TABLE VI. POSTDILUVIAN HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN. PATRIARCHS. W. No. W. No. W. No. lives. lives. lives. Arphaxad 438 1 538 1 438 1 Cainan[10] 460 2 Salah 433 2 433 3 433 2 Heber 464 3 404 4 404 3 Peleg 239 4 339 5 239 4 Reu 239 5 339 6 239 5 Serug 230 6 330 7 230 6 Nahor *148 7 *208 8 *148 7 Terah *205 8 *205 9 *145 8 Abraham 175 9 175 10 175 9 3. Authenticity of the _Second Cainan_—Dilemma of the Venerable Bede—Mistake of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Horne—Usher’s Dissertation—Inconsistency of authorized translations of the Bible—Rashness of Beza—The Second Cainan in the most ancient Codices—Mistake of Bede, Hales, and other chronographers. Let us examine the internal evidence again afforded by these Tables, in favour of our argument. On comparing their different columns, we find that the name and generation of one of the _Postdiluvian_ Patriarchs, called by chronologers the _Second_ or _Junior Cainan_, has been either entirely lost or wilfully omitted in the Hebrew and Samaritan texts. This assertion we make with the utmost confidence, because in Luke iii. 36, this Cainan is distinctly enumerated in the genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ; and his name is found in all the MSS. of the New Testament, with the exception of the _Codex Bezæ_, which it is well known has been corrupted in this place. The hallucinations of commentators and chronologers on this point, are perhaps the most extraordinary which the annals of Criticism can furnish. To refer no farther back than to the days of the venerable Bede, we find him, in the preface to his commentary on the Acts, confessing himself unequal to the task of solving this difficult question; and, he greatly marvels why “_ten_ generations only, from the flood to Abraham, are found in the _Hebrew verity_,” while the inspired Luke chose to put “_eleven_ in his Gospel, Cainan being added according to the Seventy Interpreters.” In his exposition of that Gospel, he touches on the same question, and says with singular naïveté, “but which of these is the truer, or whether both can be true, God knoweth!”[11] Modern critics appear to have had much less difficulty in settling this important matter.