Olevianus and the Authorship of the Heidelberg Catechism: Another Look

Author(s): Lyle D. Bierma

Source: The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Winter, 1982), pp. 17-27
Published by: Sixteenth Century Journal
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2540007
Accessed: 10-08-2017 17:17 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Sixteenth Century Journal is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Sixteenth Century Journal

This content downloaded from 209.165.224.81 on Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:17:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Sixteenth Century Journal
XIII, No. 4 (1982)

Olevianus and the Authorship of the

Heidelberg Catechism: Another Look

Lyle D. Bierma
Reformed Bible College

HISTORIANS OF THE CONTINENTAL Reformed tradition have long

maintained that Heidelberg pastor and theologian Caspar Olevianus
(1536-1587) was one of the principal authors of the Heidelberg Cate-
chism (1563). In fact, the historiography of the last 350 years has asso-
ciated Olevianus's name with at least two phases of the preparation of
the Catechism: the writing of the initial rough drafts assigned by Elec-
tor Frederick III, and the final redaction of the first German edition.
During the last twenty years, however, Olevianus's role in the compo-
sition of the Catechism has been seriously challenged and the question
of authorship deferred to further research. It is the purpose of this es-
say to review the history of this debate and then to approach the ques-
tion from a new angle.

A Survey of Past Research

The oldest accounts of the history of the Heidelberg Catechism
connected Olevianus only to the initial stage of the writing. He was
first mentioned as a co-contributor to the Catechism in Heinrich
Alting's Historia Ecclesiae Palatinae, published shortly after Alting's
death in 1644:

In order to introduce into all the churches of the Palatinate a single

and, indeed, identical form of doctrine, in which especially those
heads of doctrine which treat the Person of Christ and the sacra-
ments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, as well as others, would
be clearly and correctly taught; the Elector assigned such a work
in 1562 to two theologians, Olevianus and Dr. Ursinus-both
learned Germans, in order that it might be composed in the Ger-
man language. Each of the two men wrote his own rough draft:
Olevianus, a popular explanation of the covenant of grace; Ursinus
a twofold work-a larger catechism for adults and a smaller cate-
chism for the youth. From these two works the Heidelberg Cate-
chism was composed....1

'My English translation here is based on a German translation of Alting's Latin

text by F. W. Cuno in "Konnen wir Olevianus mit Recht als Mitfasser des Heidelberger
Katechismus neben Ursinus stellen?" Reformierte Kirchen-Zeitung 25 (1902), 213.

This content downloaded from 209.165.224.81 on Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:17:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
18 The Sixteenth Century Journal

