[2128] P. 6. See W. Walther, “Luthers Bibelübersetzung kein Plagiat,” p. 2. This writing appeared previously (without illustrations) in the “N. kirchl. Zeitschr.,” 1, p. 359 ff., and has been reproduced since in “Zur Wertung der deutschen Reformation,” 1909, p. 723 f.
[2129] “Über die deutsche Bibel vor Luther,” 1883; cp. Walther, ib., p. 8, as also pp. 2 and 4.
[2130] Ib., p. 1.
[2131] “Luthers deutsche Bibel,” p. 23.
[2132] “Opp. lat. var.,” 6, p. 17. “Werke,” Weim. ed., 12, p. 205 ff.
[2133] “Briefwechsel,” 4, p. 273: “Ego non habeo tantum gratiæ, ut tale, quid possem quale vellem.”
[2134] “Werke,” Erl. ed., 5³, p. 23.
[2135] Ib., 62, p. 311.
[2136] Köstlin-Kawerau, p. 536 ff. We can hardly concur in the opposite conclusions arrived at by F. Spitta, “Ein’ feste Burg ist unser Gott, Die Lieder Luthers,” Göttingen, 1905, owing to the problematical character of his chronology.
[2137] Janssen remarks, he not “infrequently revealed himself as a true poet” (“Hist. of the German People,” Engl. Trans., 11, p. 258), and, that, “in his work of adapting and expanding, he not seldom shows himself a true poet.”