# Beveridge vs. Battles



## bookslover (Mar 11, 2011)

I'm thinking of reading through Calvin's _Institutes_ (for the first time!) in Beveridge's translation (using Hendrickson's recent one-volume reprint).

My question: is Beveridge a good, trustworthy translation? How does it stack up against Battles?

Any preferences on the PB?


----------



## interalia (Mar 11, 2011)

Beveridge is the standard loved by many. I personally like the newer work of Battles, but Beveridge is magisterial.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 11, 2011)

interalia said:


> Beveridge is the standard loved by many. I personally like the newer work of Battles, but Beveridge is magisterial.


 
I guess that, in the grand historical sweep of things, Battles's translation is newer - but it's 51 years old now (published in 1960).


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 12, 2011)

Richard,

I too have yet to read the Institutes all the way through. When looking for an answer to the same question recently, I found that there are already a lot of threads here on this subject, particularly from a couple of years ago with the 500th Anniversary of Calvin's birth. 

The consensus seems to be that Battles is the one to use for academic purposes. It's also easier to read. Beveridge is also considered by many to be excellent, but as a 19th Century production it is considered to be a more difficult read. Some compared it to NIV vs. KJV with regard to readability. Richard Muller and a few others prefer Beveridge. 

One thing's for sure, you can usually get that Hendrickson edn. of Beveridge for less than half the price of the McNeil/Battles edition.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 12, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> Richard,
> 
> I too have yet to read the Institutes all the way through. When looking for an answer to the same question recently, I found that there are already a lot of threads here on this subject, particularly from a couple of years ago with the 500th Anniversary of Calvin's birth.
> 
> ...



I own both the Hendrickson reprint of Beveridge (why do I feel like I need to get something to drink every time I type his name?) and the Battles edition, just to be clear. I'm looking for advice on which one is the better translation. And, I know, "better" can be subjective.

One thing I'll say is: considering how inexpensive the Hendrickson reprint is, I'm sort of surprised at what a really good, quality job they did on it. Very impressive.


----------



## Andres (Mar 12, 2011)

Richard, I started reading The Institutes for the first time myself the beginning of this year. I am using the Beveridge translation that is found right here on the PB. I haven't encountered any problems with it. Yes, I have had to pause and look up a couple of words on occasion, but in my opinion, the translation reads fine. 
I would also recommend this book - Piety's Wisdom by: J. Mark Beach. I have found it to be an invaluable accompaniment. Finally, if you're interested, I'm blogging through my readings at my blog, which is linked below in my sig. Blessings on your studies my friend!


----------



## KMK (Mar 12, 2011)

Here is a good thread from a while back: http://www.puritanboard.com/f29/beveridge-battles-46444/


----------



## ClayPot (Mar 12, 2011)

From what I've been able to gather, there are not major problems with either. Some say the Beveridge translation is more faithful to Calvin, but not all agree. I don't think you will turn into a heretic if you read the Battles translation though. Since you have both, why don't you just read them both (maybe a chapter in one translation, and then a chapter in the other) and see which you like better?


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 12, 2011)

Not to jump on the bandwagon and just repeat what everyone is saying, but...



bookslover said:


> My question: is Beveridge a good, trustworthy translation?



To this first question: Absolutely, I think it is a fine, trustworthy translation. Whether I'm qualified to really answer that is another matter, however (i.e., probably not). All I can say is that when I read Calvin, I'm reading him in English; if I take a note or record a portion of Calvin for reference or to compare to another author, that's when I go to the various editions of Calvin's Latin text. So whatever I say is _not_ coming from someone who has compared every line of either translation to an original text, but only portions; so take my recommendation with that grain of salt: but of those passages which I have compared, yes, I have been consistently pleased with Beveridge's rendering of them.



bookslover said:


> How does it stack up against Battles?



