Monday, March 9, 2015
How could Segal have ignored the Samaritan text of Exodus when he tentatively identifies the 'two powers' sect as Samaritan and a mekhilta is properly defined as a commentary on Exodus? He references things written by Samaritanologists ABOUT the Samaritan writings - MacDonald on Marqe (albeit wrongly identifies the text as the Malef), the Samaritan liturgy - but not the actual Samaritan text of Exodus? It can't be that the Samaritan Pentateuch hadn't been rendered into English then. He could read Hebrew for God's sake.
Simply amazing (unless I am missing something) ...
What we are left with is that the mekhilata are necessarily commenting on the fact that what we would call 'the Samaritan text of Exodus' was still being used in Jewish communities or at the very least - used against Jews by their opponents. At the very least the clash of textual recensions in the early Common Era is fascinating!
Email email@example.com with comments or questions.