Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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)
Lyle D. Bierma
Reformed Bible College
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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