Heaven and Earth Pass Away

How to cite this article:
Joshua N. Tilton and David N. Bivin, “Heaven and Earth Pass Away,” The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction (Jerusalem Perspective, 2023) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/26517/].

(Matt. 5:17-18; 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 16:17; 21:33)

(Huck 21, 176, 221; Aland 54, 226, 293;
Crook 34, 273, 333)^[181]

Updated: 24 January 2024

לֹא תִּהְיוּ סְבוּרִים שֶׁבָּאתִי לְבַטֵּל אֶת הַתּוֹרָה לֹא בָּאתִי לְבַטְּלָהּ אֶלָּא לְקַיְּמָהּ אָמֵן אֲנִי אֹמֵר לָכֶם נוֹחַ לַשָּׁמַיִם וְלָאָרֶץ לַעֲבֹר מִלְּיוֹד אֶחָד אוֹ לְקוֹץ אֶחָד מִן הַתּוֹרָה לִיבָּטֵל

“My purpose is to ensure that every word of the Torah is interpreted correctly so that it can properly be obeyed according to its true intention. My purpose is not to weaken the Torah with interpretations that rob it of its vitality or power, as some others have done before me.

“Indeed, I can assure you that the whole universe will sooner perish than that a single yod—or even a qotz!—belonging to the Torah will be deleted on account of my faulty interpretation.^[182]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Heaven and Earth Pass Away click on the link below:

Conclusion

In Heaven and Earth Pass Away Jesus played on two senses of the verb בִּטֵּל, which could mean both “nullify” and “strike from a text.” In rabbinic parlance “nullify” could be used as a criticism of faulty exegesis that failed to bring out the unique contribution of every scriptural verse or that failed to make the most of every word and every letter. The opposite of “nullify” was “establish” (קִיֵּם). Proper exegesis established the worth of each verse and found significance in every letter. Thus, when Jesus claimed that he did not come to “nullify” the Torah but to “establish” it, he meant that he intended to bring out its meaning to the fullest. Jesus went on to say that not even one letter nor even one pen stroke will ever be deleted from the Torah, thus playing on the other sense of בִּטֵּל (“strike from a text”). Given the manner in which scribal practices evolve and the inevitability of copyists’ errors, Jesus’ declaration was obvious hyperbole. His point in making this exaggerated claim was simply to reinforce (“Amen! I say to you…”) his stated commitment to interpret the text of the Torah with faithfulness and precision.

---

Click here to return to The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction main page. _______________________________________________________

