# Beveridge or Battles?



## KMK (Apr 3, 2009)

Sinclair Ferguson says that the Battles version is "not all it's cracked up to be". Beveridge is cheaper. Any opinions?


----------



## toddpedlar (Apr 3, 2009)

I prefer Battles, but I'm not sure I can articulate a strong argument for its superiority. I just find that it flows better; but in places Beveridge is quite nice too.


----------



## Whitefield (Apr 3, 2009)

Beveridge is good because it is open source (free to download) and a very faithful translation from the Latin.

Battles is good because he shows how the Institutes developed over the years, but he takes a little more freedom with the Latin to make it read better in the 20th century.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Apr 3, 2009)

I have them both. I prefer Beveridge


----------



## Wannabee (Apr 3, 2009)

I've heard (read?) that Beveridge studied Calvin closely before translating, so that he understood his thoughts well. Can't say whether it's true or not, but it's an interesting thought. Both are on the Ages Calvin collection, if I remember right.


----------



## DTK (Apr 3, 2009)

KMK said:


> Sinclair Ferguson says that the Battles version is "not all it's cracked up to be". Beveridge is cheaper. Any opinions?


The Battles translation coupled together with the editorial notes provided by John T. McNeill makes the Westminster Press edition the superior version to own. But I'm speaking from an editorial perspective rather than a translator, because I am far too ignorant of the language to judge which is superior with respect to that aspect between the two editions.

DTK


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Apr 4, 2009)

I appreciate the notes in the Battles edition, showing changes in organization of the work over its various editions, and explaining why certain words were translated as they were. I'm glad to have acces to Beveridge online.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 4, 2009)

If you are speaking of translation qua translation, then you will find proponents for each of them for different reasons. Both of them are available in the inexpensive Ages collection and in Libronix, etc. 

If you are speaking of the critical edition, the McNeill edition (Battles translation) is the standard that scholars use and reference from among the English translations. As has been noted, the notes in the Westminster Press edition frequently sell the two volume set, despite the high price. 

Ken, unless you are using it for an academic purpose, you will probably find the Beveridge adequate for your needs and a LOT less expensive. CBD has the nice Hendrickson one volume printing for under $15 (compared to the Westminster set discounted to $64.99). Plus, it has been completely reworked with an easier to read typeset. Frankly, I find the Hendrickson volume easier on the eye than the Westminster set.


----------



## Ex Nihilo (Apr 4, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Frankly, I find the Hendrickson volume easier on the eye than the Westminster set.



At that price, I expected a fairly cheap-looking printing. I was pleasantly surprised by how nice it is!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 4, 2009)

Frankly as I see it in layman's speak Battles is like the NIV and Beveridge is akin to the KJV.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 4, 2009)

Although Battles is the standard for scholarship, it's worth remembering that Richard Muller prefers the Beveridge.


----------



## Marrow Man (Apr 4, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Frankly as I see it in layman's speak Battles is like the NIV and Beveridge is akin to the KJV.



You guys sound like beer snobs. Is this a bit like saying Battles is like Budweiser and Beveridge is like Guinness?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 4, 2009)

Yes


----------



## greenbaggins (Apr 4, 2009)

Actually, Richard Muller's favorite translation is the Allen, but you'd have to hunt to find that one. The only advantage that Battles has is that you can tell what section was added in which edition, through the lettering system that he introduced. Beveridge, however, translated almost all of Calvin's letters and many other of Calvin's works before he translated the Institutes. Beveridge was the better Calvin scholar. Having read a good deal of both, I find Beveridge actually makes more sense and is much more cogent and striking than Battles. If you can only afford one, go with Beveridge.


----------



## E Nomine (Apr 5, 2009)

I can't understand why there's no nice Easton Press or Franklin Library type leather bound editions, especially in this jubilee year when so many people seem out to make a buck off Calvin.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 5, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> Actually, Richard Muller's favorite translation is the Allen, but you'd have to hunt to find that one. The only advantage that Battles has is that you can tell what section was added in which edition, through the lettering system that he introduced. Beveridge, however, translated almost all of Calvin's letters and many other of Calvin's works before he translated the Institutes. Beveridge was the better Calvin scholar. Having read a good deal of both, I find Beveridge actually makes more sense and is much more cogent and striking than Battles. If you can only afford one, go with Beveridge.



