# citing the catechisms



## Caroline (May 25, 2013)

Here is a question that has plagued my writing: 

When citing the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Shorter Catechism, how does one do that succinctly? It seems really cumbersome to say, "As it says in Heidelberg Catechism Question and Answer 2 and Westminster Shorter Catechism Question and Answer 85....."

I always find some way around that, but I'm not always sure I'm right. Can I reasonably say (in an official paper) "HC 2 and WSC 85" and have people know what I mean? Or is there some better way to trim it down a bit so I don't feel like I'm drowning in the citation?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 25, 2013)

At the first citing, you can drop a footnote and give the full bibliographical citation of what edition of a standard and then add "Hereafter" and the abbreviation you will be using. ie. Westminster Confession of Faith (Free Presbyterian Press, 1995), p. 1. Hereafter WCF.


----------



## Caroline (May 25, 2013)

Thanks! And what about naming a specific question and answer? Obviously, we are more often referencing the answer than the question. WSC Question and Answer 2 seems cumbersome. A few times, I have said WSC Question 2, but then really, we are referencing the answer, but WSC Answer 2 looks weird. Someone else looking over my shoulder suggested WSC Q&A 2, but I'm wondering if WSC 2 would simply suffice, or if that is too abrupt.

I feel like I should know this, and that is why it has taken me this long to ask...


----------



## py3ak (May 25, 2013)

I find the standards abbreviations (WSC, WLC, HC) and Q.# in Beeke and Jones' _A Puritan Theology_, even when the reference is clearly to the answer more than the question. If they do it that way, I'd be surprised if many places find it unacceptable. I don't see why one can't just give the number - since the questions are all numbered, if I say WLC 107 it's perfectly clear what I mean.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 26, 2013)

I think it can be assumed most understand when an abbreviated reference is given it is to the answer; the rarer reference to a text of the question can be made clear in the text (ie "as the divines make clear in the xx question of the catechism," etc.). Interestingly, the questions of neither catechism of the Westminster Assembly were originally numbered and not regularly numbered until after the critical editions of the early 18th century. Hence you will find many early editions where folks have numbered them themselves; I'm thinking mostly the shorter; I don't recall seeing an example where the larger was hand numbered. 
For back ground on the traditional form of the Westminster Standards see "Antiquary: The Traditional Form of _The Westminster Standards" _(PDF). _The Confessional Presbyterian_ 1 (2005) 168-175.


py3ak said:


> I find the standards abbreviations (WSC, WLC, HC) and Q.# in Beeke and Jones' _A Puritan Theology_, even when the reference is clearly to the answer more than the question. If they do it that way, I'd be surprised if many places find it unacceptable. I don't see why one can't just give the number - since the questions are all numbered, if I say WLC 107 it's perfectly clear what I mean.


----------



## reaganmarsh (May 26, 2013)

Slightly off-topic to academic citation, but I preached on the providence of God this morning, and in so doing I cited the Heidelberg Catechism. Basically what I did was to say: "Here's a definition Christians have agreed upon for centuries. It comes from a document born out of the Protestant Reformation called the HC. This is Q & A #27." And then read the Q & A and continued the exposition. In our congregation such citation is necessary. In reformed churches perhaps it's not so much.


----------



## Caroline (May 29, 2013)

Thanks! This was very helpful. Chris, suddenly, I have a urge to collect early copies of the catechisms. I don't have the money for that type of thing, of course, but if I did, that must be an awesome thing to own!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 29, 2013)

I've collected mostly post 1700 editions of the full standards and only those I thought necessary for tracing what I call the traditional text. I have not quite ever gotten to the shorter which has even perhaps more and different printings. 17th century editions of either are too rich for me and most of the earliest versions needed for textual research are filmed/digitized. If you have an interest in collecting version of the WSC, consult or get a copy of Carruthers Three Centuries of the Shorter Catechism where he lists all the different versions he could find at that time (1920s?). 


Caroline said:


> Chris, suddenly, I have a urge to collect early copies of the catechisms. I don't have the money for that type of thing, of course, but if I did, that must be an awesome thing to own!
> 
> Caroline


----------

