In page 112 of the same chronicle they found the following: “The marble mausoleum of surprising antiquity, which was discovered at Saguntum in the year of our Lord, 1482, and was inscribed with the Hebrew letters which are these in Roman, ‘Ze hu keber,’ &c. [as above], still exists in the citadel before the outer gate.” Villalpando did not stop there; he succeeded in possessing himself afterwards of a careful copy (through others of his order) of some other manuscript, which makes honourable mention of the same monument.
Were the rabbies the originators of this circumstance, I would certainly have hesitated before I brought it before you; not because I think that every thing rabbinical is of necessity absurd, ridiculous, and false; but in order to conciliate the strong prejudices of some who do think so, and treat every thing coming from that quarter with contempt; and generally, because they do not understand them. Not a word of the whole transaction is mentioned by any of the rabbies. The investigation was set on foot by Christian authors of great learning and extensive reading. Nor can it be said that it was a story conjured up by the Jesuits. There was no object in their doing so. They were never friendly to any thing Jewish; and in Villalpando’s time the most venomous animosity prevailed in their breast against every thing Jewish. Again, if their object was to deceive, why did they not make out the inscription on the monument which the natives have pointed out to them, to correspond with the one recorded in the Duke of Savoy’s ancient manuscript. There is not the remotest affinity between the two epitaphs. All the incidental circumstances connected with those monuments seem to me to conspire to attest that it was not their object to deceive in this matter.
Now, I wish to call your attention for a few minutes to the inscription which Villalpando’s friends discovered on the stone pointed out to them by the natives. It is the following, according to their decyphering:—
שארן נבח פקוד מרה
לשרו קחו יה
והדה עד מלך אמציה ...
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.