Quite well, I think (keeping in mind my above qualifications). Enough so that I have no problem continuing to use Beveridge over Battles as my standard edition. Are there advantages to Battles over Beveridge? Probably. But in my relatively limited experience of comparing both with the originals, I've been consistently pleased with Beveridge. 

The above comments, of course, only pertain to the _translation_ itself; not to any notes or apparatus within the editions. Obviously, that's going to affect one's decision, as well, and perhaps in the opposite direction. Since you have both, why not (as one commenter noted) make use of both? If you read a bit from each and decide you prefer Battles and the notes therein for reading this long book - do that; and if you come across a passage that raises your eyebrows, compare it to Beveridge. If you'd rather stick with Beveridge, you can always go through and read the notes for that chapter in your other edition before or after you've done your reading. Just some thoughts. But, again, I'm hardly qualified to give any sort of definitive answer, so just take this as a quaint recommendation from another who shares a similar interest in Calvin.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 12, 2011)

Latin experts generally claim that Beveridge is more "literal" and sticks closer to the Latin. Battles is more of a "dynamic equivalent" translation. 

If you are willing to deal with dated and sometimes more stilted locutions, Beveridge is WONDERFUL. If you are more of a "NIV" kind of person, Battles is best. I have read both and prefer Beveridge (for the same reason I like the ESV over the NIV).

Most modern scholars consider Battles the standard critical edition and love it for the footnotes as much as the translation.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 12, 2011)

Of course, instead of reading either of them, I could always wait for the movie version...

---------- Post added at 03:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:14 PM ----------




Andres said:


> Richard, I started reading The Institutes for the first time myself the beginning of this year. I am using the Beveridge translation that is found right here on the PB. I haven't encountered any problems with it. Yes, I have had to pause and look up a couple of words on occasion, but in my opinion, the translation reads fine.
> I would also recommend this book - Piety's Wisdom by: J. Mark Beach. I have found it to be an invaluable accompaniment. Finally, if you're interested, I'm blogging through my readings at my blog, which is linked below in my sig. Blessings on your studies my friend!



Your link to _Piety's Wisdom_ jogged my memory. Looking around my man-cave, I remembered that I have a copy of _Analysis of the Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin_ by ol' Ford Lewis Battles himself (assisted by John R. Walchenbach) (reprint; Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2001 [originally published by Baker Book House in 1980]). It's a 421-page extremely detailed outline of the entire _Institutes_ by the guy who did the 1960 translation. Couldn't help but be useful for someone reading through Calvin's book.

Since I'm more of an ESV than an NIV kinda guy, I think I'll launch out on the Beveridge translation first.


----------



## torstar (Mar 12, 2011)

DMcFadden said:


> Latin experts generally claim that Beveridge is more "literal" and sticks closer to the Latin. Battles is more of a "dynamic equivalent" translation.
> 
> If you are willing to deal with dated and sometimes more stilted locutions, Beveridge is WONDERFUL. If you are more of a "NIV" kind of person, Battles is best. I have read both and prefer Beveridge (for the same reason I like the ESV over the NIV).
> 
> Most modern scholars consider Battles the standard critical edition and love it for the footnotes as much as the translation.


 


The footnotes were the difference to me.


----------



## TomVols (Mar 15, 2011)

The consensus among scholars seems to be for the Battles edition. I have both. I read both with great profit. I tend to lean more to Battles. It does read a bit more smoothly and yet remains faithful, but there's nothing wrong with Beveridge.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 20, 2011)

I think it would be of great benefit to the church to do a careful and literal revision of the Institutes and also correct Calvin's section on Baptism given that he revised his convictions to reflect the 1689 Baptist Confession when he reached the gates of heaven


----------



## Curt (Mar 20, 2011)

The Battles apparatus is very helpful if you're seeking to understand the growth and thought process of Calvin. Battles' companion "Analyisis..." is also a wonderful tool.


----------



## KMK (Mar 20, 2011)

For what it is worth, Sinclair Ferguson says that "Battles is not all it's cracked up to be."


----------