---

• ^[1] See Bundy, 102 §23; Kilpatrick, 17-18; Gerhard Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law,” in Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew (ed. Günther Bornkamm, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz Joachim Held; trans. Percy Scott; London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963), 58-164, esp. 67; Beare, Matt., 138; Jeremias, Theology, 211; Schweizer, 104; Gundry, Matt., 78; Kloppenborg, 79; Hagner, 1:104; Luz, 1:211. ↩
• ^[2] See Schweizer, 106. ↩
• ^[3] See Knox, 2:99. ↩
• ^[4] See Bundy, 102 §23; Kloppenborg, 79. ↩
• ^[5] See Bultmann, 138; Bundy, 102 §23; Beare, Matt., 141; Luz, 1:21. ↩
• ^[6] For such scholars the so-called “antitheses” in the Sermon on the Mount were thought to contradict the claim that Jesus had not come to abolish the Law. See Bultmann, 138; Beare, 58 §21; Witherington, 125. It has since become clear that in the “antitheses” what Jesus challenged were what he regarded to be invalid interpretations of the Torah, not the Torah itself. See David Flusser, “Die Tora in der Bergpredigt,” in Juden und Christen lesen dieselbe Bibel (ed. Heinz Kremers; Duisburg: Braun, 1973), 102-113, repr. in his Entdeckungen im Neuen Testament (2 vols.; ed. Martin Majer; Neukirchener, 1987-1999), 1:21-31 (for an English translation of this article see idem, “The Torah in the Sermon on the Mount,” on WholeStones.org, esp. under the subheading “Interpreting the Torah: Abolish or Fulfill, Undergird or Undermine.”) See also Serge Ruzer, “The Technique of Composite Citation in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:21-22, 33-37),” Revue Biblique 103.1 (1996): 65-75; idem, “Antitheses in Matthew 5: Midrashic Aspects of Exegetical Techniques,” in his Mapping the New Testament: Early Christian Writings as a Witness for Jewish Biblical Exegesis (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 11-34. ↩
• ^[7] For the characterization of the sayings in Matt. 5:17-18 as “ultra-conservative,” see Bundy, 102 §23; Jeremias, Theology, 211. Cf. Manson’s reference to “unbending conservatism” (Sayings, 135). However, the Torah’s authority over Jews and its durability were not matters of debate in Second Temple Judaism. Even a Jew as thoroughly Hellenized as Philo of Alexandria insisted that the Torah’s commandments must be observed. The sentiment expressed in Matt. 5:17-18 is not “ultra-conservative” but simply Jewish. ↩
• ^[8] Manson (Sayings, 135) accepted the authenticity of Matt. 5:18, but only by twisting its meaning into the opposite. ↩
• ^[9] Meier did not rule out the possibility that the author of Matthew found the sayings in Matt. 5:17-18 already joined to one another in his source. See John P. Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel: A Redactional Study of Mt. 5:17-48 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1976), 120-122. ↩
• ^[10] Cf., e.g., Matt. 19:17-19 ∥ Mark 10:19 ∥ Luke 18:20; Matt. 23:23 ∥ Luke 11:42; Matt. 22:37-39 ∥ Mark 12:29-31 ∥ Luke 10:28. ↩
• ^[11] On the author of Luke’s dependence on FR for the “strings of pearls,” see LOY Excursus: Sources of the “Strings of Pearls” in Luke’s Gospel. On the possibility that the First Reconstructor inherited the “strings of pearls” from an earlier written source or oral tradition, see Completion, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” ↩
• ^[12] Pace Bundy, 102 §23; Gundry, Matt., 78; Kloppenborg, 79. ↩
• ^[13] See Flusser, “The Torah in the Sermon on the Mount,” under the subheading “Interpreting the Torah: Abolish or Fulfill, Undergird or Undermine.” ↩
• ^[14] See David Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus (Bern: Peter Lang, 1981), 99. ↩
• ^[15] Cf. Vermes, Authentic, 355. ↩
• ^[16] We will discuss why πληροῦν was selected as the translation of קִיֵּם in Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[17] See Gustaf Dalman, Jesus—Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels (trans. Paul P. Levertoff; New York: Macmillan, 1929 [1922]), 58; Jeremias, Theology, 83; David Flusser, “An Early Jewish-Christian Document in the Tiburtine Sibyl” (Flusser, JOC, 359-389, esp. 378); Peter J. Tomson, “An Alienated Jewish Tradition in John 7:22-23: Proposal for an ‘Epichronic’ Reading,” in his Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019), 297-314, esp. 299 n. 5. ↩
• ^[18] Paul’s καταργεῖν (katargein, “to nullify”) is closer to בִּטֵּל (biṭēl, “nullify”) than is Matthew’s καταλύειν (katalūein, “to demolish”), and Paul’s ἑστάναι (hestanai, “to stand”) is closer to קִיֵּם (qiyēm, “establish”) than is Matthew’s πληροῦν (plēroun, “fulfill”). ↩
• ^[19] Both the Aramaic language in which the tale is related and the family ties between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabban Gamliel this story postulates indicate that the story is late and unhistorical. On the Babylonian Talmud’s tendency to connect prominent historical personalities with ahistorical family ties, see Shmuel Safrai, “Tales of the Sages in the Palestinian Tradition and the Babylonian Talmud,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971): 209-232, esp. 229-232. On Imma Shalom, see Tal Ilan, Mine and Yours are Hers: Retrieving Women’s History from Rabbinic Literature (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 110-118. There Ilan demonstrated that the anti-Christian tale is based on an earlier story (cf. Pesikta de-Rav Khana 15:9 [ed. Mandelbaum, 1:260-261]) about the bribing of a corrupt judge that did not involve the issues of a daughter’s inheritance or anti-Christian polemic and in which neither Imma Shalom nor Rabban Gamliel played a part. ↩
• ^[20] See Jeremias, Theology, 83-84. ↩
• ^[21] See Dalman, Jesus—Jeshua, 62; Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 73-74 n. 76; and above, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[22] See Flusser, “An Early Jewish-Christian Document in the Tiburtine Sibyl,” 379. ↩
• ^[23] See Harnack, 56; Bundy, 102 §23, 382 §286; Kilpatrick, 17; Conzelmann, 159 n. 1; Catchpole, 236. See also Georg Strecker, The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Commentary (trans. O. C. Dean, Jr.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1988), 55. ↩
• ^[24] So Knox, 2:99; cf. Luz, 1:212. ↩
• ^[25] Only 18.52% of Matthew’s wording in Matt. 5:18 is identical to Luke 16:17, and only 33.33% of Luke’s wording in Luke 16:17 is identical to Matt. 5:18. For these figures, see LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae. ↩
• ^[26] See LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae, under the subheading “Causes of Verbal Disparity in DT Pericopae.” ↩
• ^[27] Cf. Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 62; Catchpole, 236. Nolland (Matt., 217) noted that the “level of overlap” between Matt. 5:18 and Mark 13:30-31 “is striking,” but concluded that this overlap had no “implications for judgments about source forms”! ↩
• ^[28] As indeed we do with regard to Matthew’s γάρ. See above, Comment to L7-8. ↩
• ^[29] As we suppose was the case with respect to ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν. See above, Comment to L7-8. ↩
• ^[30] Many scholars have suspected as much with regard to ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται (“until everything comes to pass”). See Harnack, 56; McNeile, 59; Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 63; Gundry, Matt., 79; Catchpole, 236. See also Lindsey, LHNS, 25 §21; Flusser, Jesus, 74-75 n. 42. ↩
• ^[31] The author of Matthew’s heightening of the verbal similarities between the DT and TT versions of Heaven and Earth Pass Away also highlights a notable contrast in their messages. According to Matt. 5:18, the Torah is temporal, while according to Matt. 24:35, Jesus’ words are eternal. The parallel to Matt. 5:18 in Luke 16:17 does not claim that the Torah is temporal, it merely states that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the Torah to change. It does not follow that if (or when) heaven and earth do pass away the Torah will cease to exist. What the status of the Torah will be in the world to come is simply beyond the purview of Luke 16:17. ↩
• ^[32] See Completion, under the subheading “Conjectured Stages of Transmission.” ↩
• ^[33] In other words, rather than adapting an Anth. saying twice, once for a “string of pearls” and once for the eschatological discourse, it may be that the First Reconstructor adapted a saying once, the “string of pearls” version of Heaven and Earth Pass Away into the version he inserted into the eschatological discourse. ↩
• ^[34] See Bovon, 2:121. ↩
• ^[35] Cf. Kilpatrick, 18; Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law,” 67 n. 2; Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 65, 68, 81, 84; Gundry, Matt., 78; Davies-Allison, 1:482. ↩
• ^[36] See Betz, 174. ↩
• ^[37] Cf. Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 85. ↩
• ^[38] Within this overall pattern there are slight variations. In Matt. 5:17 “I did not come to destroy” lacks an object, while in Matt. 10:34 “peace” is the object of “I have not come to cast.” And whereas the final clause of Matt. 5:17 has an infinitive (“but to fulfill”), the final clause of Matt. 10:34 has a noun (“but a sword”). It is not possible to adapt Matt. 10:34 to make it conform more closely to Matt. 5:17, but it would be possible to adapt Matt. 5:17 to conform more closely to Matt. 10:34 by adding τὸν νόμον after οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι and by adding αὐτόν after ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι. Even so, the structures of the two verses would not be identical, and we must allow that the different subject matters might generate minor differences in the overall Do not think that I came to do X; I did not come to do X but Y structure. ↩
• ^[39] It appears the author of Luke (or the First Reconstructor before him) replaced the phrase μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι (“Do not think that...”) with δοκεῖτε ὅτι (“Do you think that...?”) and eliminated the repetitive οὐκ ἦλθον + infinitive. ↩
• ^[40] Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:484. ↩
• ^[41] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:946. ↩
• ^[42] The phrase אַל תַּחְשְׁבוּ occurs twice in MT (Zech. 7:10; 8:17). ↩
• ^[43] According to Hammer (105 n. 12), the reference is to the Bar Kochva revolt. ↩
• ^[44] See McNeile, 57; Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law,” 67; Beare, Matt., 141; Davies-Allison, 1:484; France, Matt., 182. ↩
• ^[45] See Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 66; Hagner, 1:104; Betz, 173; Nolland, Matt., 217. ↩
• ^[46] See Flusser, “An Early Jewish-Christian Document in the Tiburtine Sibyl,” 378; idem, “A Rabbinic Parallel to the Sermon on the Mount” (JOC, 494-508, esp. 504 n. 40); idem, Jesus, 90-91. ↩
• ^[47] Ibid.; Sandt-Flusser, 217-218. Cf. Dalman, Jesus—Jeshua, 57; Young, JJT, 265. ↩
• ^[48] We do not know what the overlayings of the hire of a prostitute or the price of a dog might refer to. The overlayings of a domesticated animal used for idolatry, on the other hand, presumably refers to gold overlays used to decorate the horns of sacrificial animals. ↩
• ^[49] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:738. ↩
• ^[50] See Even-Shoshan, Concordance, 165. ↩
• ^[51] For a detailed discussion of the tradition preserved in Sifre Deut. §356 and in parallels elsewhere in rabbinic sources, see Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Three Scrolls of the Law that were Found in the Temple Court,” Textus 2:1 (1962): 14-27. ↩
• ^[52] See Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 70; Betz, 177 n. 70; Nolland, Matt., 217-218. ↩
• ^[53] See Bultmann, 138; Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 41; Betz, 177 n. 73; Hagner, 1:105; Luz, 1:213. ↩
• ^[54] See Allen, 46; McNeile, 58; Hagner, 1:105; Sandt-Flusser, 217. ↩
• ^[55] See Schweizer, 106. In Matthew “law” and “prophets” are paired 4xx (Matt. 5:17; 7:12; 11:13; 22:40), compared to 0xx in Mark and only 1x in Luke (Luke 16:16). The table below shows each of the instances of Matthew’s pairing of “law” with “prophets” and the synoptic parallels (if any):

  Matt. 5:17 U (but cf. Matt. 5:18 ∥ Luke 16:17) Matt. 7:12 DT (cf. Luke 6:31) Matt. 11:13 DT = Luke 16:16 Matt. 22:40 TT (cf. Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27) Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel

  ↩

• ^[56] See Dalman, Jesus—Jeshua, 62; Tomson, If This Be, 288-289. ↩
• ^[57] The author of Luke had no motive for deleting a reference to the prophets in Luke 16:17. On the contrary, a reference to the prophets in Luke 16:17 would have helped forge a thematic link between Luke 16:17 and the preceding verse, which does mention “the Law and the prophets.” Moreover, the author of Luke paired the Law of Moses with the Prophets together with the Psalms in Luke 24:44 (and cf. “Moses and the prophets” in Luke 16:29, 31; 24:27), so it is clear that he had no aversion to paring “law” and “prophets.” On the coupling of the Law and the Prophets with the Psalms in Luke 24:44, see David Flusser, “‘Everything Written…in the Psalms About Me’ (Luke 24:44),” on WholeStones.org. ↩
• ^[58] See Allen, 46; Flusser, “An Early Jewish-Christian Document in the Tiburtine Sibyl,” 378; Tomson, If This Be, 288-289. ↩
• ^[59] See David Flusser, “The Torah in the Sermon on the Mount,” under the subheading “Interpreting the Torah: Abolish or Fulfill, Undergird or Undermine,” n. 9. Schweizer (106) believed “or” replaced the more usual “and” “because a negation precedes.” Nevertheless, “the Law or the Prophets” seems to assume a surprising degree of independence of the Prophets from the Law, whereas the typical formula, “the Law and the Prophets,” conceives of the pair as a unity. Or is ἢ τοὺς προφήτας rather than καὶ τοὺς προφήτας in Matt. 5:17 simply another instance of Matthean sloppiness? On a certain degree of thoughtlessness that can be detected in Matthean redaction, see Woes on Three Villages, Comment to L24. ↩
• ^[60] See Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 84; Davies-Allison, 1:484. ↩
• ^[61] As evidenced by the numerous fulfillment notices that are unique to Matthew’s Gospel. On which, see A Voice Crying, Comment to L40. ↩
• ^[62] Cf. Allen, 46; McNeile, 58. ↩
• ^[63] Cf. Harnack, 56. ↩
• ^[64] See Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 71-73. ↩
• ^[65] The author of Matthew cited verses from Isaiah (Matt. 1:22-23; 4:14-16; 8:17; 12:17-21), Jeremiah (Matt. 2:17-18), Hosea (Matt. 2:15), Zechariah (Matt. 21:4-5) and Psalms (Matt. 13:35) as belonging to the Prophets. The author of Matthew also cited verses of unknown provenance (Matt. 2:23; 27:9-10 [attributed to Jeremiah]) as belonging to the Prophets. ↩
• ^[66] On this tendency, see Lord’s Prayer, Comment to L10. ↩
• ^[67] In the table below we cite instances where the LXX translators omitted a pronoun equivalent to the pronominal suffix attached to -לְ + infinitive construct:

