If MR. OFFOR will look at "the Prologue to the Translation of the Bible--Myles Coverdale unto the Christian Reader," in that copy of his, which he describes with the delight of an amateur of rare editions as having "several uncut leaves," he may read in its first page, how Coverdale confesses, with that humility which especially adorned his character, that "his insufficiency in the tongues" made him loath to undertake the task. He then touchingly alludes to Tyndale's adversity, suppressing his name, while he speaks of his "ripe knowledge," and laments the hindrances to his completing the translation of the Scriptures. But "to help me herein," he proceeds, "I have had sundry translations, not only in Latin, but also of the Dutch [_i.e._ German] interpreters, whom because of their singular gifts and special diligence in the Bible, I have been the more glad to follow for the most part, according as I was required." And again he says, "Lowly and faithfully have I followed mine interpreters." My attention was drawn to this subject nearly thirty years ago by the strange inaccuracies in Bishop Marsh's account of the sources of our authorised version; in which he had assumed that Tyndale could not translate from the Hebrew, which there is the clearest evidence that he knew well; and that he therefore translated from the German, of which language it is almost equally certain that he was ignorant. I saw, on the other hand, that Coverdale honestly confessed that his own translation was a secondary one, from the German and the Vulgate. He named the language, but not the translator, Luther, for the same reason that in two references to Tyndale's ability he desisted from naming him, viz., that his translation was to be dedicated to Henry VIII., who hated both their names. To test the different sources from which Tyndale and Coverdale formed their respective translations, nothing more is necessary than to open any chapter in the Hebrew and German Bibles; and whilst the translators from either will of course be found to agree in the broad meaning of any verse, there will be delicate distinctions in rendering idiomatic forms of speech, which will be decisive of the question. Having preserved my collation of some verses in Genesis xli., I find the following: Ver. 1. First word, יִהְיַו, literally, _And it was_. An introductory expression fairly represented by the Greek Εγενετο δε. Tyndale, _And it fortuned_. Luther and the Vulgate have omitted it, and therefore so has Coverdale. הֵּנִהְו, lit. _And behold_; Luther, {Wie}; Coverdale, _How that_. ראיה-לע, LXX, Επι του ποταμου; Tyndale, _By a river's side_; Luther, {Am Wasser}; Coverdale, _By a water side_. Here the Greek preserves the emphatic article ה, which pointed to the Nile; the Latin necessarily lose it, Tyndale neglects it, Coverdale copies Luther's vague expression. Our authorised version has correctly, _By the river_.