Supporters of this early tradition could be found in each of the fol-

lowing centuries. D. L. Wundt argued in the late eighteenth century
that both Olevianus and Ursinus provided materials for the Catechism
but that Olevianus gave the Catechism its "Idee" and Ursinus worked
it out in its final form.2 In the nineteenth century H. E. Vinke went a
step further and identified the popular treatise on the covenant men-
tioned in Alting's report as Olevianus's book Vester Grund.3 F. W.
Cuno, in the early twentieth century, also accepted Alting's account
but assumed that the treatise on the covenant was not Vester Grund
but Der Gnadenbund Gottes.'
In the second half of the nineteenth century this tradition began to
lose some of its appeal and to be replaced by a new consensus of opin-
ion. Some scholars doubted whether Alting's account could be trusted
since this first testimony to Olevianus's participation appeared some
eighty years after the Catechism and sixty years after the deaths of
the alleged authors.5 Gooszen, for one, produced evidence that Olevi-
anus's Vester Grund, the document that many had thought to be the
preparatory treatise on the covenant mentioned by Alting, was in fact
composed after the Catechism.6 Cuno was one of the few who contin-
ued to defend the veracity of Alting's report, but even he joined the
growing number of scholars in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries who were beginning to link Olevianus to the last stage of the
preparation of the Catechism, the final German redaction. Appealing
largely to his personality and to linguistic similarities to his other writ-
ings, Sudhoff, von Kluckhohn, Gooszen, Lauterburg, Cuno, and Lang
all held that Olevianus was responsible for converting the rather heavi-
ly theological language of Ursinus's Latin shorter catechism (Cateche-
sis minor) into the warm, personal, and practical style of the German
Heidelberger.7 In August Lang's words in 1907, "Die deutsche Endre-
daktion mit ihrer volkstumlichen, kernigen, glaubenswarmen Sprache
ist aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach Olevian ... zu verdanken."8
2Grundriss der Pfalzischen Kirchengeschichte (Heidelberg, 1796), p. 47; Magazin
fur die Kirchen- und Gelehrtengeschichte der Pfalz (Heidelberg, 1790), p. 57, cited by
Cuno, "Konnen wir Olevianus," p. 221.
3Libri symbolici Ecclesiae reformatae Nederlandicae (1846), p. 54, cited by M.A.
Gooszen, De Heidelbergsche Catechismus. Textus Receptus met Toelichtende Teksten
(Leiden: Brill, 1890), p. 14, n. 1
4"Konnen wir Olevianus," p. 221.
5Reported ibid., p. 213.
6Heidelbergsche Catechismus, pp. 13-14.
7Karl Sudhoff, C. Olevianus and Z. Ursinus: Leben und ausgewahlte Schriften,
Leben und ausgewahlte Schriften der Vater und Begrunder der reformierten Kirche,
vol. 8 (Elberfeld: Friderichs, 1857), pp. 167f.; August von Kluckhohn, Friedrich der
Fromme (Nordlingen, 1879), p. 131, cited by Cuno, "Konnen wir Olevianus," p. 221;
Heidelbergsche Catechismus, pp. 97, lllf.; M. Lauterburg, Realencyclopadie fur pro-
testantische Theologie und Kirche, 1901 ed., s.v. "Katechismus, Heidelberger;" Cuno,
"Konnen wir Olevianus," p. 221; August Lang, DerHeidelbergerKatechismus und vier
verwandte Katechismen (Leipzig: Deichert, 1907), pp. LXXXVIIff.
8Lang, Der Heidelberger, p. LXXXVII.

This content downloaded from 209.165.224.81 on Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:17:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Olevianus and the Heidelberg Catechism 19

This hypothesis persisted well into the twentieth century9 until

subjected to a rigorous critique by Walter Hollweg in 1963.10 Hollweg
began by pointing out the lack of contemporary sixteenth century wit-
nesses to Olevianus's part in the Catechism and joined with Gooszen
in seriously doubting the reliability of Alting's account in 1644.11 But
he also went on to challenge the prevailing opinion that Olevianus pos-
sessed the personal qualities and skills to write the Catechism and that
the language of the Catechism often echoes that of his other writings.
Hollweg's critique of this thesis can be summarized in five main points:
First of all, he questioned Olevianus's catechetical gifts, arguing
that a letter in 1563 from Ursinus to Crato that is often cited as testi-
mony to Olevianus's abilities as a catechete is usually mistranslated
and, in fact, says nothing at all about such talents.12
Second, Hollweg attacked the image of Olevianus as a popular and
pious preacher. Citing several of Olevianus's contemporaries, he con-
tended that Olevianus had a reputation for being obstinate (a "Starr-
kopf') and vengeful and that on at least one occasion he had abused
his pulpit to settle a personal score. Could a person with such a charac-
ter, he asks, ever have written a document like the Heidelberg Cate-
chism, recognized the world over for its warm and pious tone?'3
Third, Hollweg maintained that no one has really documented the
claim that there are similarities of vocabulary and style between the
Catechism and Olevianus's other writings. Even if such affinities can
be shown, the lines of influence must run from the Catechism to these
other writings, not vice-versa, since no part of Olevianus's extant theo-
logical corpus was published before the Catechism.14
Fourth, Hollweg questioned whether Olevianus had the literary-
poetic gifts to compose such a masterpiece. He referred to a letter from
Olevianus to Calvin in April 1563, in which Olevianus describes Ur-
sinus as one "qui me facultate linguae superat" ("who surpasses me in
his linguistic abilities"). Since Olevianus was fully as fluent in Ger-
man, French, and Latin as his colleague, he must have meant by this
phrase, "[one] who surpasses me in the ability to give certain ideas
their proper shape and form," thereby expressing reservations about
his own literary talents. 15
9See, e.g., Graffmann's article on the Heidelberg Catechism in 1959 in the 3. edition
of Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart.
10"Bearbeitete Caspar Olevianus den deutschen Text zum Heidelberger Katechis-
mus?" in Neue Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des HeidelbergerKatechismus, by Wal-
ter Hollweg, Beitrage zur Geschichte und Lehre der Reformierten Kirche, vol. 13
(Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1961), pp. 124-152. See also Hollweg's supplemen-
tary essay, "Zur Quellenfrage des Heidelberger Katechismus" in the second volume of
Neue Untersuchungen (1968), pp. 38-47.
"Ibid., pp. 135-136.
'2Ibid., pp. 136-138.
3Ibid., pp. 138-141.
4Ibid., pp. 141-142.
"Ibid., pp. 142, 144.

This content downloaded from 209.165.224.81 on Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:17:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
20 The Sixteenth Century Journal

Finally, Hollweg pointed out that as late as 1570 Olevianus still

had objections to the wording of Question/Answer 36 of the Cate-
chism, which he apparently felt too narrowly confined the work of
Christ to His conception and birth and overlooked the significance of
the cross. If Olevianus had been responsible for the German redaction
of the Catechism, it would have been a simple matter to change or
clarify this answer to his satisfaction.'6 The fact of the matter, Holl-
weg concluded, is that the redactor was not Olevianus. Who it was, we
simply cannot determine on the basis of the evidence uncovered to
date.'7

Evaluation
In evaluating these past proposals, we would submit, first of all,
that modern historians have too quickly dismissed the 1644 Alting ac-
count as erroneous. As Cuno has reminded us, Alting's father Menso
was in Heidelberg as far back as 1565, just two years after the Cate-
chism was published, and while studying with the Reformed theological
faculty there, he formed a friendship with Caspar Olevianus. Heinrich
Alting himself studied at the Herborn Academy (founded by Olevi-
anus in 1584) under Johannes Piscator, who was married to Olevianus's
niece and succeeded him as head of the academy. Alting also spent sev-
eral years prior to the Thirty Years War in administrative and teach-
ing posts in Heidelberg, with easy access to the Palatine archives and
ecclesiastical protocols. Finally, surviving records give us a picture of
Alting as one whose character was beyond reproach. Cuno's conclud-
ing question is pertinent: Would an historian with such good sources
and such impeccable personal credentials have passed along unsub-
stantiated information or ungrounded options as historical facts?'8
It is interesting to note that none of the historians who have chal-
lenged Alting's reliability has turned up hard evidence to disprove his
account. Hendrikus Berkhof has argued that Ursinus composed his
Larger Catechism (Summa Theologiae) as a textbook for theological in-
struction in the pastor's training school in Heidelberg and not, as
Alting claimed, as a preliminary draft for the Heidelberg Catechism.'9
This, if true, is at most a minor inconsistency. It should be remem-
bered that Alting looked upon the two catechisms by Ursinus as parts

'6Ibid., pp. 146-151.

"lIbid., p. 152. Hollweg's comment in "Zur Quellenfrage," p. 42, n. 8 is most puz-
zling: "Ubrigens hat bereits vor langen Jahren Fr. W. Cuno Bedenken gegen die ent-
scheidende Mitarbeit Olevians am Katechismus geaussert. Vgl. seine Arbeit: 'Konnen
wir Olevianus . . .'." Cuno staunchly defends Olevianus's co-authorship in this article!
One also wonders what Hollweg means on p. 41 of this essay when he refers to Olevia-
nus as one "der auch eifrig an der Herausgabe des Catechismus arbeitete."
18Cuno, "Konnen wir Olevianus," p. 213.
"9Bard Thompson, et. al., Essays on the Heidelberg Catechism (Philadelphia:
United Church Press, 1963), p. 79.