  Gen. 2:15 καὶ φυλάσσειν = וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ (in this instance וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ is preceded by לְעָבְדָהּ, which the LXX translators rendered as ἐργάζεσθαι αὐτόν) Gen. 15:7 κληρονομῆσαι = לְרִשְׁתָּהּ Gen. 23:2 καὶ πενθῆσαι = וְלִבְכֹּתָהּ Lev. 18:23 βιβασθῆναι = לְרִבְעָהּ Deut. 7:1 κληρονομῆσαι = לְרִשְׁתָּהּ Deut. 9:6 κληρονομῆσαι = לְרִשְׁתָּהּ Deut. 11:22 ποιεῖν = לַעֲשֹׂתָהּ Deut. 19:9 ποιεῖν = לַעֲשֹׂתָהּ Deut. 21:1 κληρονομῆσαι = לְרִשְׁתָּהּ Deut. 25:19 κατακληρονομῆσαι = לְרִשְׁתָּהּ Ezek. 30:21 τοῦ δοθῆναι ἰσχύν = לְחָזְקָהּ Prov. 26:15 ἐπενεγκεῖν = לַהֲשִׁיבָהּ

  ↩

• ^[68] See Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 84-85. Cf. Tomson, If This Be, 288. ↩
• ^[69] See Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 85. ↩
• ^[70] Aside from LXX examples of πληροῦν in the sense of “fulfill a prophecy” (cf., e.g., 3 Kgdms. 2:27; 2 Chr. 36:21), the author of Matthew would have been familiar with this sense from everyday Koine usage. For instance, an example of πληροῦν in the sense of “fulfill a prophecy” occurs in the writings of Polyaenus (2nd cent. C.E.):

  Ἀθηναίοις καὶ Πελοποννησίοις πόλεμος ἦν. ὁ θεὸς ἔχρησε νικᾶν Ἀθηναίους, εἰ ὁ βασιλεὺς αὐτῶν ἀποθάνοι πρὸς ἀνδρὸς Πελοποννησίου.... παιωνίσαντες Ἀθηναῖοι—τί γὰρ οὐκ ἔμελλον τοῦ λογίου πεπληρωμένου;—θυμῷ καὶ ῥύμῃ πλείονι προΐασιν εἰς μάχην

  There was a war between the Athenians and the Peloponnesians. The deity made it known that victory was the Athenians’ if the Peloponnesians killed their king.... The Athenians striking out—for what remained of the oracle to be fulfilled [πεπληρωμένου]?—being in great fury and boldness advanced into the fray.... (Polyaenus, Strategems 1:18 [ed. Melber, 19])

  Text according to Ioannes Melber, ed., Polyaeni Strategematon Libri VIII Ex Recensione Edvardi Woelfflin (Stutgardiae: in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1970 [repr. from 1887/1901]). ↩

• ^[71] The pairing of בִּטֵּל (or any other verb that might have been translated as καταλύειν) with עָשָׂה (‘āsāh, “do”), the Hebrew equivalent of ποιεῖν (“to do”), is unknown in rabbinic sources. ↩
• ^[72] The equivalence of πληροῦν and ק-ו-מ was proposed by Dalman, Jesus—Jeshua, 57-62. See also Daube, 60-61; David N. Bivin, “Matthew 5:17: ‘Destroy’ the Law,” under the subheading “To fulfill [the law].” ↩
• ^[73] See Gerhard Delling, “πληρόω,” TDNT, 6:286-298, esp. 293; Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law,” 68; C. F. D. Moule, “Fulfilment-Words in the New Testament: Use and Abuse,” New Testament Studies 14 (1967-1968): 293-320, esp. 313-314, 318; Jeremias, Theology, 83; Hagner, 1:105; Luz, 1:212 n. 8. Luz incorrectly cited Lapide as claiming “that מָלֵא in connection with the Law is not Semitic,” from which Luz drew the inference “that there was no Semitic original of Matt 5:17.” What Lapide actually wrote was that Matthew’s verb, viz., πληροῦν, “when used in connection with the Torah, is alien to the Semitic spirit of the language.” See Pinchas Lapide, The Sermon on the Mount: Utopia or Program for Action? (trans. Arlene Swidler [Die Bergpredigt—Utopie oder Programm, 1982]; Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1986), 18. Lapide did not discuss מָלֵא, but he did indirectly indicate that קִיֵּם would be an appropriate equivalent for Matthew’s πληροῦν. Jeremias’ argument fails the “goose and gander” standard, for he argued against קִיֵּם on the grounds that the LXX translators never rendered ק-ו-מ as πληροῦν, but then argued (on the basis of b. Shab. 116b) that Matthew’s πληροῦν must stand for י-ס-פ even though the LXX translators never rendered verbs from the י-ס-פ root as πληροῦν! ↩
• ^[74] Cf. Sandt-Flusser, 218 n. 74. ↩
• ^[75] Compare the use of הֵקִים (hēqim, “establish”) in MT for the “establishment” or “fulfillment” of God’s word (1 Kgs. 2:4; 12:15; Isa. 44:26) and in MT and DSS for the “establishment” or “fulfillment” of [the terms of] the covenant (Deut. 8:18; Jer. 34:18; 1QS V, 21-22, VIII, 10; 1QSb [1Q28b] V, 23). ↩
• ^[76] Additional examples of מִלֵּא in the sense of “fulfill a promise or prophecy” occur in 1 Kgs. 8:15, 24; Jer. 44:25; Ps. 20:5, 6; 2 Chr. 6:4, 15. In each of these instances the LXX translators rendered מִלֵּא with πληροῦν. ↩
• ^[77] Pace Jeremias, Theology, 211. ↩
• ^[78] See BDB, 569-570; Jastrow, 785. ↩
• ^[79] Harnack (56) and Bundy (382 §286) thought that Luke 16:17 implied that the Torah would outlast heaven and earth, but the greater difficulty of altering the Torah does not necessarily indicate that it must sequentially follow the easier feat of doing away with heaven and earth. Meier (Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 59-60) and Gundry (Matt., 80) both regarded the Torah as more enduring in Matthew’s DT version of Heaven and Earth Pass Away, but they drew opposite conclusions from this assessment. Meier supposed that because the pre-Matthean form of Matt. 5:18 is more stringent than Luke 16:17 Luke’s more lenient version must be secondary. Gundry, on the other hand, regarded Matthew’s DT version of Heaven and Earth Pass Away as an escalation of the pre-Matthean version better preserved in Luke 16:17. ↩
• ^[80] See Harnack, 56; Catchpole, 236. ↩
• ^[81] See Gundry, Matt., 79; Davies-Allison, 1:489. ↩
• ^[82] See Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 47, 58; Gundry, Matt., 79. ↩
• ^[83] Not a single “string of pearls” saying in Luke (Luke 8:16-18; 9:23-27; 16:16-18; 17:1-6) opens with “Amen!” ↩
• ^[84] That the γάρ in Matt. 5:18 is redactional is likely, for not only is ἀμὴν γάρ unique to Matthew, it is also un-Hebraic. Cf. Dalman, Jesus—Jeshua, 61. On γάρ following ἀμήν as the product of Matthean redaction, see Completion, Comment to L11. Nevertheless, there is one instance of ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν that may have occurred in Anth. See Blessedness of the Twelve, Comment to L10. ↩
• ^[85] See Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 46; Davies-Allison, 1:489; Hagner, 1:106; Nolland, Matt., 219; France, Matt., 184. ↩
• ^[86] For a re-evaluation of Jesus’ use of “Amen!” see Robert L. Lindsey, “‘Verily’ or ‘Amen’—What Did Jesus Say?” ↩
• ^[87] See Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 59-60; Nolland, Matt., 217. ↩
• ^[88] See Bovon, 2:467 n. 70. ↩
• ^[89] Synoptic sayings with the ἕως/μέχρις + subjunctive/future clause ⇄ οὐ μὴ + subjunctive pattern occur within the following verses:

