two months in the making, one may now access this new English translation

• in PDF form on the Internet Archive >> HERE <<, or HERE for latest update 2023-08-05,
• or in a DOCX (zipped) file >> HERE << (most up-to-date version, 2023-08-05).

How does it compare to the original German publication?  Take a look at page 17: 

Christliche Dogmatik II, 17 (DE)            ———————                             Christliche Dogmatik II, 17 (EN) 

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Rev. Boisclair's translation

      As mentioned previously, the CPH editions of the 1950s omitted certain portions from the German original.  One of the major omissions in this volume was the severe abridgement of the "Crypto-Kenotic Controversy" concerning Christology.  Although this omission is restored in the above translation, I have been allowed to present a professional translation of this section, pp. 337-358, by Rev. David R. Boisclair.   His capabilities in this translation work gives greater utility to this overlooked, somewhat difficult portion. Why Concordia Publishing House and translators Drs. Engelder and/or Mueller chose to omit this section is not known. Pieper stated in his Foreword, that "Lutheran Church of America lives in a Reformed environment" and so a full treatment of Biblical Christology is surely important for Lutherans. Thanks to Rev. Boisclair for his work on this. The 14-page PDF file may be downloaded  >> HERE <<.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

      It is hoped that this work will also be completed for volumes 1 and 3 in the future.  The work is extensive. — It is to be regretted that I could not produce a more professional translation.  But even with its substantial drawbacks, it still amazes me how useful it actually is. — This work of Pieper, of "The Twentieth Century Luther", remains to this day the greatest published Dogmatics. May this new translation aid many in their use of it.  Soli Deo Gloria! 

2023-12-07: Volume 1 and Volume 3 are now available

2023=>5993: year of the world, Luther’s reckoning; 5-page summary table of Bible chronology

[2023-08-16: added noted in red at below]

      Over 10 years ago I blogged about Luther's reckoning of Biblical chronology.  I also provided a downloadable copy of an English translation of Luther's work done many years ago by Pastor Kenneth K. Miller. According to a report by the editor of Christian News, there was a conference held in Denver, Colorado recently of LC-MS pastors and theologians concerning the age of the Earth and the Bible's record.  Ostensibly they were attempting to uphold the Genesis account in the face of "scientific" evidence and modern theology to the contrary.  Mention was made of Luther's work and this English translation — I don't know if this was obtained from my blog or not.  It was refreshing to read that Dr. Joel Heck and others "took exception" to LC-MS theologian Dr. Andrew Steinmann's theory of gaps in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies.

       To confirm how firmly the Old Missouri Synod held to Luther's teachings, in 1870 they published a Bible history book for the upper youth classes. (I hope to blog further about the whole book.) Walther wrote a glowing book review in Der Lutheraner of the same year, and included mention of "a chronological table of the Biblical histories according to Luther's calculations". This was a 5-page abbreviated table that succinctly summarized Luther's work (StL 14, 484-802) making it ideal for young students to learn the basics of this topic. Walther concluded the book review as follows: "We have no doubt the beautiful book will soon become a favorite in our schools."  Since the Bible has not changed through the millennia, this chronology is as modern as any produced since Luther's day, and would be most suitable for teaching at home or for "upper youth classes"… today.

      Using Luther's dating, I came up with the reckoning for this year, the year of our Lord 2023 AD, as the year of the world… 5993. Luther stated of his chronology "I base mine solely on the Bible", something that is lacking in many, if not most, of the teachers in today's LC-MS.

Below is a scrollable embedded window containing the full 5-page table:

[2023-08-16: It has been pointed out that Luther used his own reckoning in his commentary on Isaiah  9:2, where he states (St. L. 6, p. 112): "The sun has now already shone 5545 years [in 1543] but has not brought man to eternal life."]

The above table may be viewed in full below when one clicks on the "Read more" link below: