Should Adam Luther be disconnected from the Luther family?

Question

Adam Luther is currently listed as the youngest brother of Martin Luther. However, he is supposedly born 27 years after his father died. The only source on the profile is an Ancestry tree.

Comments

There are several children in the family that are questionable.

---

Agreed. I am currently waiting on a book on the Luther family through inter-library loan since nothing well sourced seems to be on the web before I'm going to work on those siblings.

Answer 1

First I would do more research on the Luther family.  Check the Date Of Birth (DOB) of Adam. That means also check the Date of Death (DOD) of Martin Luther. I would also see if maybe his wife could have remarried after his death, if she was still alive and within child bearing years.. It is also a possibility that he was not his brother but a different relative.  If you cannot find any more I would make a note describing the n problem. It may eventually arise in the Error Report or someone else probably  knows more than I do about this situation.

Answer 2

The alleged mother was also dead when he was born (I'm sure that you have seen this, Helmut).

Actually, Adam's dates are more in the range of the dates of Martin Luther's grandchildren - not the range of his siblings and not his children, nieces and nephews.

I guess he should be disconnected. Or just ignore him for the time being, in spite of the blatant error and lack of sources. There must surely be reliable research somewhere about the descendants of Hans Luder, so that he could be placed in his proper spot - or revealed as an invention.

Comments

Unfortunately everything I can find is behind a paywall or only in print which I have to wait to get through interlibrary loan.

---

Yes, I was thinking of stuff in print - sturdy oldtime research.

You would do WikiTree a service if you got hold of something reliable and did a bit of cleanup on the Luther profiles.

Not that you are in any way obliged to do it, of course. I just would have liked to see some sources for those "interviews" with Martin's parents.

---

I'm waiting to get a copy of Richter, D. F., Nobbe, K. F. A., Sartorius, O., Clasen, M., Schmidt, L., & Lutheriden-Vereinigung, e. V. (1960). Das neue Luther-Nachkommenbuch 1525-1960. Limburg a.d. Lahn: Starke via interlibrary loan. Also, there is an article Zu den Geschwistern des Reformators Dr. Martin Luther und deren Nachkommen in: Genealogie 2015 S. 503 - 524 of which I'm still trying to find a copy.

Answer 3

I think someone confused this Adam Luther (b. 1557) with a cousin of Martin Luther. I have a recently edited book about the direct  descendants of Martin Luther (came out because of 500 years of hammering the 95 theses on the church door) and there one Adam Luther is mentioned as the son of the younger brother of Hans Luder (Martin's father), who was - surprise surprise - also named Hans Luder with the addition of "the younger". That Adam Luther was born in 1502.

I can't answer anything more about the 1557 Adam. He might be a (grand)nephew of Martin, but the books about the descendants of Martin's siblings weren't yet edited. This might happen in 2018/19.

Comments

Could you give me the title of the book? I notice you are pretty new here (welcome!) and so most likely not yet pre-1500 certified which you would need to edit Hans Luder's family here. I'd like to give these profiles at least a semblance of respectability.

---

It's "Die Nachkommen des Reformators Martin Luther", edited by the Lutheriden-Vereinigung as book-on-demand. They don't allow to quote the book as source, but at google books there is an earlier edition of that book called: "Stammbaum der Familie des D. Martin Luther zur dritten Secularfeier seines Todes". This book was reedited in an extended version in 1856. Because that book is available on google books, the Lutheriden-Vereinigung can't say anything about copyright etc.

---

There is a possible work-around: If this book cites sources these can be used, and if it does not that would seriously put the value of the book in question. As a general rule facts cannot be copyrighted, only the creative aspect of their representation.

---

well, my workaround is the old book. It is also edited by Lutherides, so the tree should be reliable. As I said before it is available on google books, so completely free. And because google books makes only books available that ran out of copyright restrictions we can use that book as source.