  Matt. 5:18 DT ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου (cf. Luke 16:17) Matt. 5:26 DT οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθῃς ἐκεῖθεν ἕως ἂν ἀποδῷς τὸν ἔσχατον κοδράντην ≈ Luke 12:59 Matt. 10:23 U οὐ μὴ τελέσητε τὰς πόλεις τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου Matt. 16:28 TT εἰσίν τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστώτων οἵτινες οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐρχόμενον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ αὐτοῦ ≈ Mark 9:1; Luke 9:27 Matt. 23:39 DT οὐ μή με ἴδητε ἀπ’ ἄρτι ἕως ἂν εἴπητε ≈ Luke 13:35 Matt. 24:34 TT οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ἕως ἂν πάντα ταῦτα γένηται ≈ Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32 Matt. 26:29 TT οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπ’ ἄρτι ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω μεθ’ ὑμῶν καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ πατρός μου ≈ Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18 Mark 9:1 TT εἰσίν τινες ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων οἵτινες οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐληλυθυῖαν ἐν δυνάμει ≈ Matt. 16:28; Luke 9:27 Mark 13:30 TT οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη μέχρις οὗ ταῦτα πάντα γένηται ≈ Matt. 24:34; Luke 21:32 Mark 14:25 TT οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω καινὸν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ ≈ Matt. 26:29; Luke 22:18 Luke 9:27 TT εἰσίν τινες τῶν αὐτοῦ ἑστηκότων οἳ οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ≈ Matt. 16:28; Mark 9:1 Luke 12:59 DT οὐ μὴ ἐξέλθῃς ἐκεῖθεν, ἕως καὶ τὸ ἔσχατον λεπτὸν ἀποδῷς ≈ Matt. 5:26 Luke 13:35 DT οὐ μὴ ἴδητέ με ἕως [ἥξει ὅτε] εἴπητε ≈ Matt. 23:39 Luke 21:32 TT οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται ≈ Matt. 24:34; Mark 13:30 Luke 22:16 U οὐ μὴ φάγω αὐτὸ ἕως ὅτου πληρωθῇ ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ Luke 22:18 TT οὐ μὴ πίω ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦ γενήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ἕως οὗ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ ≈ Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel

  The Lukan-Matthean agreements to use the ἕως + subjunctive/future clause ⇄ οὐ μὴ + subjunctive pattern in DT sayings of Jesus prove that this pattern did occur in the pre-synoptic tradition. But note how many of the instances of this pattern in the Synoptic Gospels occur in versions of Completion (Matt. 10:23; Matt. 16:28 ∥ Mark 9:1 ∥ Luke 9:27; Matt. 24:34 ∥ Mark 13:30 ∥ Luke 21:32) and Heaven and Earth Pass Away (Matt. 5:18) due to the redactional activities of the First Reconstructor and the cross-pollination activity of the author of Matthew. ↩

• ^[90] Pace Harnack, 56. ↩
• ^[91] The only other instances of this comparative adjective that occur in Luke are supported by the synoptic parallels (Luke 5:32 = Matt. 9:5 ∥ Mark 2:9; Luke 18:25 = Matt. 19:24 ∥ Mark 10:25). See Davies-Allison, 1:490; Luz, 1:212 n. 10; Catchpole, 236. Note, too, that εὐκοπώτερον never occurs in Acts, where the author of Luke’s personal writing style is more evident than in his Gospel. ↩
• ^[92] See Segal, 193 §391. ↩
• ^[93] See David N. Bivin, “Hendiadys in the Synoptic Gospels.” ↩
• ^[94] See John P. Meier, The Vision of Matthew: Christ, Church, and Morality in the First Gospel (New York: Paulist Press, 1979), 229; Hagner, 1:107. ↩
• ^[95] See Allen, 46; Strecker, The Sermon on the Mount, 55. ↩
• ^[96] See Flusser, Jesus, 90-91; idem, “The Torah in the Sermon on the Mount,” under the subheading “Interpreting the Torah: Abolish or Fulfill, Undergird or Undermine.” ↩
• ^[97] On the identification of Wisdom and Torah in rabbinic sources, cf., e.g., Sifre Deut. §48 (ed. Finkelstein, 107-114), §317 (ed. Finkelstein, 359). The identification of Wisdom with the Torah had already been made in the Second Temple Period. Cf., e.g., Sir. 24:1-29. ↩
• ^[98] On the rabbinic identification of Wisdom with Torah, see Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (2 vols.; trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975), 1:287. ↩
• ^[99] And so we find in Leviticus Rabbah:

  כת′ שמע ישראל י″י אלהינו י″י אחד אם את עושה ד′ ר′ מחריב את כל העולם כת′ כי לא תשתחוה לאל אחר אם עושה את ר′ ד′ את מחריב את כל העולם

  It is written: Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God the LORD is One [אחד] [Deut. 6:4]. If you make the dalet (ד) a resh (ר), you destroy the entire universe [i.e., because you have changed “the LORD is one ⟨אחד⟩” to “the LORD is another ⟨אחר⟩”—DNB and JNT]. It is written: You must not worship another [אחר] god [Exod. 34:14]. If you make the resh (ר) a dalet (ד), you destroy the entire universe [i.e., because you have changed “you must not worship another ⟨אחר⟩ god” to “you must not worship the One ⟨אחד⟩ God”—DNB and JNT].... (Lev. Rab. 19:2 [ed. Margulies, 1:422])

  The midrash continues in this vein with several more examples of adding or subtracting the distinguishing marks between similarly formed letters leading to catastrophic results. Note that according to this midrash the universe does not depend upon the Torah as an abstract entity; its existence depends upon the written text of the Torah remaining unaltered. ↩

• ^[100] See Hatch-Redpath, 1068-1069. ↩
• ^[101] See Dos Santos, 148. ↩
• ^[102] See Dalman, Jesus—Jeshua, 61. ↩
• ^[103] See Dalman, 5-6; Gundry, Matt., 80; Davies-Allison, 1:490; Catchpole, 236. ↩
• ^[104] See Harnack, 56; Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 50. ↩
• ^[105] See Dalman, 5-6. ↩
• ^[106] See Frank Moore Cross, “The Development of the Jewish Scripts,” in The Bible and the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of William Foxwell Albright (ed. G. Ernest Wright; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965), 170-264, esp. 218-219, 227-228; Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 50 n. 29. ↩
• ^[107] See Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 56 n. 20; Luz, 1:212. Pace Gundry, Matt., 80; Hagner, 1:106. ↩
• ^[108] See Gundry, Matt., 80. ↩
• ^[109] Examples of the pairing of συλλαβαί with κεραία occur in Philo, Flacc. §131; Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 31:86; Plutarch, Moralia 1100A. See Arthur J. Dewey, “Quibbling Over Serifs: Observations on Matt 5:18/Luke 16:17,” Forum: Foundations and Facets 5.2 (1989): 109-119, esp. 114-115 n. 24; Wolter, 2:276. ↩
• ^[110] See Harnack, 56. Since the iota was written with a single pen stroke (see Luz, 1:212, 218), the pairing of ἰῶτα with κεραία would have been redundant as well as unusual. ↩
• ^[111] See Betz, 182 n. 102. ↩
• ^[112] See Étienne Nodet, “PAS UN YOD, PAS UN WAW (Mt 5,18),” Revue Biblique 117.4 (2010): 614-616, esp. 616. For an English translation of Nodet’s article, click here. ↩
• ^[113] See A. B. Bruce, 104; Allen, 46; McNeile, 59; Lindsey, JRL, 71; Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 50; Hagner, 1:106; Betz, 182 n. 102; Vermes, Authentic, 355 n. 1. ↩
• ^[114] Cf. Nolland, Matt., 220. ↩
• ^[115] It is difficult to say which response is original. Certainly the assurance that a yod would never be deleted fits the story better, but perhaps an editor recognized this was the case and so changed “not a word from you” to “not a yod from you.” On the other hand, one would not have expected an editor to decrease “Solomon and a thousand like him” to “Solomon and a hundred like him,” the usual tendency in imaginative tales being inflationary. Perhaps, then, there is reason to suppose that the reference to the yod is original. ↩
• ^[116] See Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 50-51 n. 30. The problem is more evident in Leviticus Rabbah’s version of the story, where we read:

  כת′ לא ירבה לו נשים והרבה לו נשים. לא ירבה לו סוסים והרבה לו סוסים לא ירבה לו כסף וזהב והרבה לו כסף וזהב

  It is written, He must not accumulate [ירבה] wives for himself [Deut. 17:17], but he accumulated [והרבה] wives for himself; he must not accumulate [ירבה] horses for himself [Deut. 17:16], but he accumulated [והרבה] horses for himself; he must not accumulate [ירבה] silver and gold for himself [Deut. 17:17], but he accumulated [והרבה] silver and gold for himself. (Lev. Rab. 19:2 [ed. Margulies, 1:421])

  The deletion of י from ירבה does not result in הרבה. ↩

• ^[117] Matthew’s iota can hardly refer to the Aramaic letter yod, since Torah scrolls were not written in Aramaic. Moreover, there was a general prohibition against writing down Aramaic targums, which seems to have been respected, at least with regard to the Torah, if not other books in the Hebrew canon, during the Second Temple period. See Randall Buth, “Where Is the Aramaic Bible at Qumran? Scripture Use in the Land of Israel.” ↩
• ^[118] See DSS Study Edition, 2:1032. ↩
• ^[119] See Jastrow, 567. ↩
• ^[120] Similarly, we find two versions of a question attributed to Rabbi Akiva regarding certain letters written in the Torah. In one version the names of the letters are treated as masculine (אלף זה בית זה למה נכתב [“This [masc.] aleph, this [masc.] bet, why is it written [masc.]?”]; Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version B §12 [ed. Schechter, 29]), while in the other version the names of the letters are treated as feminine (אלף זו למה נכתבה בית זו למה נכתבה [“This [fem.] aleph, this [fem.] bet, why is it written [fem.]?”]; Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version A §6 [ed. Schechter, 29]). ↩
• ^[121] Note that in Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai’s imaginative tale God’s reassuring statement יוד ממך אינו בטל (“a yod from you will not be deleted”; Lev. Rab. 19:2) treats yod as masculine. ↩
• ^[122] See Jastrow, 567. Cf. Sifre Deut. §36 (ed. Finkelstein, 65-66). ↩
• ^[123] In Codex Vaticanus we find κερέα (kerea, “horn”) in Matt. 5:18 instead of κεραία (keraia, lit., “little horn”; “pen stroke,” “serif”) as in critical texts. While we use Codex Vaticanus as the base text for our reconstructions, the reading of the critical texts is almost certainly correct. ↩
• ^[124] See Nodet, “PAS UN YOD, PAS UN WAW (Mt 5,18),” 615. ↩
• ^[125] See Betz, 182 n. 102; Luz, 1:213; Wolter, 2:276. ↩
• ^[126] See Creed, 207. Other scholars adopted the interpretation based on Origen’s use of κεραία without crediting Origen. See A. B. Bruce, 104; Marshall, 630; Hagner, 1:106. ↩
• ^[127] The difference between כ and ב cannot explain the confusion between אֲחִימֶלֶךְ (’^aḥimelech) and אֲבִימֶלֶךְ (’^avimelech), since the guttural in Achimelech is a ḥet (ח) not a kaf (כ). We also note that in LXX we have Αβιμελεχ both in Ps. 33:1 and in 1 Kgdms. 21:2ff., so either Origen was working from a Greek text different from LXX or he was working from memory or both factors were at play. In any case, it is not merely the spelling of the name that differs between Origen’s quotation and LXX. ↩
• ^[128] See Edmund Felix Sutcliffe, “One Jot or Tittle, Mt. 5, 18,” Biblica 9.4 (1928): 458-460, esp. 459. Nodet dismissed this evidence on the grounds that Origen’s use of κεραία in this passage was influenced by Matt. 5:18 (“PAS UN YOD, PAS UN WAW [Mt 5,18],” 615), but since κεραία was the normal Greek term for “pen stroke,” and since Origen does not mention Matt. 5:18 in his discussion, influence from Matt. 5:18 seems unlikely. We note, moreover, that when Origen did discuss Matt. 5:18 in the quotation below, he did not relate the noun κεραία to the distinguishing characteristics of Hebrew letters:

  Εἰ δὲ «τὰ λόγια Κυρίου λόγια ἁγνὰ, ἀργύριον πεπυρωμένον, δοκίμιον τῇ γῇ, κεκαθαρισμένον ἑπταπλασίως,» καὶ μετὰ πάσης ἀκριβείας ἐξητασμένως τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα ὑποβέβληκεν αὐτὰ διὰ τῶν ὑπηρετῶν τοῦ λόγου, μήποτε καὶ ὑμᾶς διαφεύγῃ ἡ ἀναλογία, καθ᾽ ἣν ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἔφθασε Γραφὴν ἡ σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ θεόπνευστον μέχρι τοῦ τυχόντος γράμματος· καὶ τάχα διὰ τοῦτο ὁ Σωτὴρ ἔφη· «Ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται.». Ὃν τρόπον γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς κοσμοποιίας ἡ θεία τέχνη οὐ μόνον ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ καὶ ἄστροις φαίνεται δι’ ὅλων τῶν σωμάτων ἐκείνων πεφοιτηκυῖα, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ἐν ὕλῃ εὐτελεστέρᾳ τὸ αὐτὸ πεποίηκεν...οὕτως ἡμεῖς ὑπολαμβάνομεν περὶ πάντων τῶν ἐξ ἐπιπνοίας τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἀναγεγραμμένων, ὡς τῆς ἐπιδιδούσης τὴν ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον σοφίαν ἱερᾶς Προνοίας διὰ τῶν γραμμάτων τῷ γένει τῶν ἀνθρώπων, λόγια σωτήρια ἐνεσπαρκυίας, ὡς ἔστιν εἰπεῖν, ἑκάστῳ γράμματι κατὰ τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον ἴχνη τῆς σοφίας.

  But if “the oracles of the Lord are undefiled, refined silver unadulterated with earth, purified seven times” (Ps. 11:7 [12:6]) and if the Holy Spirit has prompted them with deliberate precision through the servants of the Word (see Lk. 1:2), we must not miss the analogy, since the wisdom of God has permeated the whole of Scripture even to the individual letter [γράμματος]. This is indeed why the Savior said: “Not one iota or one stroke will pass away from the law, until everything comes to be” (Mt. 5:18). For just as the divine skill in the fabrication of the world appears not only in sky, sun, moon, and stars—all of these being bodies through which it courses—but it has acted on earth in the same way even in the meanest material object...[s]o with regard to everything recorded by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit we accept that, since divine providence has endowed the human race with a superhuman wisdom by means of the Scriptures, he has, so to speak, sowed traces of wisdom as saving oracles, in so far as possible, in each letter [ἑκάστῳ γράμματι]. (Selecta in Psalmos [ed. Migne, 12:1080-1081]; trans. Trigg, 71)

  Translation according to Joseph W. Trigg, Origen (London & New York: Routledge, 1998). ↩