Wow! Talk about inside baseball! Comparing Beveridge and Battles vis a vis who was the better Calvin scholar is a little like asking whether Micky Mantle or Roger Maris was a better Yankee. I just finished a Battles book on Calvin that put his thorough knowledge of Calvin out for all to see, including a mastery of the Calvin literature in several languages. But, your recommendation for Beveridge is impressive. Lane your virtuoso erudition and surplus of academic acumen is on evident display . . . again! You be the man! 

Since you have some mastery of the original, I appreciate your commendation for Beveridge. The Hendrikson printing truly is easier to read due to the clearer typeface and I plan on starting the Institutes again later this week. Since both editions are on my shelf (and in my computer), your word of support for Beveridge tips my decision. The Westminster edition was hard enough to read back in seminary in the 70s. For some reason, the typeface looks more like a copy of a copy to me as opposed to the fresh crispness of the Hendrikson.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Apr 5, 2009)

Mickey Mantle hands down...


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Apr 5, 2009)

Battles is kinda like the NIV (dynamic equivalence) and Beveridge the NASB (formal equivalence): Battles is (generally) easier to read but its Latin renderings are imprecise and even plain wrong. Beveridge is more difficult (generally) to read but his translation is more literal and consistent. (Mind you, I recently found a really BAD translation of Beveridge's in one of Calvin's commentaries). However, the Battles footnotes, references, etc. etc. make it a goldmine for hunting things out in the _Institutes_.

Which one? Both! 

BTW John Allen's translation (which is brilliant) is available from www.archive.org (in a searchable format!).


----------



## py3ak (Apr 5, 2009)

It might also bear mentioning that Lewis' letters don't exactly reveal a _high_ regard for Battles, when this latter was getting his doctorate under lewis.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 5, 2009)

Ken,

If you want a really complete answer (and the most expensive) . . .

* Buy Beveridge as your first purchase. He is a solid translator, the Henrickson edition is easier on the eye, and it is CHEAP!
* Add Battles if you want something to reference for scholarly purposes (esp. the footnotes).
* Obtain the computer editions so that you can do electronic searching to augment your own knowledge of the material.


----------



## KMK (Apr 5, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> Ken,
> 
> If you want a really complete answer (and the most expensive) . . .
> 
> ...



Sounds good. It seems to me I saw a book by Battles about Calvin. Is there any chance that is his notes put into book form?

I am interested in the Libronix stuff but as far as I know those types of things are not available on Mac.


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 5, 2009)

Libronix is out in Mac format now.


----------



## KMK (Apr 5, 2009)

How does that work exactly? I buy Logos for $300 and then there are 'add ons' or something that I can buy later?


----------



## DMcFadden (Apr 5, 2009)

If you have Logos, the upgrade to Mac is supposed to be cheap. Or, you buy the Mac version directly: Logos Bible Software for Mac.

Logos sells their packages with differing numbers of core resources. They range from the el-cheapo package at $260 to the caddy at $1,380. 

"Add ons" are extra. The Beveridge edition of the _Institutes_ costs $35.

A less expensive way to go would be to get the $20 Ages software version which runs on Mac or PC and has . . .



> John Calvin Collection
> You have found the most complete collection of John Calvin's writings ever published. The John Calvin Collection features all 22 volumes of Calvin's Bible Commentaries, as well as Sermons, Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, History of the Reformation in the Time of Calvin, and much more.



John Calvin Collection Overview - AGES Software

The Ages edition has both the Beveridge AND the Battles/McNeill editions PLUS all of the commentaries, sermons, "Calvin and His Enemies," "Commentary on Senneca's De Clementia," Wileman's John Calvin - His Life, His Teaching & His Influence," "Secret Providence," "Selected Works of John Calvin - Letters, Tracts," "Sermons on Galatians, Election and Reprobation, Psalm 119, the Deity of Christ," Beza's biography of Calvin, and Calvin's "Treatise on Relics" . . . all for $20!!! Even Billy Mays or the ShamWow guy couldn't get you a better deal than that! You may even find a discounter with the Ages edition cheaper.

BTW, Ken, I checked and the Ages edition has the full Westminster text WITH footnotes by Battles. So, if you go that way, you will get both Beveridge and Battles AND all of the cool footnotes.

My suggestion: Get the Henrickson edition for reading and the Ages package for research in the Calvin corpus.


----------

