Not at all. Luther was seeing the intent of Paul, and believed that for Germans, in the German language, German idioms were appropriate. The problem is that Germans do not speak Latin.From Luther’s letter:
…I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk"; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.
So in this last paragraph, I believe Luther felt he had justified his use of “only,” by assuming that Paul was using a German type of idiom, or at least that it was Paul’s intent. Of course it is not convincing nor does it justify his inserting of the word ‘alone.’ Especially when we realize how conveniently it supported his novel doctrines.
On the other hand, in the English, the idiom Luther felt necessary in the German is unnecessary. So, in the English, one will not find “alone” in the text of Romans 3:28. I know of no English language Bible that has “alone” in Romans 3:28.
Jon