This content downloaded from 209.165.224.81 on Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:17:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Olevianus and the Heidelberg Catechism 21

of a single literary project, and the commissioning of the Heidelberger

in 1562 could well have predated the completion of this project in the
Catechesis minor.
Others have claimed that Alting must have been mistaken in his
reference to a preparatory treatise by Olevianus on the covenant of
grace. No such treatise has ever been found, and none of Olevianus's
surviving writings fits the description. Vester Grund, long regarded as
Alting's referent, was not written until after the publication of the
Catechism, as Gooszen pointed out nearly a century ago. Another pos-
sibility, De substantia foederis, was very likely based on lectures Ole-
vianus delivered at the new Herborn Academy (1584 ff.) and, in any
case, was not published until 1585. Der Gnadenbund Gottes (1590),
Cuno's suggestion, and one of its component works, the Bauernkate-
chismus (no date), must also be eliminated from consideration. The
former is merely a posthumous collection of some of Olevianus's earli-
er writings ( Vester Grund, the Bauernkatechismus, and some sermons
and treatises on the sacraments), and the latter, which only mentions
the covenant in passing, was probably not published before 1576.20
What is sometimes overlooked, however, is the simple fact that Alting
himself does not name the document in question. Because no such
document has been found or because other persons have incorrectly
identified, it does not necessarily mean that "Olevianus did not make
any draft at all."2' Alting's access to reliable sources as well as his cre-
dentials and reputation as a church historian demand at least that the
question be left open.
The more recent hypothesis proposed by Gooszen, et. al., is also
problematic, but it is not as vulnerable to criticism as Hollweg would
have us think. The dearth of sixteenth century witnesses to Olevia-
nus's work on the Catechism is puzzling. And Hollweg is certainly on
solid ground when he contends that whatever stylistic similarities
there may be between the Catechism and Olevianus's other works can
better be explained by the influence of the former upon the latter. But
these arguments by themselves are not conclusive, and the rest of his
case, with the exception of the evidence of Olevianus's ongoing displea-
sure with Question 36, is rather weak. Let us examine it more closely.

20Many nineteenth and twentieth century historians have incorrectly identified Der
Gnadenbund Gottes as a German translation of Olevianus's De substantia foederis
(1585). See, e.g., Otto Ritschl, Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus, 4 vols. (Got-
tingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926), 3: 417-418. It is Cuno who reports that the
Bauernkatechismus was published sometime after Olevianus left Heidelberg in late
1576. Aligemeine Deutsche Biographie, s.v. "Olevian, Caspar." The catechism is re-
printed in J. M. Reu, Quellen zur Geschichte des kirchlichen Unterrichts in der evan-
gelischen Kirche Deutschlands zwischen 1530 und 1600, vol. 1.3.2.3. (Gutersloh: Bertels-
mann, 1924), pp. 1307-1313. As far as I can tell, it stands in no textual relation to
Olevianus's other writings or to the Heidelberg Catechism.
2'Berkhof, Essays, p. 79.

This content downloaded from 209.165.224.81 on Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:17:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
22 The Sixteenth Century Journal

