Scholars offer new explanation for rare Temple artifact in JerusalemAlthough it is true that scholars are suggesting new interpretations of this object (see here), this article, contra the headline, is about a new explanation advanced by one scholar.
Object, at the northwestern corner of the Temple Mount, was initially thought to read 'Daka LeYa,' which means 'pure to God' in Aramaic.
By Nir Hasson
But Prof. Shlomo Naeh of the Hebrew University's Talmud department believes the inscription could be read differently. "I was sitting with my son and looking at the photograph, and in a moment of intuition, I realized what it could be," he told Haaretz Tuesday.I take it that Professor Naeh reads the first word as DKRʼ "the ram," rather than DKʼ, "pure," and he accepts the proposed reading of the second word as LYH, but interprets it as the abbreviation of the name of a priestly order rather than a divine name.
Naeh also believes the object is related to Temple worship and purity, but reads the inscription differently, as "Dakar a Leyehoyariv." Dakar in Aramaic means ram and a stands for aleph, the first day of the week, when the priestly order of Yehoyariv was on duty in the Temple.
Thus, the object was used in Temple worship, but not how Reich and Shukron believe it was, says Naeh. To ensure the purity of animal sacrifices offered in the Temple - and to maintain an economic monoply, Naeh believes - pilgrims had to buy their offerings in the Temple courts. They gave money to a treasurer who would exchange it for a token inscribed with the type of sacrifice they had purchased and the date.
Like Reich and Shukron, Naeh supports his theory with a mishnaic verse citing the existence of such tokens. With regard to Reich and Shukron's interpretation, he said: "Purity was very fluid; the touch of an impure person was enough to make the object impure, so it is unlikely such a seal existed."
The kaph in the first word does have an odd mark above the tick at the top which could perhaps be interpreted as a damaged resh (inserted there for lack of space?), but it looks odd and I would want to see parallels for the placement in other seals of the period. Also, there seems to be a similar smaller mark above the similar tick on the first letter (dalet), which makes me disinclined to read the mark over the kaph as a separate letter. You need to look closely at all of the published photographs to see all this. So my provisional, off-the-cuff reading is DKʼ rather than DKRʼ.
As for Professor Naeh's interpretation of the second word, well, could be. Abbreviations are a bane to the epigrapher. Again, I would like to see some contemporary parallels.
It's nice that this object is getting so much responsible attention from the media and it's fun to propose and discuss interpretations of it informally, but as usual, serious evaluation of its meaning will have to take place in technical peer-review publications.
Also, a small note to Nir Hasson, who does a good job overall of covering these stories. When your article has someone citing a mishnaic verse, it's good form to give the reference.
UPDATE (5 January): I misunderstood part of Professor Naeh's argument: he does not propose to find a resh in the inscription. Much more on his proposal here (next post).