“Luther wrote in an early modern form of German.”
Luther chose to write in the Saxon court dialect, the “chancery” language of Meissen which was one of the regional centers of Saxony. Some scholars call it Ostmitteldeutsch - but that term can be problematic. For more information on the language used see Herbert Wolf’s old but excellent book: Martin Luther: Eine Einführung in germanistische Luther-Studien. J.B. Metzlersche -verlagsbuchhandlung und Carl Ernst Poeschel Verlag GmbH in Stuttgart, 1980.
“Acutally, his Bible translation was instrumental in forming the modern German language (as a language that could be understood by people in a large geographical area as opposed to dialects that outsiders have trouble understanding). Luther’s Bible was a great achievement in European culture and language.
Yes, I think we’re all aware of this. And? If you’re interested in a book on how “chancery” language shaped English read this: https://www.amazon.com/Emergence-Standard-English-John-Fisher/dp/0813108527
“The negative side of Luther is that his anti-Jewish rants were something the Nazis could easily dust off and publish for their propaganda/incitements. True, for Luther it was a religious thing while the Nazis believed in a bizarre, racist pseudo-science. But words like “burn down their synagogues” obviously meant exactly that - and worse things.”
Luther’s anti-semitism was also tinged with racism. Hence the quote about from the historian Eric W. Gritsch.
Again what does this have to do with the reformation? Would you care to examine the antisemitic and racist writings of the popes and prominent Catholics at the time? So there were flawed individuals on both sides It does not change the great truths of the reformation
I’m always befuddled by Roman Catholic condemnation of Luther’s anti-Semitic views, when he learned them from whom? The Roman Catholic Church.