Catholics, Orthodox, and other systems of these flavors like to (over)state their historical presence. That what matters is that some organization has historical continuity. The ironic thing about their worldview has no connection with the OT. That comes from the divide between the synagogue and the church that occurred early in Church history. So, they are with at best a 1,700-year-old faith but ignoring the fact that the faith Jesus had is much older. We see that in their attacks on penal substitutionary atonement:
In the OT, God is addressed with the legal title “Judge” (Gen 18.25) and acts rightly in that capacity. Moreover, He is not only the Judge; He is also the lawgiver. The heart of OT Judaism was the divine Torah (law) that governed all of life and man’s relationship to God. Leon Morris reckons that of the 220 uses of tôrah in the OT, only 17 are clearly not about God’s law. Of the 127 occurrences of hoˉq (statute), 87 are linked with the LORD; huqqah, another word for statute, is similarly linked in 96 out of 104 cases. Mishpāt, which is linked with the LORD about 180 times, is the usual term for ‘judgment’ and in its participial form is used to refer to God as Judge. It may also mean law. Even the notion of a covenant (berith) is the notion of a legal contract. It is intriguing how OT writers often prefer legal to any other imagery when they are referring to what God does (e.g., Mic 6.1–2; Is 3.13; 41.21). The use of legal categories with respect to God in the OT, says Morris, “is frequent, so frequent indeed that it is plain that it corresponds to something deep-seated in Hebrew thinking. Law and the LORD went together” (Morris 1983, p. 181). In fact, it would be difficult to find a religion more wedded to legal categories than OT Judaism.
William Lane Craig, The Atonement: pg. 20-21.