"::::::: Some things which are still concerns:  
 ::::::: Why are we asserting Luther's position was ""troublesome""? It's troublesome only to those who want to idealize Luther. Similarly, the ""struggle"" to understand this position is only a ""struggle"" for those who don't want to acknowledge it as a natural consequence of religious intolerance. 
 ::::::: Why are we enshrining Oberman? The quotation isn't particularly explanatory, and it certainly doesn't belong unopposed at the beginning, as if the view that the distinction between antisemitism and ""anti-Judaism"" were universally thought of as meaningful.  
 ::::::: We now start with several paragraphs trying to persuade the reader that what Luther said was worse than what he meant. Move those down towards the end and you've improved the article immensely.  
 ::::::: The whole section on the 16th century is wrongheaded. There's nothing about the 16th century that required religious intolerance (or verbal coarseness for that matter). And the paragraph equates heresy and Judaism, which Christians, in general, don't.  
 ::::::: Perhaps something more like: Martin Luther's relationship with Jews and Judaism was troubled. He thought himself kind and generous in his effort to convert them to Christianity, but when his proselytizing attempts failed, he became embittered and recommended harsh persecution of the Jews. Scholars, especially those who otherwise admire Luther, have struggled to determine the reasons for Luther's inconstant attitude towards Jews. According to Heiko Oberman, ""[t]he basis of Luther's anti-Judaism was the conviction that ever since Christ's appearance on earth, the Jews have had no more future as Jews.""[1] -   

 "