# Best Version of Calvin's Institutes



## Davidius

Is there a translation/edition which is considered the "best"?


----------



## wsw201

the Battles edition is the most popular but I like the Beveridge version.


----------



## CDM

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Institutes-Christian-Religion-2-Set/dp/0664220282/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196282973&sr=8-1"]John T. McNeil[/ame]

open....shut


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

mangum said:


> John T. McNeil
> 
> open....shut


----------



## greenbaggins

Muller's reply is well worth pondering.


----------



## Davidius

Uh oh...do I need to start a poll?


----------



## etexas

I am glad David started this thread! It is something I was thinking about. There was an edition that came out around 95? my Pastor mentioned, I forgot the Publisher and Translator anyone here know of one done around that time???


----------



## Casey

joshua said:


> Is there a republished hardback Beveridge Edition? If so, what's the ISBN?


Good question.


----------



## greenbaggins

Not that I know of. There are plenty of the hardback editions available used. And, of course, the whole thing is available for free here. I know that wasn't what Josh wants (I don't like reading on a computer screen either!). However, it is at least available.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Battles. I struggled through the first volume in the Beveridge translation, and then purchased the newest John McNeill edition. Breath of fresh air!


----------



## VaughanRSmith

I believe that Battles is the preserved text


----------



## greenbaggins

HOW CAN YOU SAY SO? WHY, YOU MODERNIST ANTI-19TH CENTURY-IST ANTI-BEVERAGE (HMM, SPELLING ANYONE?) ELITIST!!!!!! (Chokes on own bile).


----------



## VictorBravo

joshua said:


> Is there a republished hardback Beveridge Edition? If so, what's the ISBN?



Here you go, Josh. Found it from a link on Greenbaggins's blog!

Amazon.com: Institutes of the Christian Religion: Books: John Calvin


----------



## greenbaggins

OK, that's REALLY embarassing! To tell poor Josh that a new hardback doesn't exist, and then someone finds it because of a link on my own blog.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

joshua said:


> You'd be surprised how much of my reading has been online for the last few months. It's not too bad...just the migraines...a small price to pay for priceless reading.







Looks like you been reading online again by your avatar.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Man that looks like it hurts. I guess my services will be free now. Charges dropped. I feel a need to relieve your eye strain.


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

Exagorazo said:


> I believe that Battles is the preserved text


----------



## lwadkins

Josh I believe that this isbn is for the Bev. Trans. as published by Jay P. Green in 2 vols. isbn 1589603168


----------



## lwadkins

This seems to be the ISBN for vol 2 1589603176


----------



## lwadkins

Also they seem to have these new on Amazon. Kinda pricey though.


----------



## Dieter Schneider

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Is there a translation/edition which is considered the "best"?



Battles is obtainable on CD - and a lot cheaper than hardback (2 vols.), but I guess you ought to have both. Here in the UK the CD can be purchased; not sure about where to get it in the US. 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.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

lwadkins said:


> Josh I believe that this isbn is for the Bev. Trans. as published by Jay P. Green in 2 vols. isbn 1589603168


I would buy anything but the Green set. Maybe even a good 19th century printing.


----------



## Davidius

Dieter Schneider said:


> 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?


----------



## greenbaggins

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.


----------



## Casey

joshua said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a republished hardback Beveridge Edition? If so, what's the ISBN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go, Josh. Found it from a link on Greenbaggins's blog!
> 
> Amazon.com: Institutes of the Christian Religion: Books: John Calvin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks, Vic. It's revised, though.  About 210 pages less. Hmm...I gues I'll have to print out the plain text version from CCEL.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't believe this Hendrickson version on Amazon is _revised_ (someone correct me if I'm wrong!) -- it's been _re-typeset_, not revised (like what they did with the Keil-Delitzsch OT commentaries). What that means is they've changed the font and reformatted it, which would of course change the total number of pages, but that doesn't mean they've changed the text itself. Although, this Hendrickson edition isn't out yet, and with the low price, I'm not so sure the binding will be good (hopefully they don't do what Eerdmans did with poor old Berkhof!).


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Of the Institutes, the modern critical edition is the Battles edn, but Muller prefers the Allen and there are advantages to the Beveridge. For citation purposes, however, the Battles edn is to be used.

The critical Latin edn is in vols 1-3 of the Opera selecta. This is available in most academic libraries or via ILL or via ABE et al. Scholars also cite the ediiton in the Corpus Reformatorum, esp. for the earlier editions. There is a 19th century Latin text, ed. Tholuck, which one might find used, but it's been supersceded by the Opera Selecta.

rsc


----------



## MW

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.


