A New Translation of Calvin's Institutes by Crossway and Why this New English Translation is Needed

[@philtheo]

I can't wait for this translation! 😊 Regarding previous translations: 1. Here's what Reformed Christian scholar and theological philosopher Paul Helm (who himself has studied and contributed several works on John Calvin) says: "Incidentally, if you have the need of a translation of the Institutes, then the reissue of the Beveridge translation (newly published by Hendrickson) may be just the thing. It has new indexes, and has been 'gently edited', which means, I hope, only the removal of typos and other detritus. (I have not yet had the chance to check). Beveridge is superior to Battles in sticking closer to the original Latin, and having less intrusive editorial paraphernalia." 2. Here's another Calvin scholar, Richard A. Muller, says in his preface of The Unaccommodated Calvin: "I have also consulted the older translations of the Institutes, namely those of Norton, Allen and Beveridge, in view of both the accuracy of those translation and the relationship in which they stand to the older or 'precritical' text tradition of Calvin's original. Both in its apparatus and in its editorial approach to the text, the McNeill-Battles translation suffers from the mentality of the text-critic who hides the original ambience of the text even as he attempts to reveal all its secrets to the modern reader." 3. The following is from J.I. Packer in the foreword to A Theological Guide to Calvin's Institutes: "No English translation fully matches Calvin's Latin; that of the Elizabethan, Thomas Norton, perhaps gets closest; Beveridge gives us Calvin's feistiness but not always his precision; Battles gives us the precision but not always the punchiness, and fleetness of foot; Allen is smooth and clear, but low-key." 4. Finally, the following is from David Calhoun: "Let me just say a few words about English translations. The first was Thomas Norton back in the sixteenth century. Calvin was very fortunate with his first English translator. Norton did an exceptionally good job. Very soon after the completion of the Institutes in 1559, which was written in Latin, it was translated by Calvin into French and then quite soon into English. John Allen was the second translator. John Allen and Henry Beveridge were both nineteenth-century translators. The Beveridge translation is still in print. It was until fairly recently anyway. Those are not bad but not very good either. Ford Lewis Battles' 1960 translation is the one that we are using. Even though it has been criticized some, it is by far the most superior translation that we have at present." 5. Given the above, and what you say in this video, it does indeed sound like we could do well with a new translation of Calvin's Institutes!

[@michealferrell1677]

That translation is smooth;can’t wait to have it in hand . An Audio version would be great to have as well .

[@Back2theWord]

@@michealferrell1677 amen and amen to that!

[@christophersmeltser6564]

This is great news!

[@whatsgoingonwhy9096]

Interesting. I bought the battle translation this year and have been working through it. It does not sing like people who read Latin make it seem like it should. Maybe I’ll wait to get the crossway version before trying to finish the battle one.

[@michealferrell1677]

Already a typo on page 32 ! The seventh line down “ For it (is) utterly clear”

[@Back2theWord]

@@michealferrell1677 good to know! Thanks for sharing!

[@Cdubs24]

@@Back2theWordso I’m thinking about getting a new translation of it. Should I get the Robert white version. It’s from banner of truth. What are your thoughts man?

[@Back2theWord]

@@Cdubs24 I have a brief section in this video about it. So I would check that out… Why Read Calvin's Institutes? What versions exist? Tips for finishing! // John Calvin's Institutes kzbin.info/www/bejne/rWWynI2am5WKgcU But in brief here - Positives of the Banner Edition: It is easier to read because it is a shorter & earlier Institutes version from Calvin, and it is translated from the French version which Calvin did in the language of the common people (in contrast to his Latin versions done in the universal language of clergy). It also tends to be shorter, but even the Banner version is over 900 pages. Lastly, I don’t have it but I think I remember people saying the font size was bigger than a lot of other versions which is a big deal for some people. Negativities of the banner edition: If that is the only version you get, then you don’t own a translation of the final and definitive Institutes Calvin published in 1549 (Latin) or 1560 (French). So there are some things missing, but not much in terms of new content. Mostly you are missing out on extra chapters Calvin added on heresies and heretics Calvin taught on or had to fight during his lifetime.

[@Cdubs24]

@@Back2theWord gotcha

[@Cdubs24]

@@Back2theWord is the beverige version better?

[@parksideevangelicalchurch2886]

Someone really needs to do an abridged, paraphrased version of the Institutes for non-scholars. This "New Living Translation" of the Institutes would be half the length, skip (nearly?) all the footnotes and just focus on getting his ideas across. I don't have a church full of scholars, but I'd love to get people in my church deepening their faith by an accessible version of the Institutes that they wouldn't get lost in.

[@Back2theWord]

@@parksideevangelicalchurch2886 I hear you brother! Maybe we will see an updated version like that and I would support it. What I do know is that I have heard there is an abridged, readable, and 272 page one, Titled “The Institutes of Christian Religion,” that is edited by Tony Lane and Hillary Osborne and seeks to preserve the heart of Calvin’s teachings (published by Baker and still in print I think). I also know from my longer video on the versions of the Institutes that the Banner edition (translated from the 1541 French edition by Robert White) is still 920 pages but has way less of the things that make the Institutes harder to read. Hope that helps!

[@parksideevangelicalchurch2886]

@@Back2theWord Thank you! I'll try and find the Lane and Osborne one. (The 920 p. White translation is still to scary for most!)

