Calvin's Institutes 1541 (McKee vs White)

[Reformed Sojourner]

Hi all, I'm on the cusp of purchasing Calvin's Institutes (1541). My understanding is there are currently two English translations of such (McKee, White). I'm inquiring as to whether anyone familiar with both would be willing to advise on which is "better"? I understand this is subjective but believe it will be useful in gaining insight prior to making a decision on which to purchase. Thanks, all.

 

[alexanderjames]

I wasn't aware of the earlier McKee translation. I thought White's was excellent. It looks like this question was asked in 2014 on the PB too, to no avail. According to Reformation21 Robert White reviewed Mckee's translation in the Banner of Truth magazine for October 2010.

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

I should know this but what is the benefit of the 1541 vs. the latest edition?

 

[Taylor]

I should know this but what is the benefit of the 1541 vs. the latest edition?

There are several advantages. It is a more accessible first dive into Calvin's Institutes. This is a much easier endeavor for those intimidated by the sheer length of the 1559 Latin edition (of which Battles and Beveridge are translations). In addition, the 1541 does not contain as much polemical matter as the 1559. In this way, it is very similar to the abridgment of Bavinck done by John Bolt, wherein he removes many philosophical and polemical excursions that are not entirely necessary to understand the positive exposition of the doctrine. In many ways, it is a simpler, "purer" presentation of Calvin's theological thought.

 

[Polanus1561]

There are several advantages. It is a more accessible first dive into Calvin's Institutes. This is a much easier endeavor for those intimidated by the sheer length of the 1559 Latin edition (of which Battles and Beveridge are translations). In addition, the 1541 does not contain as much polemical matter as the 1559. In this way, it is very similar to the abridgment of Bavinck done by John Bolt, wherein he removes many philosophical and polemical excursions that are not entirely necessary to understand the positive exposition of the doctrine. In many ways, it is a simpler, "purer" presentation of Calvin's theological thought.

I disagree that it is similar to Bolt abridging Bavinck. I feel it is closer to Bavinck's Reasonable Faith if you had to choose.

Anyway, the 1541 and 1559 has enough differences to warrant having both (vs. not needing to get Bolt's abridgment if you can digest 4 vols. of RD)

 

[alexanderjames]

I should know this but what is the benefit of the 1541 vs. the latest edition?

There are several advantages. It is a more accessible first dive into Calvin's Institutes. This is a much easier endeavor for those intimidated by the sheer length of the 1559 Latin edition (of which Battles and Beveridge are translations). In addition, the 1541 does not contain as much polemical matter as the 1559. In this way, it is very similar to the abridgment of Bavinck done by John Bolt, wherein he removes many philosophical and polemical excursions that are not entirely necessary to understand the positive exposition of the doctrine. In many ways, it is a simpler, "purer" presentation of Calvin's theological thought.

To clarify, 1541 edition is from the French, which Calvin wrote for the laity, and as a result the language may be said to be less technical.

 

[Taylor]

I disagree that it is similar to Bolt abridging Bavinck. I feel it is closer to Bavinck's Reasonable Faith if you had to choose.

I considered comparing it to Reasonable Faith, but Bavinck's Reasonable Faith (actually titled Magnalia Dei) does not have any textual relationship to Reformed Dogmatics; it is an entirely new work. All of Calvin's editions of the Institutes, however, have a direct genealogical relationship to one another. So, while the 1541 was (obviously) written before the 1559, the former can still be considered closer to an abridgment of the latter. Bolt removed a lot of the polemical and philosophical extras of Bavinck, and Calvin added a lot of polemical and philosophical extras to later editions of the Institutes.

But whatever, it's just an opinion.

 

[Logan]

It seems like whenever there are multiple translations, we get paralyzed by the choices. I've seen people deliberate for years over which of the four translators of the 1559 Institutes to pick up.

I can't imagine you'll lose anything by reading either. Tolle lege!

 

[alexanderjames]

It seems like whenever there are multiple translations, we get paralyzed by the choices. I've seen people deliberate for years over which of the four translators of the 1559 Institutes to pick up.

I can't imagine you'll lose anything by reading either. Tolle lege!

I would agree. Additionally for the 1541 edition, both Mckee and White are recent translations and highly praised as accurate and readable.

 

[Reformed Sojourner]

I wasn't aware of the earlier McKee translation. I thought White's was excellent. It looks like this question was asked in 2014 on the PB too, to no avail. According to Reformation21 Robert White reviewed Mckee's translation in the Banner of Truth magazine for October 2010.

Thanks for the info. Attempted to access article online to no avail. Seems both translations are reputable. Should be fine with either. Leaning towards McKee’s though.