Battles vs Beveridge - Calvin's Institutes

[TylerRay]

I've heard for years that Battles's translation of Calvin's Institutes is more scholarly than Beveridge. However, I recently heard Richard Muller criticize Battles for not translating technical terms the same way throughout the work, which seems to be a fundamental element of a good translation of a technical and scholarly work like the Institutes.

What are the merits and demerits of the two translations?

 

[greenbaggins]

Beveridge is better than Battles, from what I understand, and Muller likes the older Allen translation best of all. Beveridge didn't translate the Institutes until after he had translated the 7-volume letters and treatises of Calvin. So, Beveridge had a much more intuitive and natural understanding of Calvin's Latin and French than Battles had. Battles is useful, however, in his apparatus, for determining which parts of the Institutes were added at which edition.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Battles is useful, however, in his apparatus, for determining which parts of the Institutes were added at which edition.

I don't have anything but the main text of Beveridge, but I do have Battles. I have heard it said that Battles is much better in the footnotes and indices.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I've heard for years that Battles's translation of Calvin's Institutes is more scholarly than Beveridge.

I have taken an interest in this question myself. Here is the best summary I have seen on this issue http://www.reformation21.org/calvin/2009/01/translations-of-the-institutes.php

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Battles is useful, however, in his apparatus, for determining which parts of the Institutes were added at which edition.

Also the footnotes throughout the Battles edition contain references to much helpful scholarship.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I have both editions, which I think is probably wise given how seminal a work Calvin's Institutes is to Reformed theology. I also have multiple translations of Augustine's Confessions and The City of God for similar reasons.

 

[JimmyH]

Good post on this topic here ;

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/beveridge-or-battles.46444/#post-589657

 

[Logan]

I have both translations as well and have compared to the older Allen and the (very) old Norton translations.

They are all more than serviceable. I personally preferred Beveridge as I thought it flowed well. Battles seemed more stilted to me, though it's possible he's more "accurate" in his translation. Ultimately I don't think it really matters here: I get absolutely no benefit from obsessing over which translation to read, where we get tons of benefit actually reading it. But as has been pointed out, Battles has nice footnotes.

I've been through that cycle many times, with Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Hugo, etc.!

 

[Stephen L Smith]

They are all more than serviceable. I personally preferred Beveridge as I thought it flowed well. Battles seemed more stilted to me, though it's possible he's more "accurate" in his translation. Ultimately I don't think it really matters here: I get absolutely no benefit from obsessing over which translation to read

Logan, are you saying this is relevant to the Bible translation debate? You see after people have their many "Battles" over Bible translations, then they go and enjoy a refreshing "Beverage"