First of all, to call into question Olevianus's catechetical abilities

largely by challenging one supposed letter of testimony thereto, is
hardly convincing. Hollweg does go on to say that Olevianus's Bauern-
katechismus gives no indication of any special catechetical ability, but
he provides neither the criteria nor the documentation for this judg-
ment.22 He also overlooks the wide popularity and dissemination
throughout Europe of Olevianus's Vester Grund (c. 1563), an expanded
version of Part II of the Heidelberg Catechism, and of his Expositio
SymboliApostolici (1576), a commentary on the Apostles' Creed based
on his catechetical sermons.23
Hollweg's attack on the traditional picture of Olevianus as a
preacher of great power and piety is even less helpful. First of all, to
call upon an individual's opponents as character witnesses is certainly
not the most direct route to the truth. Hollweg admits this, yet, to
make his point, relies heavily on the testimony of Thomas Erastus,
Olevianus's archfoe during a controversy over church discipline in the
Palatinate. Hollweg is on firmer ground when he notes that even Beza,
a friend of Olevianus, was concerned about the latter's hardheaded-
ness.24 What he does not mention is that Beza also thought so highly of
Olevianus's preaching that he edited three commentaries based on his
friend's sermons: one on Galatians (1578), one on Romans (1579), and
one on Philippians and Colossians (1580). Moreover, even a cursory
reading of Olevianus's theological writings will show that they are suf-
fused with the same kind of warmth and piety as the Heidelberg Cate-
chism. This does not prove, of course, that he wrote the Catechism, but
it does answer Hollweg's question whether such a person could have
written it. Whatever personal shortcomings Olevianus may have ex-
hibited, they were rarely transmitted through his pen.
Hollweg's argument against Olevianus's poetic-literary talents,
finally, is also less than sound. While it is true that Olevianus de-
scribes Ursinus as one "qui me facultate linguae superat," Hollweg
gives little support for translating this clause as "who surpasses me in
the ability to give certain ideas their proper shape and form." A possi-
bility that Hollweg does not reckon with is that Olevianus is simply
being modest here or is paying his colleague a compliment. What Ole-
vianus most likely has in mind, however, is implied in the context of
this letter to Calvin:

22"Bearbeitete Olevianus," p. 138. The Bauernkatechismus is a short exposition of

the Creed, sacraments, Law, and Lord's Prayer, designed, as Olevianus states in the in-
troduction, for "dem gemeynen mann ... sonderlich dem armen Bauernvolck." Reu,
Quellen, p. 1308. That it failed to impress Hollweg may have been due to its intentional
brevity and simple style.
231t is stated on the title page of Expositio that this work was "desumta ex con-
cionibus catecheticis Gasparis Oleviani."
24"Bearbeitete Olevianus," pp. 139-140.

This content downloaded from 209.165.224.81 on Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:17:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Olevianus and the Heidelberg Catechism 23

This market day your catechism is coming out in German, well

translated by Zacharias Ursinus, qui me facultate linguae superat.
Everything is faithfully translated....25

What Olevianus is talking about here is his abilities as a translator,

something about which he on more than one occasion felt ill at ease.26
These doubts about his gifts as a translator in no way reflect on his
gifts as a writer. The thousands of pages of his literary corpus attest to
that. What he was uncomfortable with, apparently, was converting
precise meanings of words and phrases from one language into anoth-
er, not "giving certain ideas their proper shape and form." And since,
as Hollweg himself goes to great lengths to show, the Heidelberg Cate-
chism was not a word-for-word translation of Ursinus's Catechesis
minor but an extensive revision of it, involving major alterations, addi-
tions, and deletions, the possibility that Olevianus had a hand in the
final redaction has not at all been ruled out.

A New Angle
To have pointed out the weaknesses in Hollweg's critique is not, of
course, to have proven the thesis he was attacking. If there is not a lot
of evidence against Olevianus's (co)authorship of the Catechism, it
must be acknowledged that there is not much evidence for it either.
Even if Alting's report can be trusted, it does not indicate Olevianus's
role in the composition of the actual Catechism, only in the writing of
the preparatory documents.
In a recent comparison of the Catechism with two related docu-
ments, however, we discovered something which might be a clue to
Olevianus's part in the writing of the Catechism itself. The two other
documents were Ursinus's Catechesis minor (1562), on which much of
the Heidelberger is based, and Olevianus's Vester Grund, an enlarged
version of Part II of the Catechism on which he was already at work in
late 1563.27 The first thing one notices is that a number of questions
and answers are virtually the same in all three documents. What is
striking about these questions and answers, however, is not just their

25My English translation is based on a German translation of the Latin by Hollweg,

"Bearbeitete Olevianus," p. 142.
26See the letter from Olevianus to Beza quoted in Hollweg, "Zur Quellenfrage," pp.
39-40. It should also be remembered, however, that Olevianus was involved in a Ger-
man translation of Calvin's Genevan Catechism (c. 1559) and Sermons on Job (1587)
and Beza's Confession of Faith (1562). Hollweg's strong case for the influence of this
Bezan confession on the Heidelberger (Neue Untersuchungen, pp. 86-123) provides an-
other possible link between Olevianus and the Catechism.
27In a letter to Bullinger on Oct. 25, 1563, Olevianus wrote: "In addition to my ser-
mons I am working on a larger (diffusiorem) Catechism, which follows the same method
used in the smaller one. In it I have decided to treat clearly the heart of our most impor-
tant doctrines (medullam praecipuorum Dogmatum)." My translation is based on the
Latin text of this letter printed in Sudhoff, Olevianus und Ursinus, p. 485.

