Quote
I know that Martin Luther did not agree with this book [the Book of James] and was very bothered by it


While Luther's views on this subject are certainly not above reproach, in his defence I would like to submit the following by John Warwick Montgomery:

Quote
Even in his strongest remarks on the four antilegomena (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation), Luther intersperses positive comments and makes quite plain that the question of how to treat these books must be answered by his readers for themselves. If he can speak of James as an "Epistle of straw," lacking the gospel, he can also say of it-simultaneously: "I praise it and hold it a good book, because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates God's law." Since Luther is not exactly the model of the mediating personality - since he is well known for consistently taking a stand where others (perhaps even angels) would equivocate - we can legitimately conclude that the Reformer only left matters as open questions when he really was not certain as to where the truth lay. Luther's ambivalent approach to the antilegomena is not at all the confident critical posture of today's rationalistic student of the Bible.

Especially indicative of this fact is the considerable reduction in negative tone in the revised Prefaces to the biblical books later in the Reformer's career. Few people realize - and liberal Luther interpreters do not particularly advertise the fact that in all the editions of Luther's Bible translation after 1522 the Reformer dropped the paragraphs at the end of his general Preface to the New Testament which made value judgments among the various biblical books and which included the famous reference to James as an "Epistle of straw." In all the editions after 1522 Luther also softened the critical tone of his Preface to the Epistle itself; in 1522 he had written: James "wants to guard against those who relied on faith without works, and is unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. and rends the Scriptures and thereby resists Paul and all Scripture," but he subsequently dropped all the words after "unequal to the task." He also omitted the following related comment: "One man is no man in worldly things; how then should this single man alone [James] avail against Paul and all the other Scriptures?"


From
Lessons from Luther on the Inerrancy of Holy Writ

I think it more accurate to say, as Douglas Moo does, that although Luther had "difficulties" with this book, "we should be careful not to overemphasize the strength of his critique. He did not exclude James from the canon and quotes the letter rather frequently in his writings."

The Letter of James, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 5.

[Linked Image]