Some of the posts on this topic have dealt with the looseness of how NT authors quote / use the OT. I’ve given a couple of examples, but if you want to see how thorny the issues are, I recommend a recent book on the subject–nay, an entire commentary on this phenomenon:
Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament
I’m going to wrap up the Chicago Statement and my own statement by month’s end since I want to move on to some other things. I’m going to solicit some other biblio-bloggers to have a look at my statement when it’s “done” at month’s end to keep the tweaking going, but I want to get into some other issues. The use of the OT in the NT is very important, not only for the way we talk about the process of inspiration, but for biblical theology — so have at it!
We’ll be looking forward to the rest of it.
Another excellent book on quotations is Don Hagner’s “The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome” (which, as I understand, is the published version of his doctoral dissertation). Sort of a different twist, looking at how First Clement uses Old and New Testament quotes. It has a good discussion on what a quotation is, what an allusion is, and stuff like that.
@Rairdan Brannach: thanks!
I read Don’s paper and will surely look forward into buying Don’s book along with the commentary MSH suggests. Other excellent commentaries produced by one man that do make consistent references as to how the NT writers made allusions to the OT as types/anti-types is Chuck Missler. He is one of the most up-to-date and accurate commentators I have heard so far. He often reminds his audience ”do not believe anything Chuck Missler tells you but search the scriptures daily to prove those things are so…”. Bottom line, he does his homework and does not indoctrinate. He presents different views and focuses on what he believes to be correct. Its up to the audience to do their research.
However, he does suffer on small various details such as his acceptance of the Bible code, although I dont know his present stance on this topic since it has been a while he discussed the topic. He was (and probably still is) not well informed about those kinds of manuscript backgrounds and MSHs electronic book has reinforced and even killed the horse besides other previous sources I had gathered on the subject. Nevertheless, Dr. Missler gets most, if not all, of the core doctrines right, in a broad sense (compared to others out there like McArthur and Barnhouse, McDonald and so on). He keeps updating his commentaries on the whole Bible quite rapidly over the years, unlike most commentators out there. Thus, Chuck corrects and updates his past Biblical expositions on the whole Bible every decade on TOP of coming out with DVD briefing packages on other various topics. He’s a jack-of-all-trades.
I can see diligent and persistent scholars like Michael Heiser, commentators like Dr. Missler, and reknown proficient scientists like Dr. Ross working together. One focuses on details and the other puts things together. That would be powerful
Coming back on the subject about types/anti-types, from what I have been able to gather over the years, the way the NT pen-men used the OT to make their points in their writings is *more* consistent than suggested by some scholars like Don. I stress the word *more* because I acknowledge there are problems. The Senior Pleniors that Don has presented are projected somewhat loosely, in my opinion; he does a great job though. This is why I want to read his book.
@blop2008: I agree that NT citation of the OT has more “consistency” than appears to us – but ONLY because the NT authors are following hermeneutical traditions already present in their own time — traditions that are NOT always “literal” (and again, “non-literal” does not mean “not true” – it means [excluding extreme allegorical approaches] “more than literal” — an unveiling of what a passage may mean beyond the mere face value of the words. I for one have no problem with the NT authors doing this in the context of inspiration. I have a LOT of problems with writers (even today) trying to do this outside the context of inspiration.
On Missler, he is no Bible scholar (e.g., he doesn’t work in the primary languages other than to look a word up in Strong’s), BUT he does more with English Bible study than just about anyone you’ll read. He has a good eye for detail and an analytical mind.
MSH: Agreed. Thanks for the clarification.