----------



## VictorBravo

R. Scott Clark said:


> Of the Institutes, the modern critical edition is the Battles edn, but Muller prefers the Allen and there are advantages to the Beveridge. For citation purposes, however, the Battles edn is to be used.
> 
> The critical Latin edn is in vols 1-3 of the Opera selecta. This is available in most academic libraries or via ILL or via ABE et al. Scholars also cite the ediiton in the Corpus Reformatorum, esp. for the earlier editions. There is a 19th century Latin text, ed. Tholuck, which one might find used, but it's been supersceded by the Opera Selecta.
> 
> rsc




Interesting. Do you know of any editions in the old French?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Yes, they are also in the CR.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

armourbearer said:


> 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


----------



## Matthias

I am partial to Beveridge version myself. In case your counting votes


----------



## MW

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.



R. Scott Clark said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


----------



## Me Died Blue

greenbaggins said:


> 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.



Indeed. As such, it can (relatively speaking) somewhat reveal more of Calvin's "young thought." One version (Battles) can be ordered here.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I usually refer to the Battles 1559 and 1536 editions, as well as the 1978 Editions Kerygma-Editions Farel French 3 volume set.


----------



## jawyman

The Battles edition is what we are required to read at PRTS and I have been quite happy with it.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

armourbearer said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Got it. 

Misunderstood.

Sorry.

rsc


----------



## DMcFadden

greenbaggins said:


> Muller's reply is well worth pondering.



I was feeling a bad case of Calvin-envy with my old Beveridge until greenbaggins posted the Muller quote.


----------



## Sebastian Heck

I recommend this!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> Best Version of Calvin's Institutes



The original Latin edition.


----------



## etexas

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!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Sebastian Heck said:


> I recommend this!



It is a fantastic resource and I use it all the time, but it's only designed for PCs and not Macs - so to use the search engine, I have to use my old ThinkPad. I've asked Herman to see if they can produce a Mac version.

rsc


----------



## R. Scott Clark

etexas said:


> 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


----------



## etexas

R. Scott Clark said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...

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....


----------



## Sebastian Heck

R. Scott Clark said:


> I've asked Herman to see if they can produce a Mac version.
> rsc


That would be - almost - like heaven! Not quite, but almost... Let's hope Herman will go for it!!!


----------



## Dieter Schneider

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Dieter Schneider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


The 1536 edition (see [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Institutes-Christian-Religion-John-Calvin/dp/0802841678/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196293448&sr=1-1"]here[/ame] for purchase of English translation) was Calvin's first one - written in Latin; the 1559 edition was his definite one (1559 ed. is fully developed, but not substantially different - generally speaking, that is). Ford Lewis Battle's [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Analysis-Institutes-Christian-Religion-Calvin/dp/0875521827/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196370816&sr=1-1"]Analysis[/ame] I would have thought is a must! 
For an exposition (audio / pdf) click here.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

For what it's worth, I don't think there have been any new editions of the Institutes published. The Battles edn was reprinted with a new cover some time back. The Beveridge edn comes out sporadically in reprint. I think that's it.

rsc



etexas said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> etexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
Click to expand...


----------



## etexas

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?


----------



## DMcFadden

For those of us who don't mind reading on the computer screen, the VERY inexpensive Calvin Collection by Ages contains BOTH translations by Beveridge AND Battles (as well as practically everything else).


----------



## Southern Presbyterian

etexas said:


> 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?



Yes.


----------



## etexas

Placed my Amazon order last night for the Battle Edition!


----------



## etexas

Just got my Calvin Battle Edition! I cannot wait to begin reading it! As I stated in another thread I do most of my reding at Night, so 'round about 10:30 or 11 I hope to curl up with some tea for a few hours of reading!


----------



## etexas

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?


----------



## danmpem

I recommend this one. Wonderful version. Good, old translation, both volumes in one, AND with original page numbers (see the summary for the details). I love it!



Oh, after I wrote this I saw that there is no summary there aside from the customer reviews. Well, please read those, they are a great help, but what I was referring to with the pages is that the page numbers of both parts are the same as the original edition. When part 1 ends, part 2 begins as a page 1. Just a little thing, but it helps when reading other writers' references to IOTCR.


----------



## Davidius

etexas said:


> 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?



I didn't actually buy one yet. I was asking for future reference (when I have the $$ to purchase and time to read such a tome).


----------

