The video LIES about Luther..... outright.... and mixes in a lot of wrong history.
1. He states that Luther wanted to REMOVE Matthew, Mark, Luke, Hebrew, James and Revelation from the Canon. This is pure nonsense, an outright lie. The video speaker evidently does not know that Luther's NT has ALL these books. Yes, he DID remove one book from typical Catholic NT tomes (all in German) but it was the Epistle to the Leodiceans, which the video speaker doesn't know. INCLUDED are Matthew and Mark and Luke and Hebrews and James and Revelation. And there is NOTHING in the introductions to any of the 27 about them being unscriptural or uncanonical. Yes, at one point, he questions some things in James but comes to fully accept it. It is also true that Revelation for over 1500 years (throughout Luther's day) was regarded as Scripture but not canonical (in fact in Luther's day, the EOC did not include any readings from Revelation from the lectionary) but Lutheran lectionaries of the time DID include such readings. His statements about Luther are all FALSE. And he never even mentions that Luther INCLUDED the German Deutero books in his translation.
2. The speaker claims Luther tried to create a "new canon." Actually, the reality is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. Over and over, Catholics and even some Lutherans WANTED Luther to do this, WANTED something official in the Lutheran Confessions about what is and is not a canonical book (much as the RCC , Anglican Church and Calvin would do AFTER Luthers death) but Luther REFUSED, insisting that no person and no single church had any authority to do this, this would require an Ecumenical Council (the last ended around 800 AD), which is why the Lutheran Confessions do NOT have a list of biblical books in them. The video has this exactly backwards. Luther's own translation has one MORE Deutero book in it than the modern Catholic one, and one LESS NT book than the German Catholic books of his time (he did NOT include the Epistle to the Leodiceans), but again REFUSED to state authoritatively or for "The Reformation" what is and is not a canonical book. The speaker has it backwards.
3. The speaker seems to have a crazy, odd idea that Luther invented some "rank" of canonicity/authority. He just made that up. Actually, the idea that not all Christian books are of equal status exists from the earliest of times. And he seems ignorant that the books he is talking about are correctly (and by Catholics, too) called DEUTERO canonical, the word MEANS "secondary" and that MEANS a ranking is implied. He is ignorant that Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian of Carthage, Origen, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius of Alexandria, and many others - they all speak of rankings, they all speak of books seen as highly authoritative (called homiologumena) and those less so (called antilegomenia). They actually LIST them in these categories, as early as 150 AD. A RANKING of books being used. Many of the "antilegomenia" books are now in our NT (Hebrews, 2 Peter, Jude, etc.) and some aren't (Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, etc.) - POINT IS, all these men speak of books widely and strongly accepted and books with weaker acceptance. Eusebius actually puts commonly used/quoted/read books in FOUR categories - at the top, seen as most authorative were the 4 Gospels, Acts, all the Epistles of Paul, 1 John, 2 Peter. In the second, LOWER category, LESS authoritative, were James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Revelation of John (all eventually in out NT), in the third was Acts of Paul, Shepherd of Hermas, Apocaltypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache. In the lowest of books Christians read and used and some accepted were The Gospels of Peter, Thomas & Mattias, Acts of Andrew and several others. POINT - he's stating that books Christians are reading and using are NOT all regarded as the same in terms of authority or canonicity. I might add that in the East, the Revelation of John was largely on a lower level than the other 26 for centuries - it was not permitted to read from it in the Sunday service or use it for teaching (it was used extensively liturgically, however - embraced as useful but UNDER the rest). POINT: For at least 1400 years before Luther, a "ranking" had ALWAYS been accepted. Luther speaks of this - AS EVERYONE DID and HAD - but has NOTHING TO DO with whether he fully accepted them into the Bible (he certainly include all 27 in his translation; he's only "issue" was with that Epistle to the Leodiceans). The guy in the video doesn't know his history. At all. And has things twisted BADLY.
4. He even rebukes Luther for wanting to change the order in which the books appear in a tome. ABSURD!!! There is no authorative order. THERE NEVER WAS. The EOC to this day does not have the books of the Bible in the same order as a Calvinist KJV. Luther didn't "want to change" the order because there was no order - still isn't. This guy makes this stuff up. NEVER had ANY body said "you have to publish the books in this particular sequence of books." YES - in the West - in the past few centuries - there is a tradition but that's all. And it didn't exist in Luther's day. And Luther never said a word about the order in which books must appear in a published tome.
This guy is nuts.
.