[@mattshiff]

My big reservation with this translation is their virtual deletion of the word “man”. Substituting it for “human”. Human human human…. Not good

[@annakimborahpa]

So the new translation will improve the Beveridge on this selection? John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, Chapter 23, No. 7: "I AGAIN ASK HOW IT IS THAT THE FALL OF ADAM INVOLVES SO MANY NATIONS WITH THEIR INFANT CHILDREN IN ETERNAL DEATH WITHOUT REMEDY UNLESS THAT IT SO SEEMED MEET TO GOD? Here the most loquacious tongues must be dumb. THE DECREE, I ADMIT, IS, DREADFUL; AND YET IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DENY THAT GOD FOREKNOW WHAT THE END OF MAN WAS TO BE BEFORE HE MADE HIM, BECAUSE HE HAD SO ARRANGED BY HIS DECREE. Should any one here inveigh against the prescience of God, he does it rashly and unadvisedly. For why, pray, should it be made a charge against the heavenly Judge, that he was not ignorant of what was to happen? Thus, if there is any just or plausible complaint, it must be directed against predestination. Nor ought it to seem absurd when I SAY, THAT GOD NOT ONLY FORESAW THE FALL OF THE FIRST MAN, AND IN HIM THE RUIN OF HIS POSTERITY, BUT ALSO AT HIS OWN PLEASURE ARRANGED IT." [Beveridge translation, p. 586; NTS Library website /PDF Books/Calvin Institutes of Christian Religion, pdf 594 of 944]

[@Back2theWord]

@@annakimborahpa Thanks for the comment. I don’t think this new translation will change Calvin’s position on this area of doctrine (in fact, I want the new translation to represent Calvin’s position to what it was at the time as much as possible and not revise him - even if that means not cleaning up things that later theologians have further worked out and clarified. They can cite when that happens, but I want in English what Calvin wrote and meant). But all that being said, I am very excited to see this section in the new translation for the added clarity it might bring, to compare what the changes are, and see if the new translation links to any current discussions or recommended resources on the topic.

[@annakimborahpa]

You're welcome. "... even if that means not cleaning up things that later theologians have further worked out and clarified." Response: Would that include Jonathan Edwards (1703-58)? Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University Jonathan Edwards [1722], The "Miscellanies": (Entry Nos. a-z, aa-zz, 1-500) (WJE Online Vol. 13) , Ed. Harry S. Stout [word count] [jec-wjeo13]. -- 169 -- n. DAMNATION OF INFANTS. One of these two things are certainly true, and self-evidently so: either that it is most just, exceeding just, that God should take the soul of a new-born infant and cast it into eternal torments, or else that those infants that are saved are not saved by the death of Christ. For none are saved by the death of Christ from damnation that have not deserved damnation. Wherefore, if it be very just, it is but a foolish piece of nonsense, to cry out of it as blasphemous to suppose that it ever is [just], because (they say) it is contrary to his mercy. Now such I ask, whether it is contrary to his mercy to inflict punishment upon any according to their deserts, and whether it was contrary to God's mercy to damn the fallen angels. There was no mercy showed to them at all. And why is it blasphemous to suppose that God should inflict upon infants so much as they have deserved, without mercy, as well as [upon] them? MS: "as they"; the reference is to the fallen angels, whereas the preceding "they" refers to infants. If you say, they have not deserved it so much, I answer: they certainly have deserved what they have deserved, as much as the fallen angels; because their sin is not accompanied with such aggravating circumstances, so neither shall their punishment be so aggravated. So that the punishment of one is every whit as contrary -- 170 -- to God's mercy as [that of] the other. Who shall determine just now much sin is sufficient to make damnation agreeable to the divine perfections? And how can they determine that infants have not so much sin? For we know they have enough to make their damnation very just. Edwards Yale Edu /archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4xMjo0OjEud2plby41NjQ4NTI=

[@CaribouDataScience]

Ah yes! The Great Heretic 😮

[@Back2theWord]

@@CaribouDataScience Ah yes! The sentiment of those who have not done the research nor asked enough of the right questions. Granted, no human besides Jesus is perfect. But those who label Calvin a heretic for Calvinism, in my experience, have not studied enough to know how much of his determinism came from Augustine and don’t realize it has not been proven even Calvin believed in all five points/doctrines of grace formalized at Dort generally referred to by us today as Calvinism (that was Beza, his successor who systematized Calvin’s beliefs and drew the lines of Calvin’s thoughts together and pushed them further). Thus, Calvin would very likely protest at the very least the phrasing of parts of the system regarding soteriology (especially Limited/Definite Atonement) that bears his name. I just genuinely wish people understood who and what they were really against before throwing around labels and over generalizing (of course that would not get so many views/retweets/or likes, but I do think the Christian world at least would be a better place for it). That being said, should you be speaking from the Catholic or Eastern Orthodox perspective from what I know Calvin and all Protestants are heretics since they are no longer connected to the true church.

[@ethanholmes7624]

Getting your heresy from Augustine's worst ideas about G-d doesn't make it less heretical. Calvin's "glorious theater" is an absurd picture of reality, and so is Augustine's picture of the 'two cities eternally opposed.' Neither can even be remotely construed to be "good news" for anybody.