Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wouldn't Tholuck's Latin edition be the pure text? Ad fontes. For English translations, the 1561 (authorised) version must have some claim on the purists. Nevertheless, I would say Beveridge is best for reliability and Battles for readability and scholarly notes.
Well, Tholuck's is easier to use but I don't know why a 19th century critical text is more ad fontes than an early 20th century criticial text. The OS has line numbers and that's the edn that most scholars cite most frequently for the '59 Latin text.
If one wants to go ad fontes then one wants to use one of the 16th century editions. I'm not sure it's worth the effort, but Muller argues in his 2000 Calvin volume (a must read) that this is the way Calvin scholars should read Calvin. For most of us that means rolling through microfiche or print outs from fiche readers and the like.
rsc
Calvin's Institutes went through 5 editions, including immense expansion. The 1536 edition is the first edition, which is considerably smaller than the final edition of 1559.
Sorry Prof. Clark, I hadn't seen your post when I wrote mine. I was responding to an earlier statement about an English translation being a pure text. Hence my reference to ad fontes. Sorry for any confusion.
Wouldn't Tholuck's Latin edition be the pure text? Ad fontes. For English translations, the 1561 (authorised) version must have some claim on the purists. Nevertheless, I would say Beveridge is best for reliability and Battles for readability and scholarly notes.
Well, Tholuck's is easier to use but I don't know why a 19th century critical text is more ad fontes than an early 20th century criticial text. The OS has line numbers and that's the edn that most scholars cite most frequently for the '59 Latin text.
If one wants to go ad fontes then one wants to use one of the 16th century editions. I'm not sure it's worth the effort, but Muller argues in his 2000 Calvin volume (a must read) that this is the way Calvin scholars should read Calvin. For most of us that means rolling through microfiche or print outs from fiche readers and the like.
rsc
Muller's reply is well worth pondering.
Best Version of Calvin's Institutes
I recommend this!
I will not get my feelings hurt here (BOO-HOO).....I posted a question (but it got drowned by other post) about a newer edition/translation published around 95? maybe earlier no later I do not know Publisher or anything. I just heard it was very good!
Frankly I am not sure, remember I am a recovering Anglican and am just starting to get into all this!), as far as I know, it could be one of the 2 you mention that may have been updated in the time frame I gave....I will not get my feelings hurt here (BOO-HOO).....I posted a question (but it got drowned by other post) about a newer edition/translation published around 95? maybe earlier no later I do not know Publisher or anything. I just heard it was very good!
Are you saying that there was a translation published in 1995 other than the Battles or Beveridge editions?
rsc
That would be - almost - like heaven! Not quite, but almost... Let's hope Herman will go for it!!!I've asked Herman to see if they can produce a Mac version.
rsc
You may also like my blog on Calvin, et al. If you are keen you ought to get the 1536 edition; do not forget Battles' excellent analysis. Best wishes.
Thanks for the link. What do you mean by the 1536 edition? A copy in the original Latin?
Frankly I am not sure, remember I am a recovering Anglican and am just starting to get into all this!), as far as I know, it could be one of the 2 you mention that may have been updated in the time frame I gave....I will not get my feelings hurt here (BOO-HOO).....I posted a question (but it got drowned by other post) about a newer edition/translation published around 95? maybe earlier no later I do not know Publisher or anything. I just heard it was very good!
Are you saying that there was a translation published in 1995 other than the Battles or Beveridge editions?
rsc
Did some digging....the edition I was talking about is NOT a "full" Institutes my bad. So, for my first set of IOCR is the Battle edition pretty easy to read?
UPDATE: I have had a little chance to get into the IOCR Battle Edition, BUT, it is easy to read without being "Cotton Patch Version" and I truly enjoy t, thank you to all who recommended this Edition! By the Bye, David started this Thread and is keeping us in suspense, which edition did you choose Mr. Pell?