Please, I do not consider Karl Adam's work as nonsense. I said clearly that it's a fine presentation of what happened. I made several criticisms, including overreliance on psychologizing the early Luther. Even for the early Luther, psychological considerations are valid and even more so for the later Luther. I just didn't think they carry all (some, not all) the probative force Adam gives to them.
I didn't say his work was nonsense, I said the over psychologizing was nonsense and I didn't want to plow through it.