And while I agree with Tertullian that 5:17-20 is original and Marcion erased it, even if that wasn't the case, I don't think 5:21-48 is anti-Torah. Let's start with the first part (5:21-26).
You have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not murder’ and ‘Anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ will be subject to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be subject to the fire of hell.
So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
Reconcile quickly with your adversary, while you are still on the way to court. Otherwise, he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
I don't see how any of this is anti-Torah. All Jesus seems to be saying here is that a person who doesn't get along with a fellow will be subject to "the fire of hell." Jesus certainly isn't pro-murder here, nor is he opposed to sacrifice ("then come and offer your gift"). He's just saying that getting along with a fellow is as important as not murdering someone and more important than sacrifice or taking someone to court.
Moving on to 5:27-30.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to depart into hell.
The same thing is going on here. Jesus isn't pro-adultery, he is just saying that it's just as bad for a married person to lust after someone and will cause "your whole body to depart into hell," a punishment that isn't mentioned in the Torah but it certainly doesn't conflict with it.
On to 5:31-32.
It has also been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, brings adultery upon her. And he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
This is simply Jesus' interpretation of the meaning of ervat dabar ("something indecent") in Dt. 24:1. Therefore anyone who divorces someone for any other reason "brings adultery" on that person and whoever marries them. So Jesus doesn't forbid divorce here, he just has a strict interpretation of ervat dabar in Dt. 24:1 (as did Shammai).
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house ...
On to 5:33-37.
Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But I tell you not to swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is His footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor should you swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ Anything more comes from the evil one.
As we have it (in Greek), this one is anti-Torah. However, I am of the view that the NT Matthew used a translation of the gospel of the Hebrews (like it used Mark), and I think the above could be a mistranslation of it. By way of comparison, the Shem Tov Hebrew Matthew says not to swear falsely at all, and I think that makes more sense. If Jesus has regard for heaven as God's throne and for the earth as his footstool and for Jerusalem as the city of the gear King, would he really have no regard for God's Torah, which commands people to swear by his name?
Since I don't have his book with me at the moment, here is a summary of Nehemia Gordon's argument in The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus in a now broken link to jesuswordsonly.com.
[Nehemia] Gordon, a Jewish scholar, notes the Pharisees evidently taught you could violate an oath as long as [it was] not sworn in Yahweh's name. In other words, false oaths were acceptable to them, as long as God's name was not brought into the statement. This was based upon twisting the Bible which prohibited any false swearing in God's name. (Lev. 19:12.) But would false swearing truly be OK if God's name was not invoked? Not likely.
Jesus' criticisms imply the Pharisaic quibbling with Lev. 19:12 led the Pharisees to sanction false oaths as long as not in God's name. Implied from Jesus' criticisms is that the Pharisees obviously said Lev. 19:12 meant one could falsely swear even if you invoked objects closely associated with God, like the Temple. You supposedly would transgress the command only when God's name is actually used.
However, Jesus was invoking the broader principle in Zechariah 8:17 which said "love no false oath: for all these are things that I hate, saith YAHWEH." Thus, you were not allowed to dupe others if you worded your oath carefully. Thus, the Pharisees diminished the Law once more. Gordon detected the difference in the Hebrew version of Matthew (i.e., the Shem-Tov) where Jesus corrected them, saying `do not swear falsely at all,' whether by the temple or anything else. The Greek translation inadvertently dropped the word falsely. This led us to misapprehend Jesus' meaning.
The same idea is in James 5:12.
Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear--not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. All you need to say is a simple "Yes" or "No." Otherwise you will be condemned.
If this is against the command to swear by God's name in the Torah it would contradict what James says in 2:10-11.
Whoever keeps the whole law but stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.
This fits with what Jesus says in 5:20 (and indicates to me that it is original to Matthew), "For I tell you that unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
And as for 5:38-42:
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also; if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well; and if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
The "eye for an eye" rule is intended for judges and not for personal vengeance, as can be seen in Dt. 19:18-21.
The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is proven to be a liar who has falsely accused his brother, you must do to him as he intended to do to his brother. So you must purge the evil from among you. Then the rest of the people will hear and be afraid, and they will never again do anything so evil among you. You must show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, and foot for foot.
And as we see in 5:29-30, Jesus was not opposed to the concept of gouging out your eye or cutting off your hand as punishment for sin.
If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to depart into hell.
I think Jesus is saying not to take anyone to court for harming you ("if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well"), like in 5:25-26.
Reconcile quickly with your adversary, while you are still on the way to court. Otherwise, he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.
So I don't think Jesus was opposed to the punishment of "an eye for an eye" but rather to taking someone who harms you to court or taking personal vengeance, and it's not anti-Torah to not take someone to court and it is in keeping with Lev. 19:18 to not take personal vengeance.
You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself.
And that leaves 5:43-48.
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘Hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
As argued here:
The command [in Lev. 19:18] says to love your neighbor, but it never says anything about hating your enemies. Indeed, the fact that it forbids vengeance seems to indicate that you are to love your neighbor even if they are your enemy. This is consistent with other statements in the law like:
“If you meet your enemy’s ox or his donkey wandering away, you shall surely return it to him. If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying helpless under its load, you shall refrain from leaving it to him, you shall surely release it with him,” (Exodus 23:4-5).
Elsewhere in the Old Testament, we read words such as:
“If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; And if he is thirsty, give him water to drink,” (Proverbs 25:21).
So why does Jesus say that it says to hate your enemies? The simple answer is that Jesus doesn’t say that at all. Jesus is demonstrating what God really commands over against the teachings and practices of his day. He is addressing faulty interpretations of the Law. How can we know this? Jesus refers to the Old Testament Scriptures often in Matthew’s Gospel, and He never uses any phrase like “you have heard,” to quote them. Matthew frequently records Jesus challenging the Pharisees with phrases like, “Have you not read?”1 Never, “have you not heard?” When speaking from the Prophet Daniel, Jesus bids “let the reader understand,” not “let the hearer understand.” This pattern is extremely consistent. The Gospel of Matthew doesn’t present Jesus as speaking of the Scriptures themselves as something “heard,’ but rather as something “read.” So in Matthew 5, when Jesus uses the formula of “you have heard it said…but I say,” Jesus is not arguing with the passage itself. Indeed, Jesus later cites this very passage “love your neighbor as yourself,” (Leviticus 19:18) as the second greatest commandment of the whole law. So, Jesus is not critiquing the words of Scripture, but rather the way those Scriptures were being taught and interpreted by the teachers and practices of His day ... So, when Jesus challenges what the people have heard, “love your neighbor and hate your enemy,” He is not twisting the Old Testament to attack it. He is defending the actual teaching of the Old Testament against this popular misrepresentation of its intent!
https://carm.org/other-questions/does-t ... r-enemies/
And as noted here, hating your enemy is taught in the Dead Sea Scrolls (the majority of which are dated to the Herodian era when Jesus is said to have lived).
While it certainly is true that the Torah says, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), it contains no commandment to hate your enemy. Instead, Yeshua contradicted what must have been a popular adage among the Zealots: “Love your neighbor, but hate your enemy.” That is to say, “Love your fellow-Jew (i.e., your neighbor), but hate the Romans.” The Dead Sea community in Qumran went even further. They taught their followers to “love all the sons of light … and hate all the sons of darkness,” understanding the sons of light as members of their own sect and sons of darkness to be other Jews outside of their sect (Dead Sea Scrolls).
https://torahportions.ffoz.org/disciple ... te-yo.html
So even if we remove Mt. 5:17-20, Jesus appears to be pro-Torah to me.