This content downloaded from 209.165.224.81 on Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:17:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
24 The Sixteenth Century Journal

similarity but also the pattern of additions and omissions of certain

phrases from one document to the next. Let us look at three examples:

Catechesis minor Heidelberg Catechism Vester Grund

Q. 19 Why do you call Q. 29 Why is the Son Q. Why is the Son of
Him Jesus, that is, of God called Jesus, God called Jesus, that
Savior? that is, Savior? is, Savior?
A. Because I am firm- A. Because He saves A. Because He both
ly persuaded that he us from our sins, and by His merit and also
alone, by His merit because salvation is by His power saves us
and power, is the not to be sought or from all our sins, and
author of perfect and found in anyone else.29 because salvation is
eternal salvation for not to be sought or
me and for all who found in anyone else.30
believe in Him.28

Q. 39 What do you Q. 53 What do you Q. What do you be-

believe concerning the believe concerning the lieve concerning the
Holy Spirit? Holy Spirit? Holy Spirit?
A. That the Holy A. First, that He is A. That He is eternal
Spirit is the third per- eternal God along God along with the
son of the Godhead, with the Father and Father and the Son;
who proceeds from the the Son. Second, that that He not only pre-
Father and the Son, He is also given to serves everything but
coeternal and consub- me, makes me a par- also enlightens, gov-
stantial with both; taker of Christ and all erns, and quickens the
and is sent to me and His benefits through elect to eternal life.
to the hearts of all the a true faith, comforts Next, I believe that
elect, works in us true me, and will remain He is also given to
faith and conversion with me forever.32 me, makes me a par-
unto God, remains taker of Christ and all
with us forever, and His benefits through a
thus makes us partak- true faith, comforts
ers of Christ and all me, and will remain
His benefits.3' with me forever.33

28My translation is based on the Latin text found in Lang, Der Heidelberger, p. 202.
29My translation is based on the German text of the fourth edition of the Catechism
printed ibid., p. 14.
30"Warum wird der Sohn Gottes, Jesus, das ist, Seligmacher genant? Darumb das
er beide, durch sein verdienst und auch noch durch seine krafft uns selig macht von
allen unsern sunden, und das bey keinem andern einige seligkeyt zusuchen oder zufin-
den sey." Caspar Olevianus, Vester Grund, das ist, Die Artickel des alten, waren, un-
gezweiffelten Christlichen Glaubens (Heidelberg: Michel Schirat, 1567), p. 54.
3"Lang, Der Heidelberger, pp. 205-206.
32Ibid., p. 22.
33"Was glaubstu vom heilgen Geist? Das er gleich ewiger Gott mit dem Vatter und
dem Sohn ist welcher nit allein alle ding erhelt, sondern auch die aufferwelten erleuchtet,
regieret und lebendig macht zu dem ewigen leben. Zum andern glaub ich das er auch mir
gegeben sey, mich durch einen waren glauben Christi und aller seiner wolthaten theil-
hafftig mache, mich troste, und bey mir bleiben wirdt in ewigkeyt." Olevianus, Vester
Grund, p. 157.

