As to the merits of Coverdale's translation of the Bible, nothing can be more plain than this great reformer's statement on the very title-page, that he has faithfully and truly translated out of Douche and Latin into Englishe,' and his honourable acknowledgment of the interpreters' he has fol lowed, in the prologue to the Christian Reader ' I have had sondrye translacions, not onely in Latyn but also of the Douche interpreters : whom (because of theyr synguler gyftes and special] dili gence in the Bible) I have ben the more glad to folowe for the most parte, accordynge as I was re quyred.' And the most cursory comparison of his version with the German-Swiss Bible, published by Froschover in 1531 [ZURICH VERSION], will shew that Coverdale has generally translated this version, and has even followed the Swiss construction and adopted its very larentheses. Yet Whittaker in his Historical and Critical inquiry into the Inter pretation of the He-brew Scriptures, asserts that if Coverdale's words have any meaning at all, they signify that he translated from the Hebrew' (p. 5o), that he mentions the Latin because if he had openly declared that he forsook it for the original Hebrew, he would have rashly endangered his personal safety (p. 51), and that he translated from the Hebrew is evident from the fact that he has sometimes deserted all those four ver sions' (i. e., the Sept., Vulg., Pagninus and Luther). One instance, in Is. lvii. 5, will be given at length. It is so remarkable an illustration of the preceding observations and so highly honourable to the venerable translator, that it may be con sidered as singly sufficient in deciding this point' (p. 52). Whittaker then gives the different render ings of the Sept., Vulg., Pagn., and Luther, and spews how Coverdale deviates from all of them. We cannot do better than give Coverdale's version of this very passage, and the Swiss, in parallel columns.
Coverdale's Version, The Swiss or Zurich Is. lvii. 5. — Ye take Bible, Is. lvii. 5. —Ir youre pleasure vnder the babend hitzen genom okes, & vnder all grene men vnder den Eychen, trees, the childe beynge vnder alien griinen bou slayne in the valleys, & men, die kind in den dennes of stone. toblen gemetzget, vnd in den hiilinen der velsen.
Nothing can be more literal, and be it remembered that Coverdale here follows word for word the Swiss Bible, though the Swiss deviates from the Hebrew as well as from all the ancient versions. Yet this is the passage which not only convinced Whittaker that Coverdale's version is made from the Hebrew, but which has led Anderson (An nals, i. 564) and others to make assertions equally strong. Now the fact that Coverdale translated the Swiss Bible clears up two difficulties which have hitherto been felt in connection with Isis life and biblical labours, viz., to find out the place where he was when he suddenly disap peared between 1529 and 1535, and where the first edition of his Bible was published. Hence forth there can be no doubt that Coverdale was during this period with Christopher Froschover, the celebrated patron of the English Reformers who were exiled in the reign of Queen Mary, and printer of protestant versions of the Bible, and that his translation was printed by Froschover. The latter point is moreover corroborated by the type, which is the same as that in which Froschover's Bibles are printed. The limits of the article preclude a more minute investigation of this subject. We must therefore refer to our Historical and Critical Commentary on Ecclesiastes, Longman 1861, Appendix ii., where the subject is more fully discussed.—C. D. G.