Andrew S. Ballitch (ed.)
Crossway, 2023
It’s fair to say that in the circles in which I move there’s been a fair bit of negativity surrounding Crossway’s decision to publish new editions of John Owen’s works. After all, the nineteenth century edition by my RPCS predecessor William Goold is still available to buy thanks to its republication by Banner of Truth. Yes that edition missed a few bits, and didn’t include his Latin work, but it’s still pretty much complete.
I beg to differ however. Editions of Owen’s works were produced in 1721, 1826 and 1850. Why should the 1850 edition have to be definitive for all time? The Banner editions were produced over 50 years ago and have never so much as been retypeset. There are no explanatory footnotes, and the Latin quotations remain untranslated. That’s not necessarily a criticism – but neither should Crossway be criticised if they feel there is scope for improvement.
For my part, if someone is starting out, it would be a no-brainer to get the new edition. Yes Crossway’s edition has almost twice the number of volumes, so it would be expensive to buy the lot at once, but Owen must be the most owned-but-unread set on ministers’ shelves. So just buy the ones you’re going to read and get the Goold set in Logos for searching.
Is the new edition perfect? Almost. It is beautifully presented, which seems to make Owen easier to read almost from the off. I do find it strange that their footnotes to Owen’s other works don’t reference which volume of Crossway’s edition they are (or will be) in. A reference to his Latin work even directs you to the edition by Soli Deo Gloria, which will seem particularly strange once the Crossway set is complete. Overall the footnotes are very helpful, though I found it strange that Owen’s referencing an alleged comment from the Pope about the Bible being a fable (p. 109) didn’t contain an explanatory footnote, and had to use google to learn what he was referring to.
I also found the introduction to this volume to be a bit partisan, particularly in its claim that baptists simply took the regulative principle to its logical conclusion. We are also told that unlike the radicals, the Reformers and Puritans saw the ‘need for the safeguards of tradition’. Owen would beg to differ, speaking as he does about ‘the unfaithful repository of tradition’ (p. 86).
Overall though it’s a very promising first volume in the series, and is so beautifully produced that it pretty much tempts you to read Owen.