This content downloaded from 209.165.224.81 on Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:17:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Olevianus and the Heidelberg Catechism 25

Q. 40 What do you Q. 54 What do you Q. What do you be-

believe concerning the believe concerning the lieve when you con-
Holy Catholic Church? Holy Catholic Church? fess, "I believe a Holy
Catholic Church"?
A. That the Son of A. That the Son of A. I believe that the
God, from the begin- God, out of the whole Son of God, out of the
ning of the world has human race, from the whole human race
gathered, and unto the beginning of the world (which is in sin and
end of the world will unto the end, through eternal death) from
continue to gather His Spirit and Word Adam unto the end of
unto Himself, out of in the unity of true the world, gathers
the whole human race, faith, gathers, protects unto Himself a people,
a community elected and preserves for whom He has elected
unto eternal life, joined Himself a community unto eternal life by
together by a true elected unto eternal grace without any
faith through His life; and that I am merit and whom He
Word and Spirit; and and shall forever re- awakens from eternal
that I am and forever main a living member death through faith in
shall remain a living of this community.35 Him, through the
member of His preaching of His Word
Church.34 and power of His
Spirit....36

What is interesting about the first two examples is that the italicized
phrases in Ursinus's catechism (hereinafter CM) are omitted from the
Heidelberg Catechism (HC), yet reappear in identical (example 1) or
similar (example 2) form in Olevianus's Vester Grund (VG). In the
third example a phrase added to HC is missing in both the prior and
subsequent documents. These are not the only instances which could
be cited. Of the fifty-three questions and answers that form Part II of
HC, there are no fewer than eight clear examples of this pattern: either
a phrase in CM is omitted from HC and reappears in VG, or a phrase in
HC that was not originally in CM is omitted again in VG.
This pattern points, at the very least, to the influence of CM on
VG. The similarities are simply too striking to be coincidental. It may
also, however, provide us with a clue to the mystery of Olevianus's
part in the Catechism. While it is possible that he was simply consult-
ing the text (CM) on which the author of the Catechism (someone else)
had based much of his work, the literary relationship between CM and
both HC and VG suggests that Olevianus may have had something to
do with the Catechism as well. It would be very natural for the author
34Lang, Der Heidelberger, p. 206.
3"Ibid., pp. 22-23.
36"Was glaubstu wenn du bekennest, Ich glaub eine heilige Algemeine Christliche
Kirch? Ich glaub das der Sohn Gottes auss dem gantzen menschlichen geschlecht,
welches in sunden und im ewigen todt ist, von Adam an bis zum ende der Welt, jhm ein
volck, das er zum ewigen leben auss gnaden ohne allen verdienst ausserwelet hatt,
samlet, welches er durch die predigt seines worts und krafft seines Geistes . . . auffer-
wecket von dem ewigen todt durch den glauben an ihn...." Olevianus, Vester Grund, p.
168.

This content downloaded from 209.165.224.81 on Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:17:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
26 The Sixteenth Century Journal

of HC, in enlarging upon his work, to return to the document that had
served as his blueprint for the Catechism and for this second look at
the blueprint to leave its mark on the enlargement.
The influence of CM on VG suggests another possibility. Elector
Frederick III states in the forward to HC that the Catechism had been
composed "with the advice and help of our entire theological faculty
here and all the superintendents and distinguished ministers of the
Church."37 Olevianus himself wrote to Calvin on April 3, 1563, about
"those who have collected the thoughts" in the Catechism.38 And
years later Ursinus would recall in his Apologia Catechismi that a
number of teachers well versed in Christian doctrine had been commis-
sioned to write the Catechism.39 Clearly, as scholars have long recog-
nized, the Heidelberger was the production not of one or two individu-
als, but of a larger group.
That Olevianus was a member of this group seems highly prob-
able.40 He was a personal friend and recruit of Frederick III, a former
professor of dogmatics at the University of Heidelberg, and at the
time the pastor of the city's prominent Church of the Holy Spirit. If
Olevianus did indeed contribute to the Catechism, is it not possible
that when he wrote VG, he had in front of him a first draft of HC (or at
least of Part II), which he had based on CM and a committee in Heidel-
berg had later edited into final form? If so, VG might well reflect some
of the same influences of CM that the editorial committee, or even the
elector himself, had removed from Olevianus's prototype of HC in the
final redaction.
This second hypothesis is particularly attractive because it explains
more than just the similarities between CM and VG and the references