• ^[129] See McNeile, 59; Günther Schwarz, “ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κεραία (Matthäus 5 18),” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 66.3-4 (1975): 268-269 (for an English translation of this article click here); Nodet, “PAS UN YOD, PAS UN WAW (Mt 5,18),” 614-616 (for an English translation of this article click here). ↩
• ^[130] Compare, for instance, the spelling of the name “Zebulun” as זְבֻלוּן (z^evulūn) in Gen. 30:20 versus זְבוּלֻן (z^evūlun) in Gen. 35:23. ↩
• ^[131] In the Hebrew Scriptures the use of וָו in the sense of “hook” is confined to the book of Exodus (Exod. 26:32, 37; 27:10, 11, 17; 36:36, 38; 38:10, 11, 12, 17, 19, 28). ↩
• ^[132] See Dos Santos, 51. ↩
• ^[133] See Jastrow, 372. ↩
• ^[134] See Nodet, “PAS UN YOD, PAS UN WAW (Mt 5,18),” 614. ↩
• ^[135] The first-century B.C.E. grammarian Tryphon referred to the digamma in his writings, as did the second-century C.E. grammarian Apollonius Dyscolus. See LSJ, 421. ↩
• ^[136] See Jehoshua M. Grintz, “Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last Days of the Second Temple,” Journal of Biblical Literature 79.1 (1960): 32-47, esp. 40. ↩
• ^[137] Indeed, the noun κεραία does not occur in LXX at all, so pace Zimmerman (81) it is not true that κεραία is the LXX equivalent of קֶרֶן (qeren, “horn”). Nevertheless, it is true that most instances of κέρας (keras, “horn”) in LXX do occur as the translation of קֶרֶן (see Hatch-Redpath, 2:759), and the LXX translators rendered most instances of קֶרֶן as κέρας (see Dos Santos, 186). ↩
• ^[138] A parallel to this midrashic interpretation of Song 5:11 occurs in Yalkut Shim‘oni:

  קוצותיו תלתלים, זו הסרגול, שחורות כעורב אלו קוצי אותיות

  His locks are wavy [Song 5:11]—this [refers to] the ruled lines, [which are] black as a raven [Song 5:11]. [Alternatively,] these [refer to] the serifs of the letters. (Yalkut Shim‘oni §988)

  ↩

• ^[139] Rabbi Akiva’s attribution of significance to every serif in the written text of the Torah may be compared to his querying of the formation of every letter in Scripture:

  היה ר′ עקיבא נושא ונותן בינו לבין עצמו ואומר אלף זה בית זה למה נכתב שנאמר בצורות יאורים בקע וכל יקר ראתה עינו

  Rabbi Akiva would take up [a text] and set his mind to it and say, “This aleph, this bet, why is it written [in this manner]?” As it is said, In the rocks he cuts channels and everything of value his eye sees [Job 28:10]. (Avot de-Rabbi Natan, Version B §12 [ed. Schechter, 29])

  According to Saldarini, this tradition plays on the meanings of צורות, which in Job 28:10 refers to rocks, but which in Mishnaic Hebrew can mean “formations.” See Anthony J. Saldarini, trans., The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (Abot de Rabbi Nathan) Version B: A Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 95-96 n. 11. ↩

• ^[140] On Rabbi Akiva’s exposition of Song of Songs, see Marc Hirshman, A Rivalry of Genius: Jewish and Christian Biblical Interpretation in Late Antiquity (trans. Batya Stein; Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1996), 83-94; Peter J. Tomson, “The Song of Songs in the Teachings of Jesus and the Development of the Exposition on the Song,” New Testament Studies 61 (2015): 429-447, esp. 430-436. ↩
• ^[141] In Exod. Rab. 6:1 we encounter the form קוֹצָה (qōtzāh, “serif”), a variant of קוֹץ. See Jastrow, 1340. ↩
• ^[142] See Cross, “The Development of the Jewish Scripts,” 223 (Note, however, that Cross did not specifically mention serifs in his descriptions of the formation of vav or yod in the Herodian scripts [“The Development of the Jewish Scripts,” 227-228]). Cf. Albright-Mann, 58-59. ↩
• ^[143] See Cross, “The Development of the Jewish Scripts,” 259 n. 129. ↩
• ^[144] For examples of this misconception, see Sutcliffe, “One Jot or Tittle, Mt. 5, 18,” 458-460; Manson, Sayings, 135; Barth, “Matthew’s Understanding of the Law,” 65 (citing Werner Georg Kümmel, “Jesus und der jüdische Traditionsgedanke,” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 33.2 [1934]: 105-130, esp. 127); Marshall, 630; Hagner, 1:106. This anachronistic interpretation of Jesus’ saying also made its way into the Encyclopaedia Judaica and unfortunately survived into its second edition. See the entries for “Tagin” in Encyclopaedia Judaica (16 vols.; ed. Cecil Roth and Geoffrey Wigoder; Jerusalem: Keter, 1971-1972), 15:700, and Encyclopaedia Judaica (2d ed; 22 vols.; ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred Skolnik; Detroit: Macmillan, 2007), 19:433. ↩
• ^[145] See Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 51; Fitzmyer, 2:1118; Nodet, “PAS UN YOD, PAS UN WAW (Mt 5,18),” 615. ↩
• ^[146] Pace Sutcliffe, “One Jot or Tittle, Mt. 5, 18,” 460. See Even-Shoshan, Millon, 1181. Meier (Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 51) and Vermes (Authentic, 355 n. 1) made the error of conflating “crowns” and qotzim. ↩
• ^[147] See Zimmerman, 81. ↩
• ^[148] Could the term qotz be used to refer to the tiny marks that distinguish between similarly formed letters, e.g., ב and כ or ד and ר? There is one tantalizing clue that this may have been the case. In Song of Songs Rabbah two sayings having to do with the formation of letters having the potential to destroy the world are treated as a unity (unlike Leviticus Rabbah, where the two traditions are separated from one another):

  א″ר לוי אפי′ דברים שאת רואה קוצין בתורה תילי תילים הן, יכולות הן להחריב את העולם ולעשותו תל, המד″א תל עולם, כתיב שמע ישראל ה′ אלהינו ה′ אחד, אם תעשה מן הדל″ת רי″ש תחריב לכל העולם, לא תשתחוה לאל אחר, אם תחליף רי″ש בדל″ת תחריב העולם

  Rabbi Levi said, “Even things that you regard as thorns [קוֹצִין] in the Torah are mounds upon mounds—they are able to destroy the universe and make it a mound [of rubble], as it is said, the world is a mound [תֵּל עוֹלָם] [Deut. 13:17]. It is written: Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God the LORD is One [אחד] [Deut. 6:4]. If you make the dalet (ד) a resh (ר), you destroy the entire universe [i.e., because you have changed “the LORD is one ⟨אחד⟩” to “the LORD is another ⟨אחר⟩”—DNB and JNT]. It is written: You must not worship another [אחר] god [Exod. 34:14]. If you make the resh (ר) a dalet (ד), you destroy the entire universe [i.e., because you have changed “you must not worship another ⟨אחר⟩ god” to “you must not worship the One ⟨אחד⟩ God”—DNB and JNT]....” (Song Rab. 5:11 §2 [ed. Etelsohn, 203])

  In Rabbi Levi’s saying “thorns in the Torah” could be understood as “things as worthless as thorns in the Torah,” but the use of the distinction between ד and ר to illustrate Rabbi Levi’s remark suggests that קוֹצִין is better understood as “pen strokes.” Whether or not that was Rabbi Levi’s original intention, the compilers of Song of Songs Rabbah appear to have interpreted Rabbi Levi’s statement in this manner, suggesting that they were familiar with the use of the term qotz to refer to the distinguishing markings between similar letters. Note, however, that yod did not need a qotz to distinguish it from other letters. It is likely, therefore, that qotz generally referred to a serif belonging to any letter. There were, however, some letters that were distinguished from one another merely by the presence or absence of a serif. ↩

• ^[149] Zimmerman (81) noted that the pairing of yod and qotz occurs in Hebrew but not in Aramaic. ↩
• ^[150] The quotation comes from A. B. Bruce, 104. Cf. Schweizer, 104; Beare, Matt., 140; Strecker, The Sermon on the Mount, 56; Davies-Allison, 1:491; Hagner, 1:106; Nolland, Matt., 220; France, Matt., 186. ↩
• ^[151] Manson (Sayings, 135) believed that Jesus’ saying in Matt. 5:18 ∥ Luke 16:17 was an ironic attack against the traditions of the scribes. According to Manson, “The saying thus comes to mean: It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the scribes to give up the smallest bit of that tradition by which they make the Law of none effect.” ↩
• ^[152] Cf. Dalman, Jesus—Jeshua, 62; Bundy, 382 §286; Meier, The Vision of Matthew, 230; Nolland, Luke, 2:816; Betz, 182-183; Buchanan, 1:235. See also Flusser, “An Early Jewish-Christian Document in the Tiburtine Sibyl,” 378. Because Jesus’ saying emphasizes the Torah in its textuality, Meier (Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 52) is correct that the oral traditions of the Pharisees and their successors fall outside the purview of Jesus’ saying by virtue of their not having (yet) been written down. ↩
• ^[153] On the change of alphabets in which Hebrew was written, see Aaron Demsky and Meir Bar-Ilan, “Writing in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism,” in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (ed. Martin J. Mulder and Harry Sysling; CRINT II.1; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 1-38, esp. 9-10. ↩
• ^[154] See Demsky and Bar-Ilan, “Writing in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism,” 10. ↩
• ^[155] Scrolls from Qumran of the five books of Moses written entirely in paleo-Hebrew script include: 1QpaleoLeviticus-Numbers; 2QpaleoLeviticus; 4QpaleoGenesis-Exodus; 4QpaleoGenesis; 4QpaleoExodus; 4QpaleoDeuteronomy; 6QpaleoGenesis; 6QpaleoLeviticus; 11QpaleoLeviticus. ↩
• ^[156] Cf. Gill, 7:42. ↩
• ^[157] The change in the Hebrew alphabets is discussed in sources such as the following:

  אף הוא ניתן בידיו כתב ולשון שנ′ וכתב הנשתון כתוב ארמית ומתורגם ארמית מה תורגמו ארמית אף כתבו ארמית ואומ′ ולא כהלין כתוב במקרא וגו′ מלמד שבאותו היום ניתן ואו′ וכתב לו את משנה התורה הזאת כתב עתידה להשתנות למה נקרא שמו אשורי על שום שעלה עמהן מאשור ר′ אומר בכתב אשורי נתנה תורה לישראל וכשחטאו נהפכה להן לרחץ וכשזכו בימי עזרא חזרה להן אשורית שובו לבצרון וגו′ ר′ שמעון בן לעזר או′ משם ר′ אליעזר בן פרטא שאמ′ משם ר′ אלעזר המודעי בכתב זה ניתנה תורה לישראל שנ′ ווי העמודים ווין שהין דומין לעמודים ואו′ ואל היהודים ככתבם וכלשונם מה לשונם כלשון היה אף כתבם כלשון היה ולמה נקרא שמו אשור על שום שהוא מאושר בכתבו

  Also through him [i.e., Ezra—DNB and JNT] were given a script and a language, as it is said, and the script of the letter was written in Aramaic and the translation was Aramaic [Ezra 4:7]. Just as his translation was Aramaic, so was his script Aramaic. And it says, and they could not read the script, etc. [Dan. 5:8], which teaches that on that day it was given. And it says, and he [i.e., the king of Israel—DNB and JNT] will write for himself a copy [מִשְׁנֵה] of this Torah, etc. [Deut. 17:18], a script [Zuckermandel: Torah] that will be changed [עתידה להשתנות]. Why is it [i.e., Ezra’s script—DNB and JNT] called Assyrian? Because it came up with them from Assyria. Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi says, “In Assyrian script the Torah was given to Israel, but when they sinned it was changed for them to raḥatz [meaning uncertain—DNB and JNT], and when they were deserving in the days of Ezra it reverted for them to Assyrian, as it is said, Return to the stronghold, [O prisoners of hope, also today I proclaim, I will revert the change for you] [Zech. 9:12].” Rabbi Shimon ben Lazar says in the name of Rabbi Eleazar ben Parta, who said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar of Modiin, “In this script [i.e., in Aramaic characters—DNB and JNT] the Torah was given to Israel, as it is said, the vavs of the pillars [Exod. 27:10]. [They are called] vavs because they look like pillars. And it says, And to the Jews according to their writing and according to their language [Esth. 8:9]. Just as their language [i.e., Hebrew—DNB and JNT] did not change, so their script did not change [Here we follow Zuckermandel’s text, which reads: מה לשונם לא נשתנה אף כתבם לא נשתנה—DNB and JNT]. And why is it called Assyrian? Because it is good for writing.” (t. Sanh. 4:7-8; Vienna MS)

  אשורי יש לו כתב ואין לו לשון עברי יש לו לשון ואין לו כתב בחרו להם כתב אשורי ולשון עברי ולמה נקרא שמו אשורי שהוא מאושר בכתבו אמר רבי לוי על שם שעלה בידם מאשור

  Assyrian has a script but no language, Hebrew has a language but no script. They chose for themselves the Assyrian script and the Hebrew language. And why is it named Assyrian [אשורי]? Because it is good [מאושר] for writing. Rabbi Levi said, “Because it came up with them from Assyria [מאשור].” (y. Meg. 1:9 [10a])

  אמר מר זוטרא ואיתימא מר עוקבא בתחלה ניתנה תורה לישראל בכתב עברי ולשון הקודש חזרה וניתנה להם בימי עזרא בכתב אשורית ולשון ארמי ביררו להן לישראל כתב אשורית ולשון הקודש והניחו להדיוטות כתב עברית ולשון ארמי מאן הדיוטות אמר רב חסדא כותאי מאי כתב עברית אמר רב חסדא כתב ליבונאה

  Mar Zutra said, or some say Mar Ukba, “At first the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew script and in the holy tongue [i.e., Hebrew—DNB and JNT]. Later it was given to them in the days of Ezra in Assyrian script and the Aramaic language. [Eventually] Israel chose for themselves the Assyrian script and the holy tongue, and they left for the rabble the Hebrew script and the Aramaic language.” Who are the rabble? Rav Hisda said, “The Cutheans [i.e., the Samaritans—DNB and JNT].” What is the Hebrew script? Rav Hisda said, “Livunaah [meaning uncertain—DNB and JNT] script.” (b. Sanh. 21b)

  These and other sources are discussed in D. Diringer, “Early Hebrew Script Versus Square Hebrew Script,” in D. Winton Thomas, ed., Essays and Studies Presented to Stanley Arthur Cook In Celebration of his Seventy-Fifth Birthday (London: Taylor’s Foreign Press, 1950), 35-49. ↩

• ^[158] See the sources cited in the previous note. The rabbinic sages did not accept the validity of Torah scrolls and other scriptural texts unless they were written in the newer Jewish script:

  כוֹתבָה...לֹא יָצָא עַד שֶׁתְּהֵא כְתוּבָה אֲשּׁוּרִית על הָסֵּפֶר בַּדְּיוֹ

  If he was writing it [i.e., a megillah at the time for its liturgical reading—DNB and JNT]...he has not fulfilled the mitzvah unless it is written in Assyrian [script] on a scroll with ink. (m. Meg. 2:2)

  לְעוֹלָם אֵינוּ מְטַמֵּא עַד שֵׁיִּכְתֵּבינּוּ אַשּׁורִית עַל הָעַוֹר בַּדְּיוֹ

  [A document] never makes [one’s hands] impure [i.e., counts as Holy Scripture—DNB and JNT] unless it is written in Assyrian [script] on parchment in ink. (m. Yad. 4:5)

  ↩

• ^[159] See Demsky and Bar-Ilan, “Writing in Ancient Israel and Early Judaism,” 10. Cf. Diringer, “Early Hebrew Script Versus Square Hebrew Script,” 46-49. ↩
• ^[160] For the deduction that Jesus read from the Torah as well as from the Scroll of Isaiah at the synagogue in Nazareth, see Shmuel Safrai, “Synagogue and Sabbath,” under the subheading “Synagogue Reading”; R. Steven Notley, “First-century Jewish Use of Scripture: Evidence from the Life of Jesus,” under the subheading “Haftarah Readings on the Sabbath”; idem, “Jesus’ Jewish Hermeneutical Method in the Nazareth Synagogue,” in Early Christian Literature and Intertextuality (2 vols.; ed. Craig A. Evans and H. Daniel Zacharias; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2009), 46-59, esp. 47. See also Lee I. Levine, “The Synagogues of Galilee,” in Galilee in the Late Second Temple and Mishnaic Periods (2 vols.; ed. David A. Flensy and James Riley Strange; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014-2015), 1:129-150, esp. 132. ↩
• ^[161] Josephus reports as a routine occurrence that Jewish villages kept Torah scrolls (J.W. 2:229), so the village of Nazareth would not have been extraordinary in this regard. ↩
• ^[162] The rabbinic sages were certainly aware that letters could easily be confused by copyists:

  וכתבתם, כתב שלם, מיכן אמרו, כתב לאלפים עינים ולעינים אלפים, לביתים כפים ולכפים ביתים, לגמלים צדים ולצדים גמלים, לדלתים רישים לרישים דלתים, להיהים חיתים לחיתים היהים, לווים יודים ליודים ווים, לזיינים נונים לנונים זיינים, לטיתים פיפים לפיפים טיתים, לכפופים פשוטים לפשוטים כפופים, למימים סמכים לסמכים מימים, לסתומים פתוחים לפתוחים סתומים, כתב לפרשה סתומה פתוחה לפתוחה סתומה, כתב שלא בדיו או שכתב שירה כיוצא בה או שכתב את האזכרות בזהב הרי אלו יגנזו

  And you must write them [Deut. 6:9] [i.e., the mezuzot—DNB and JNT] with precise lettering. On account of this they said, “If he wrote ayins (ע) for alefs (א) or alefs for ayins, kafs (כ) for bets (ב) or bets for kafs, tzades (צ) for gimmels (ג) or gimmels for tzades, reshes (ר) for dalets (ד) or dalets for reshes, ḥets (ח) for hes (ה) or hes for ḥets, yods (י) for vavs (ו) or vavs for yods, nuns (נ) for zayins (ז) or zayins for nuns, pes (פ) for tets (ט) or tets for pes, regular letters for slanted letters or slanted letters for regular letters, samechs (ס) for mems (ם) or mems for samechs, for closed letters open letters or for open letters closed letters, or writes a closed section in place of an open one or an open one in place of a closed one, or does not write in ink or writes the Song like the rest of the text, or writes the mentions [of the divine name] in gold—Behold! These are put in a genizah.” (Sifre Deut. §36 [ed. Finkelstein, 65-66])

  ↩

• ^[163] On the text-critical activity that took place in the Temple, see above, Comment to L2. John Lightfoot, writing in the 1600s, recognized the relevance of the change of Hebrew alphabets and the textual criticism of the Torah in the Temple to the understanding of Jesus’ saying in Matt. 5:18 ∥ Luke 16:17 (see Lightfoot, 2:102-105). Nevertheless, Lightfoot’s conclusions regarding these issues (viz., that the Torah really was given in the newer “Assyrian” script and that the text-critical activity has to do with kre/ketiv) are completely wrong. ↩
• ^[164] In a slightly different vein a baraita makes the following statement about the Torah’s divine origin:

  ואפילו אמר כל התורה כולה מן השמים חוץ מדקדוק זה...הוא כי דבר ה′ בזה

  ...and even if someone says all of the Torah is from Heaven [i.e., God—DNB and JNT] except for this point...he [is the one referred to in the verse] for he despised the word of the LORD [Num. 15:31]. (b. Sanh. 99a)

  But whereas Jesus’ saying focuses on the immutability of the (divinely given) Torah, the baraita’s focus is the Torah’s divine authorship. ↩

• ^[165] On contamination in Matt. 5:18 from Matthean cross-pollination with Mark 13:30-31, see the Conjectured Stages of Transmission discussion above. ↩
• ^[166] Davies and Allison similarly judged Matthew’s παρέρχεσθαι in L15 to be redactional (Davies-Allison, 1:490). ↩
• ^[167] On reconstructing πίπτειν (piptein, “to fall”) with נָפַל (nāfal, “fall”), see Return of the Twelve, Comment to L17. On the other hand, in MT נָפַל is used to deny that the spoken promises of God have failed. Cf., e.g., Josh. 21:45; 23:14; 2 Kgs. 10:10. ↩
• ^[168] See Harnack, 56; McNeile, 59; Jeremias, Theology, 211; Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 63; Gundry, Matt., 79; Davies-Allison, 1:494; Catchpole, 236; Luz, 1:212; Bovon, 2:467 n. 70; Flusser, Jesus, 74-75 n. 42; Nolland, Matt., 217. Schweizer (104) is among the few scholars who regard ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται in Matt. 5:18 as original. ↩
• ^[169] See Jeremias, Theology, 211. For a critique of Jeremias’ view, see Dewey, “Quibbling Over Serifs: Observations on Matt 5:18/Luke 16:17,” 109-110. ↩
• ^[170] See Meier, Law and History in Matthew’s Gospel, 63-65. ↩
• ^[171] Meier’s contention that, since in the Great Commission the author of Matthew does not have Jesus require Gentiles to be circumcised, the Jewish Law must no longer be in force for believers is faulty, in as much as the Torah nowhere requires non-Jews to be circumcised. Rather, it appears that, like the Didache, the author of Matthew espoused a two-tiered system of discipleship that prioritized the teachings of Jesus for everyone, but that required law observance for “perfection.” Compare the Didache’s requirement, “If you are able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord, you will be perfect [τέλειος]. But if you are not able, whatever you are capable of, this you must do” (Did. 6:2), with the uniquely Matthean advice Jesus gives to the rich man that if he wishes to be “perfect” (τέλειος), he must keep the Torah’s commandments and sell all in order to become a follower of Jesus (Matt. 19:21). Only the combination of discipleship plus Torah observance would lead to perfection. Thus, both Jews and Gentiles were lacking apart from Jesus’ instruction. For the author of Matthew, Judaism without Jesus’ teachings to give it substance was empty ritual, while Gentiles who possessed no more than Jesus’ instruction were only partially formed. Perfection demanded law observance (as defined by the Matthean community) and discipleship. This Judaizing approach to Gentile believers put the Matthean community at odds with Pauline Christianity, which insisted that obedience to Jesus’ instruction was all that was required for Gentile believers. ↩
• ^[172]

  Heaven and Earth Pass Away
  Luke’s DT Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  εὐκοπώτερον δέ ἐστιν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν ἢ τοῦ νόμου μίαν κεραίαν πεσεῖν		μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εὐκοπώτερόν ἐστιν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν ἢ ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μίαν κεραίαν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου καταλυθῆναι
  Total Words:	15	Total Words:	34
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	13	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	13
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	86.67%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	38.24%

  .

  Heaven and Earth Pass Away
  Luke’s TT Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρελεύσονται		μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εὐκοπώτερόν ἐστιν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν ἢ ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μίαν κεραίαν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου καταλυθῆναι
  Total Words:	13	Total Words:	34
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	1	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	1
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	7.69%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	2.94%

  ↩

• ^[173] Cf. Luz, 1:212 and the reconstruction of “Q” in Catchpole, 236. ↩
• ^[174]

  Heaven and Earth Pass Away
  Mark’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρελεύσονται		μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εὐκοπώτερόν ἐστιν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν ἢ ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μίαν κεραίαν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου καταλυθῆναι
  Total Words:	13	Total Words:	34
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	1	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	1
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	7.69%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	2.94%

  ↩

• ^[175]

  Heaven and Earth Pass Away
  Matthew’s DT Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι ἀμὴν γὰρ λέγω ὑμῖν ἕως ἂν παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μία κερέα οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἕως ἂν πάντα γένηται		μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εὐκοπώτερόν ἐστιν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν ἢ ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μίαν κεραίαν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου καταλυθῆναι
  Total Words:	42	Total Words:	34
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	22	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	22
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	52.38%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	64.71%

  .

  Heaven and Earth Pass Away
  Matthew’s TT Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσεται οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρέλθωσιν		μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εὐκοπώτερόν ἐστιν τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν παρελθεῖν ἢ ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μίαν κεραίαν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου καταλυθῆναι
  Total Words:	13	Total Words:	34
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	1	Total Words Taken Over in Matt.:	1
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	7.69%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	2.94%

  ↩

• ^[176] See Davies-Allison, 1:487. ↩
• ^[177] See Witherington, 126-127. ↩
• ^[178] The phrase “the whole Old Testament” is taken from Strecker, The Sermon on the Mount, 53; cf. Witherington, 126. ↩
• ^[179] For a fuller discussion see David N. Bivin and Joshua N. Tilton, “The Significance of Jesus’ Words ‘Not One Jot or One Tittle Will Pass from the Law’ (Matt. 5:18).” ↩
• ^[180] See Innocent Blood, under "Conjectured Stages of Transmission." ↩
• ^[181] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[182] This translation is a dynamic rendition of our reconstruction of the conjectured Hebrew source that stands behind the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not a translation of the Greek text of a canonical source. ↩