Crossway's New Translation of Calvin's Institutes

The Public Square
1

Just found out last night that Crossway is publishing a new translation of Calvin’s Institutes.
They released a section “On the Christian Life,” and also this: “Why the 21st Century Needs a New Translation of Calvin’s Institutes.” Some of their reasons seem legitimate: they cite an omission of a phrase in the letter to King Francis and say there are numerous places this happens, but I want to see the receipts. They provide this link to a current log of corrections to Battles’ translation. Seems to me –on my cursory reading– most of these are Latin translation issues (and rather subjective), not textual issues. I’m not saying they may not be important corrections, but I am doubtful.

In “Why the 21st Century…” they provide a sample of Calvin’s first five chapters in their translation. From my brief comparison to Battles, I am not impressed. Some of their word choices are more difficult than Battles. And if you read their side by side comparison of each English version, it is hard to tell any substantial differences…

Why the new translation? Are they really shooting for readability, or as they put it a ‘fresh, contemporary, and accurate’ translation? At some point you have to realize that not every Christian needs to read Calvin. They want it to be accessible, but the only people who read the Institutes are those who want to read the Institutes, and even then against laziness.

Maybe I am being too cynical but… How much of this is ad fontes versus Crossway wanting to put their fingerprints all over Calvin? How much of this is really just about $$$?

EDIT: Forgive all my editing to my post. After more reading and digging I feel less irritated by this new translation, but definitely still suspicious. I do find it funny that the translator’s name starts with B. Guess that is one of the criteria for being an Institutes translator (Beveridge, Battles, Blacketer…)

2 Likes
2

This is why I am suspicious:
You will not find the word man in Crossway’s translation sampling. Instead you will find human. However, they do use the word men three times and madmen once.

Now I am curious to know what exactly did Calvin say? Both in his Latin and French editions… human v homo? humaine v homme? Are these interchangeable for man? What did Calvin mean?

Battles uses both human and man…

EDIT: there actually are a couple uses of man: pg 34: the strong man (referring to the devil), and in a quote from Virgil on pg 70.

Also, Compare their title of chapter 3 with Battles (Battles provides a footnote on the Latin title: “Hominum mentibus naturaliter…inditam”)

2 Likes
3

Do a word search for man in their log of corrections.

Here’s a couple entries of particular note:

1.16.4; OS 3:193 lines 8-10. Battles, 202. Atque ita inter Deum et hominem partiuntur: ut ille motionem huic sua virtute inspiret qua agere possit pro naturae sibi inditae ratione: hic autem actiones suas voluntario consilio moderetur. Battles has: “And they so apportion things between God and man that God by His power inspires in man a movement by which he can act in accordance with the nature implanted in him, but He regulates His own actions by the plan of His will.” The problem is in the final phrase. There is a contrast between ille and hic. Ille in the first phrase is God; hic in the second phrase is homo / human being. Battles, however, interprets God as the subject of the second phrase which is clearly incorrect. The two parts are not apportioned between God and God, but between God and human beings. Note the French: “et 𝗹’𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲, ayant telle faculté, gouverne par son propre conseil et volonté tout ce qu’il fait.” (Blacketer)

And this:

3.24.13, Battles p. 979-80; OS 4:424 lines 28-30. Curious translation issue, Latin: Adeo quidem non situm est in proprio hominis motu accedere, ut piis quoque et Deum timentibus singulari adhuc instinctu Spiritus opus sit. Battles skips the word accedere entirely: “Indeed, it does not so stand in man’s own impulse, and consequently even the pious and those who fear God still have need of the especial prompting of the Spirit.” Beveridge does the same: “So far is it, indeed, from being placed in the mere will of man, that we may add, that even the pious, and those who fear God, need this special inspiration of the Spirit.” As does Norton: “Truelie it so standeth not in the proper motion of man, that even the godlie and they that feare God have need of a singular instruction of the Spirite.” But not Allen: “But 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗶𝗺 is so far from being a mere effort of man, that even pious persons, and such as fear God, still stand in need of the peculiar impulse of the Spirit.” This meaning is confirmed by the French: Bref, tant s’en faut qu’il gise au propre mouvement des hommes d’approcher, que mesme les enfans de Dieu ont besoin d’estre poussez par inspiration singuliere. The failure of Norton, Beveridge, and Battles to translate accedere is significant, because Calvin is talking about who takes the initiative in salvation, God or human beings? Does God approach human beings, or do human beings approach God, or if both, which comes first? The context is Calvin’s criticism of John Chrysostom’s claim that human beings who are willing and who extend their hand to God are the ones whom God draws to himself. Chrysostom in one place says that human beings make the first move toward God (Hom. Heb. 12.3, Chevallon edition vol. 4: fol. 315r°–v° F–G). I found the sentence rather difficult (I’m currently struggling with a severe upper respiratory infection so that doesn’t help. Jon, don’t put that on the blog.) But here’s what I have so far: In fact, the ability to approach God is so far from being situated in [being a matter of?] a human being’s own instigation that even the devout and those who fear God still need the unique prompting of the Spirit. (Blacketer)

