There has been much talk in religious circles about the condition of theology. It is frequently charged that its language is no longer viable; and thus, if for no other reason, the theologian must seek a more contemporary idiom. Furthermore, with the need expressed over and over again for new translations of everything old, we seem to reinforce our claim that all of theology must be continually re-translated too. But words are one thing and concepts perhaps another. With the great enthusiasm today for a certain kind of linguistic study on the part of students of the Bible and with what looks like a strong growing interest in linguistic philosophy, there are bound to be a few confusions generated. These notes are intended to head them off.

It is certainly unusual for an Old Testament scholar to write on a New Testament subject. The reader may want to repeat the German proverb “Schuster, bleib bei deinen Leisten.” But if we agree that the two Testaments should not be separated — and this is the Church's accepted doctrine since the days of Marcion — then we have to give evidence for the character of the relation between the two. As an example of this question I want to trace the transition of the concept of the Temple from the Old Testament to the New.

I. The Crisis of the Historical and Theological Criteria.

Already Walter Bauer, well known as a lexicographer, but unfortunately little known as a historian of the Ancient Church, in his ingenious monograph Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum (1934), had demonstrated convincingly that such Christian groups which were later labelled “heretical,” actually dominated in the first two or three centuries, both geographically and theologically. Recent discoveries, especially those of Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt, have made it definitely clear that Walter Bauer was essentially right and that a thorough and extensive re-evaluation of early Christian history is called for.

The texts of Matthew 15:5 and Mark 8:12 have both been difficult passages to understand, translate, and interpret. Mt. 15:5 seems to be a minced oath or vow taken by the sacred object, קךבז; whereas Mk. 8:12 resembles an oath administered by another and accepted by the oath-taker. Mt. 15:5 is the more difficult of the two and will here be examined first in comparison with Rabbinic and Old Testament literary forms. The insights gained from this study will then be transferred to Mk. 8:12.