37My translation is based on the German text quoted by Hollweg, "Bearbeitete Ole-
vianus," p. 124.
38"Si catechismus tuo iudicio probabitur, abunde iis erit satisfactum qui cogita-
tiones suas contulerunt." Calvini opera (Corpus Reformatorum), 19: 685.
39Berkhof, Essays, p. 79. Berkhof suggests that Ursinus speaks here as though he
did not belong to that group himself. However, the fact that Ursinus assumed the role
as chief expositer and defender of the Catechism after its publication might indicate
that he was involved in the writing as well. The extent of his participation needs further
investigation, too.
401t is interesting to note that in a letter to Bullinger on April 14, 1563, Olevianus
refers to the Heidelberger as "our Catechism." The Latin text of this letter is found in
Sudhoff, Olevianus and Ursinus, pp. 482f.
41Cf. Berkhof, Essays, p. 80: "Though it is likely that Olevianus was the leading
spirit in the final redaction, we have reason to assume that many others made proposals
and corrections.... It is not less probable that the Elector himself, with his passion for
the religious education of his people, took an active part in the last phase of the phras-
ing." Indeed, the elector did take such an active part, as he himself relates in one of his
letters: "I can prove by my own handwriting that, having received my catechism from
my theologians, and having read it, I corrected it in several places." August von Kluck-
hohn, Die Briefe Kurfarst Friedrichs des Frommen von der Pfalz, 2 vols. (Braun-
schweig: Schwetschke, 1868-1872), I: 726, cited by Bard Thompson, Essays, p. 26, n.
106.

This content downloaded from 209.165.224.81 on Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:17:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 Olevianus and the Heidelberg Catechism 27

in the sources to HC as a group project. It also meets Hollweg's two

legitimate objections against Olevianus's authorship, namely, the ab-
sence of supporting testimony from the sixteenth century and Olevia-
nus's longstanding displeasure with Q. 36. If Olevianus was part of a
team of authors and if decisions about the finished form of the Cate-
chism were not his alone, it is not surprising that his contribution was
not singled out by his contemporaries or that he remained unhappy
with some of the final wording.
Finally, this hypothesis leads one to take a second look at the old
Alting tradition that Olevianus prepared a "rough draft" for the Cate-
chism. As we pointed out earlier, Alting never names this document,
and all subsequent attempts at identifying it have been either in error
or in vain. It is possible that Alting was simply mistaken or misin-
formed. But if he be given the benefit of the doubt-and there is good
reason to believe that he should be-, this mysterious document could
have been the prototype that, according to our hypothesis, served as
the Vorlage for both HC and VG. That Alting refers to this prelimi-
nary draft as an "explanation of the covenant of grace," and that the
covenant is an important theological theme in VG makes this possibili-
ty all the more intriguing. The provisional nature of this redaction
would help to explain, perhaps, why it did not survive in its original
form and thus why Alting could not identify it more precisely.

Conclusion
According to this hypothesis, then, past solutions to the problem
of Olevianus's authorship of the Heidelberg Catechism have all been
partially correct: Olevianus did prepare a rough draft of at least a sec-
tion of the Catechism (Alting, et al.); he did convert at least part of the
Latin text of the Catechesis minor into the German Heidelberger
(Lang, et al.); and he was not the final redactor of the Heidelberg Cate-
chism (Hollweg). The nineteenth and early twentieth century historians
erred in claiming too much for Olevianus (the role of final redactor);
Hollweg erred in claiming too little (few qualifications as a redactor).
Our findings hint at a role for Olevianus which neither Hollweg nor the
historians he was challenging ever considered, a role as an interme-
diate redactor. Both external and internal evidence suggests that Ole-
vianus might have prepared a draft of the German text of the Heidel-
berger (Part II only?), based largely on the Catechesis minor, which he
then submitted to a larger body of theologians and pastors for final
editing. If this hypothesis is correct, it not only answers a puzzling his-
torical question; it also gives us right of access to the rest of Ole-
vianus's theological corpus to assist us in the interpretation of one of
the most popular and influential pieces of Reformation literature.

This content downloaded from 209.165.224.81 on Thu, 10 Aug 2017 17:17:21 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms