Guys like Joe Thorn have said this edition is slimline, easy to read and represents the essence of Calvin.
Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1541
Other reasons to use different translations...
On 'Which Translation?'
from Amazon.com
John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is a classic. And the two most frequently suggested English translations seem to be the older Henry Beveridge translation and the newer John McNeill and Ford Lewis Battles translation. But it's hard for a layperson like me to know which English translation is "best." So for what it's worth, if anything, I thought the following quotations from Christian scholars might be helpful to some people:
1. Here's what Reformed Christian scholar and theological philosopher Paul Helm (who himself has studied and contributed several works on John Calvin) says:
"Incidentally, if you have the need of a translation of the Institutes, then the reissue of the Beveridge translation (newly published by Hendrickson) may be just the thing. It has new indexes, and has been 'gently edited', which means, I hope, only the removal of typos and other detritus. (I have not yet had the chance to check). Beveridge is superior to Battles in sticking closer to the original Latin, and having less intrusive editorial paraphernalia."
2. Here's another Calvin scholar, Richard A. Muller, on the two translations (from the preface of The Unaccommodated Calvin):
"I have also consulted the older translations of the Institutes, namely those of Norton, Allen and Beveridge, in view of both the accuracy of those translation and the relationship in which they stand to the older or 'precritical' text tradition of Calvin's original. Both in its apparatus and in its editorial approach to the text, the McNeill-Battles translation suffers from the mentality of the text-critic who hides the original ambience of the text even as he attempts to reveal all its secrets to the modern reader."
3. The following is from J.I. Packer in the foreword to A Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes:
"No English translation fully matches Calvin's Latin; that of the Elizabethan, Thomas Norton, perhaps gets closest; Beveridge gives us Calvin's feistiness but not always his precision; Battles gives us the precision but not always the punchiness, and fleetness of foot; Allen is smooth and clear, but low-key."
4. Finally, the following is from David Calhoun:
"Let me just say a few words about English translations. The first was Thomas Norton back in the sixteenth century. Calvin was very fortunate with his first English translator. Norton did an exceptionally good job. Very soon after the completion of the Institutes in 1559, which was written in Latin, it was translated by Calvin into French and then quite soon into English. John Allen was the second translator. John Allen and Henry Beveridge were both nineteenth-century translators. The Beveridge translation is still in print. It was until fairly recently anyway. Those are not bad but not very good either. Ford Lewis Battles' 1960 translation is the one that we are using. Even though it has been criticized some, it is by far the most superior translation that we have at present."[
end quote]
from Amazon.com
Unfortunately this translation of Calvin's 'Institutes' is often overlooked due to the more popular translation from Battles. However, this is an excellent translation of Calvin's most famous work and given its age (first published in 1845), it is surprisingly modern - due in part to this very edition which has been 'tweaked' into a more modern verbiage.
This 'tweaking' in no way has diminished, however, the wonderful job Beverage did in translating this work. From what I have been told by several Latin scholars and theologians, and having studied Latin myself, Calvin's Latin is not a walk in the park. That being the case, once you read this translation, you can see why Beverage did such a great job.
The one feature I like best about this translation is the fact that it is well footnoted for the researcher and reader. Therefore, this translation is well documented for further research into Calvin's thought. This also helps to clear up difficulties of translation (remember Calvin's Latin is very tough). At certain points in Calvin's work, his thought via a solid translation gets confusing for scholars, this edition has footnotes detailing these difficulties, and that makes for a better read.
Now, about Calvin's 'Institutes' This work is Calvin's Opus and gives the reader the best information regarding Calvin's thoughts on the Church and Church Government, Calvin's hermeneutic, Calvin's theology of God, Calvin's epistemology, Calvin's Soteriology, the benefits of the grace of Christ, his views on the Papacy (of his day), the Roman Catholic Church, the current state of Christendom, and much more. The interesting thing about this work (the Institutes), it is not Calvin's definitive work on the theology of predestination. Calvin actually wrote several other works which deal only with that subject and present a far better assessment of his theology behind predestination (see Calvin's treatise titled "Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God," and Calvin's response to Pighius titled "The Bondage and Liberation of the Will.")
But, for the best overview of Calvin's thought on the Church and theology, the Institutes is the work to read. Beverage's translation is a great work. It is introduced by the reformed theologian John Murray, it has a general index in the back of the work, and reads very much in modern verbiage. I highly recommend this edition. [
end quote]
from Amazon.com
The recent reissue of Beveridge's 19th century translation of Calvin's Institutes is a very nice complement to the more comprehensive scholarly edition by McNeil (translated by Battles). If you are trying to decide between the Battles and the Beveridge translation here are a few things to consider.
1. The Battles has extensive editing, which includes a thorough cross-referencing of the pertinent quotations that Calvin refers to, as well as the pertinent Biblical texts and intertextual references. McNeil is a quality editor, but as with any editing, the view of the editor is never without a measure of bias. If you are looking to get a fresh interpretation of Calvin, you try reading the Beveridge first, or skip over the footnotes in the Battles.
2. The Beveridge provides alternative readings based upon the French edition of the Institutes. I've found this aspect to be quite interesting. Calvin's style in French tends to be a bit more expansive and colorful than his Latin.
3. The Beveridge has the benefit of being a one-volume hardback, as opposed to the two-volume hardback of the Battles. The one-volume has a bit more heft to carry around, but you always have the complete work with you if you are out and about.
4. The subject headings are different in the two editions. The Beveridge provides a full sentence overview outline at the beginning of each chapter division, whereas the Battles provides subheadings for each minor section. There are pros and cons to each approach, of course.
Whatever edition you decide to get, you will not be disappointed. Calvin's Institutes is a masterpiece of Western literature, and one of the most important works of the Christian Church of all time.[
end quote]
Calvin’s Institutes: A Comparison Between the 1536 and 1559 Editions
Beveridge or Battles?
Beveridge vs. Battles
I prefer the older edition, the single volume published by Hendrickson.
Yours in the Lord,
jm
