Customer comments on this selection.
 A note on the translation
It goes without saying that John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is a classic.
But what of the translation? Which English translation is "best"? As far as I can tell, the two most frequently suggested English translations are the older Henry Beveridge translation and the newer John McNeill-Ford Lewis Battles translation. But does older imply outdated? Or is newer necessarily always better?
I'm not competent enough to decide. For one thing, I don't know Latin or French. For another, I'm not a John Calvin scholar, Reformation historian, or Reformed theologian.
However, here's what Reformed Christian scholar and philosophical theologian 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."
Likewise, 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."
That said, I don't want to give the impression that I'm perfunctorily panning the McNeill-Battles translation with a pair of seemingly well-chosen quotations. Not at all. For instance, it might be helpful for some people to have the critical textual apparatus in the McNeill-Battles translation. Or, of course, it's possible to own and use both translations. Much depends on one's goal in studying Calvin and his Institutes. In any case, it'd be best to conduct some further research, perhaps by contacting Calvin scholars and translators and asking for their opinion on the matter.
Update:
For more balance, I think the following from J.I. Packer in the foreword to A Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes is worth quoting, too:
"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."
It goes without saying that John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion is a classic.
But what of the translation? Which English translation is "best"? As far as I can tell, the two most frequently suggested English translations are the older Henry Beveridge translation and the newer John McNeill-Ford Lewis Battles translation. But does older imply outdated? Or is newer necessarily always better?
I'm not competent enough to decide. For one thing, I don't know Latin or French. For another, I'm not a John Calvin scholar, Reformation historian, or Reformed theologian.
However, here's what Reformed Christian scholar and philosophical theologian 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."
Likewise, 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."
That said, I don't want to give the impression that I'm perfunctorily panning the McNeill-Battles translation with a pair of seemingly well-chosen quotations. Not at all. For instance, it might be helpful for some people to have the critical textual apparatus in the McNeill-Battles translation. Or, of course, it's possible to own and use both translations. Much depends on one's goal in studying Calvin and his Institutes. In any case, it'd be best to conduct some further research, perhaps by contacting Calvin scholars and translators and asking for their opinion on the matter.
Update:
For more balance, I think the following from J.I. Packer in the foreword to A Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes is worth quoting, too:
"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."
Likewise David Calhoun:
"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."
[...]
 Concerned
I don't own this edition. I have the Library of Christian Classics (2 Volume Set) edition of the Institutes. At St. John's College, however, I've encountered many of my fellow students who have purchased this edition because of its price and quality at first glance. I admit that the price is amazing for such a large volume, but the editing is poor. The first printing of this edition has a glaring typo on the binding: the INSTITIUTES of the Christian Religion. Yikes. There are also several grammatical flaws in the translation. If you just want to cheaply plow through Calvin, you're find with this. But if you appreciate fine quality books, go for the Library of Christian Classics one (twice as expensive), or get the paperback edition.
A theological masterpiece
John Calvin died at the age of 54 and what a legacy he left behind- the whole commentary on the Bible, many theological disputations, confessions and catechisms. He was perhaps the finest expositor of the Bible who ever lived and The Institutes are a deep analysis of the Christian life. For those who tire of the fluff found in most contemporary Christian bookstores- I would invite you to buy this edition and read the chapters on election and providence for starters. His chapters on prayer are also remarkable and practical.
"He is moderately difficult but unsurpassable," were the words of the late, Dr. Edwin H. Palmer, of the NIV Bible fame.
Calvin wrote The Institutes for those who wanted to better understand the richness of the Bible and how to live it. It is no dry theological treatise. In a sense it is his own spiritual journey on paper. It is a manual for Christian living. He was a genius and careful scholar. I am glad he was a friend and not a foe. His logic and skills made him a terror to his enemies (wrote Dr. Loraine Boettner).
This book is solidly bound, has nice sized type and is affordable. The language has been updated slightly and it is well worth the price. The Battles's translation is THE set to buy but this book is such a fine price- it is worth getting to start off with.
It is also far and away the finest defense and explanation of the Reformation ever to have been penned and has a warm devotional feel woven all the way through it. Calvin knew the Bible as few ever have and it is a profound book worth serious study.
 Good quality book
I'll let others weigh in on the (sometimes) controversial content of The Institutes, but this review is more about the quality of the book itself.
I am very impressed with the quality of the cover, spine, typeface, and size of this book, especially for the price. This book is almost textbook quality.
My only gripes are with the paper used for the pages and with the translation. The paper is fair quality, and seems to take a highlighter well without bleeding, but I still wish the pages were more textbook-y to match the quality of the cover and spine. The translation is a mid-19th century translation that has been hailed as accurate, but is now a bit stiff and stilted. I fully understand the price would be at least 3x if a translation was used that is not in the public domain, but it is still a negative.
This price vs quality cannot be beat for the full version of the Institutes. The quality of the paper is the only reason I went 4 stars instead of 5. This is a good buy!
|
