The inscription, as thus given, though it makes rhyme, certainly makes no sense whatever. To say the least, it is very bad Hebrew, if Hebrew at all; and is enough to puzzle the worst Hebrew scholar to make any sense of it.¹ Strange to say, however, there were found such bad Hebrew scholars, who were able to favour the world with a literal translation, as they think, of the inscription; and it is the following: “Of Oran Nebahh, the President, who rebelled against his prince. The Lord has taken him ... and his glory to King Amaziah.” The only words which I conceive to be Hebrew are מרה _Marah_, which has been translated “rebelled,” instead of bitter; יה _yah_, the Lord; and מלך אמציה _Melech Amaziah_, King Amaziah. I candidly confess, that were I asked to translate the above, I would have humbly acknowledged my ignorance, without the least compunction. I find, however, in an old Hebrew book, called דרכי נעם _Darcay Noam_, or “Ways of Pleasantness” (written by R. Moses, bar Shem Tob, Aben Chaviv, above a century before Villalpando instituted the inquiry), an account of an epitaph which, I have no doubt, is none other but the same with the one which the Jesuits attempted to decypher; and the following is the rabbi’s account of it according to his own words: “When I was in the kingdom of Valencia, at the synagogue of Morvitri [Murviedro], all the people at the gate, as well as the elders informed me, that a sepulchral monument existed there, of a prince of the army of Amaziah, King of Judah; I hastened, therefore, to inspect it. The monument stands on the summit of a hill; whither having ascended with labour and fatigue, I read the inscription, which was in verse, and as follows:―― שאו קינה בקול מרה לשר גדול לקחו יה׃² “Raise with a bitter voice, a lamentation For the great prince; the Lord has taken him.” ¹ The author has met with many indifferent linguists who were quicker in making sense of a bad composition than many learned philologists. ² Any one acquainted with the Samaritan alphabet can easily trace the blunders in the Jesuits’ version of the same. I could not read more; but at the conclusion was the word לאמציה “To Amaziah.” It seems evident that there was more than one Hebrew monument at Murviedro. I hesitate not in saying that, after having examined rigorously these and various other evidences bearing on the same question, I see no reason for disbelieving that there were Jews in Spain in the time of David and Solomon――_startling_ as it may appear. It is easy indeed to treat the arguments of a young lecturer with a sneer, and to resolve them into the rashness, or conceit, of inexperience; allow me to suggest, however, that denial is not answer, and that of all logic flat contradiction is by far the most illogical.