What does it mean to say “Scripture cannot be broken”. The verb is a common one (lu,w) and the semantic field is broad: to loose, to untie, to break, to free, to abolish, to break up, to tear down, to repeal, to annul, and so on. Some would say that it is a statement about textual integrity because Jesus’ argument is about particular words in a psalm. This would be a significant inference for the history of the Second Temple period. Today, we will commonly say that the original autographs were inspired and fully accurate while accepting that our copies may have errors. In short, we do not insist on textual integrity for our copies of the text.
However, we know that in Jesus’ day there were different text types with regard to the scriptures; this is clear from the DSS. Was Jesus of the opinion that, say, there were copies of Isaiah in his day that were textually without error—perhaps scrolls held in the Temple? Or is there here another concept of scripture at work in this conversation? Is Jesus adverting to a canonical status by saying “scripture cannot be broken”? Had the canon of the Jewish scriptures recently been fixed? Is his point one of authority?
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One