[1351] L. Diestel. Cp. “Luthers Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 2, where Diestel says: “His knowledge of Hebrew is meagre”; the literal sense is made subservient to the “Christian and theological bias.” H. Hering’s opinion (“Doctor Pomeranus,” Leipzig, 1888) is: In Bugenhagen’s Commentary “the Psalmist’s states of soul are made to represent a picture of the Reformation”; the work is “sensibly clearer and more prosaic” than Luther’s unfinished exposition of the Psalms.
[1352] Reprint of Luther’s Praefatio in “Werke,” Weim. ed., 15, p. 8; “Opp. lat. var.,” 7, p. 502 seq.
[1353] First Wittenberg ed., 1524, at the commencement (Münchener Staatsbibl.).
[1354] p. 2.
[1355] Lauterbach, “Tagebuch,” p. 3, according to which the letter, which has not been preserved, must have been dated January 2, 1538 (illo die).
[1356] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 416, of 1537.
[1357] Ibid., p. 412.
[1358] “Allg. Deutsche Biographie,” Art. “Bugenhagen.”
[1359] Mathesius, “Tischreden,” p. 93 (May, 1540).
[1360] Ibid., p. 381.