Do you find it a bit presumptuous when you read of some modern scholars who write/speak with disdain for NT authors’ use of the OT/HB because they (the moderns) feel their interpretations are more accurate than those who actually lived much nearer the original times and were more familiar with the language of the OT/HB?
Yes, we know much about the things which informed the NT authors’ understanding of the OT/HB, but wouldn’t they have known more? Things that baffle our minds certainly were clear to them. Where they occasionally omit particular details or don’t offer a full-blown exegesis of an OT/HB passage, shouldn’t we give them the benefit of the doubt, that they were interpreting and writing as people who knew what the heck they were reading or had received (oral traditions)?
Me thinks so.
What do you think?
Αυτω η δοξα,