the work—because it was too useful to ignore—they stopped referring to it, in case doing so might diminish their perceived scholarship. Actually, Sandmel’s criticism consisted of “four major errors in the use of Strack and Billerbeck.” To be sure, he blames the layout of the work for these misuses, but he nevertheless acknowledges it as “a useful tool.”11 First, Sandmel says, there are too many quotations from periods later than the New Testament. This is a serious matter, but only if one ignores