1 Like
4

Here are some more entries from their log.

Some of these are obvious, necessary corrections to Battles, e.g. Battles’ insistence of Paul’s authorship of Hebrews:

2.10.13, Battles, 440; OS 3:414, 25-26. Battles translates the verb “urget” as “Paul insists.” But the (non-specified) subject of “urget” is the author of Hebrews, and Calvin does not accept Pauline authorship of the epistle. In the French the subject is specified as l’Apostre. (Blacketer)

2.16.17, Battles, p. 526, OS 3:505 lines 8-9. Once again, Battles translates “quod apostolus asserit” as “Paul’s statement” when the reference is to the Epistle to the Hebrews (9:27). (Blacketer)

3.3.21; Battles, 616; OS 4:79 line 24. Battles once again supplies “Paul” as the author of Hebrews where Calvin does not identify the author as Paul. (Blacketer)

A lot of the entries do improve the translation, for instance:

3.3.22; Battles, 617; OS 4:81 lines 2–5. Latin: “Dico igitur in Spiritum sanctum peccarequi divinae veritati, cuius fulgore sic perstringuntur ut ignorantiam causari nequeant, tamen destinata malitia resistunt, in hoc tantum ut resistant.” Battles: “I say, therefore, that they sin against the Holy Spirit who, with evil intention, resist God’s truth, although by its brightness they are so touched that they cannot claim ignorance. Such resistance alone constitutes this sin.” Battles mistranslates the phrase “in hoc tantum ut resistant.” It means: simply for the sake of resisting it. Proposed translation: “I say, then, they sin against the Holy Spirit who, although they are so grazed by the radiance of the divine truth that they cannot claim ignorance as an excuse, nevertheless resist it with deliberate malice, simply for the sake of resisting it.” (Blacketer)

But then you have one’s like this:

3/16/4, Battles, 802; OS 4:252 lines 23-25 “Haec quum docentur homines, admonentur per ipsos non stare quominus toties sacratissimus ille sanguis effundatur quoties peccant.” Battles: “When men are taught this, they are made aware that they cannot do anything to prevent the shedding of his most sacred blood as often as they sin.” Battles misses the meaning of stare per + quominus or quod, with the meaning that something is due to or the fault of something or someone. Calvin means people can’t take credit for the fact that Christ’s blood is not shed all over again every time they commit a sin. Cf. Norton: “When men are taught these things, they are put in minde that it is no thanke to them that the same most holy blood is not shed so oft as they sinne.” Thus: When people are taught these doctrines, they are reminded that it is no thanks to them that Christ’s most sacred blood is not shed every time they sin. (Blacketer)

Do a word search for ‘people’, ‘human’, and ‘man’ in both the log and their sample translation. Blacketer is allergic to man.

This entry was interesting. I doubt Crossway will go with ‘shit’ in their translation:

3.16.4, Battles, 802; OS 4:252.1 - 253.2. “Illi Deum frivolis suis satisfactionibus, hoc est stercoribus, placari nugantur…” Battles: “They make believe God is appeased by their wretched satisfactions, which are but dung [Phil. 3:8].” Here Battles softens and sanctifies Calvin’s meaning with with a Bible reference. In fact, Calvin is simply comparing works of satisaction to turds, as is clearer in the French: fiente et estrons; “manure and turds.” Sometimes it is not clear how to translate stercus in Calvin: shit or dregs or something in between. He certainly wasn’t as scatalogical as Luther, but he could at times go there in his own, more restrained manner. Battles’s rendering obscures the fact that this is not a pious reference to Scripture but an earthy insult to the Roman Catholic system of merits and satisfactions. (Blacketer)

2 Likes
5

Warhorn has ruined modern Christian writing for me. Now I’m always getting slapped in the face with “people”, “human” and the all babies being called “she”.

4 Likes