What does it mean to say “Scripture
cannot be broken”. The verb is a common one (λυω) 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 texts types with regard to the scriptures; that 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? (Andrew Perry, “Marginal Notes: John 10:35—Scripture
Cannot Be Broken,” Christadelphian Ejournal of Biblical Interpretation [January
2010]: 52, emphasis in original)
