Some Latter-day Saints have quoted Joseph Fitzmyer, a leading scholar of Luke-Acts, in support for the LDS interpretation of Acts 17:28-29 and our being the offspring of God. In my article Latter-day Saint Theology and Acts 17:28-29, I quoted the following from Fitzmyer on this issue:
A self-professed "Mormon Studies Scholar," when confronted by Fitzmyer's comments on this passage from another LDS apologist (my friend Christopher Davis), wrote the following rather pathetic and evasive non-response (one filled with poisoning the well):
In response to this misinformed diatribe, Christopher wrote the following:
Christopher's response was brilliant; the commentary from the self-professed "Mormon Studies Scholar"? The following is rather apt:
‘For we too are his offspring.’ These words are quoted from the third-century astronomical poem of the Stoic, Aratus, who was born in Soli (in Cilicia) ca. 315 B.C.,tou gar kaigenos eimen , “of him we too are offspring” (Phaenomena 5). Luke may have changed the Ioniceimen to Attic semen, but he more likely found it so in a source, because the Attic form was current. It appears also infrg . 4 of the second-century B.C. Jewish apologist, Aristobulus, quoted in Eusebius, Praeparatioevangelica 13.12.6 (GCS 8/2.194). In quoting this verse, the Lucan Paul makes a new point in part III of his address: God is not only near to human beings, but they are related to him as kin. Paul understands the Stoic idea in a biblical sense; c. Psalm 139; Luke 3:38 (Adam as God’s son). (Joseph A. Fizmyer, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 31; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1998], 611; emphasis added)
A self-professed "Mormon Studies Scholar," when confronted by Fitzmyer's comments on this passage from another LDS apologist (my friend Christopher Davis), wrote the following rather pathetic and evasive non-response (one filled with poisoning the well):
Respectfully, Mr. Davis, you have abused your
source here. Please note caps. Mr. Fizmyer is using these terms in a VERY
specific way - a theologically liberal Roman Catholic way to be precise.
Father Fizmyer (who is now deceased) didn't
even believe that the Adam of Genesis was a historical figure. And he asserts
in his commentary on the book of Romans that Paul held to this position as
well:
"I distinguish 'Adam' in Genesis 2-3 as a
symbolic figure from 'Adam' in 5:12-21 as a historicized individual, as he had
already become in contemporary Jewish literature. Paul, however, knew nothing
about the Adam of history. What he know about Adam, he has derived from Genesis
and the Jewish tradition that developed from Genesis. "Adam" for Paul
is Adam in the Book of Genesis; he is a literary individual, like Hamlet, but
not symbolic, like Everyman. Adam is for Paul what Jonah was for the evangelist
Matthew (12:40) and Melchizedek for the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
(7:3). All three have been used as foils for Christ. But they are literary
figures who have or have not benn historicized, as the case may be."
(Joseph A. Fizmyer, "Romans", p.410; https://smile.amazon.com/Romans-Anchor-Bible-Joseph-Fitzmyer/dp/0385233175/
)
So your source doesn't even believe that Adam
was literal, historical figure, let alone the literal, procreated (spiritual or
otherwise) son of Heavenly Father and Mother. Same species? Mr. Davis, Father
Fizmyer doesn't believe that Adam ever existed in time and space at all!
So would you have us believe that theologically
liberal, Roman Catholic Jesuit Priest, Joseph A. Fizmyer is endorsing
Latter-day Saint theology here? If so, you're sorely mistaken.
You're eisegeting things into Fizmyer that he
didn't say, mean, or intend.
//Respectfully, Mr. Davis, you have abused your
source here. Please note caps. Mr. Fizmyer is using these terms in a VERY
specific way - a theologically liberal Roman Catholic way to be precise.//
This is an odd direction for you to take here,
Fred. This borders on ad hominem, where upon are addressing the perspective of
the author rather than what he is saying. Here we have a Liberal Roman Catholic
arguing that Paul was indeed endorsing the Stoic understanding of God's
relationship to man. This is direct refutation of your claim that Paul is
continuing his speech in verse 29 from a distance of something untrue. How
exactly have I abused my source? By using it?
//Father Fizmyer (who is now deceased) didn't
even believe that the Adam of Genesis was a historical figure. And he asserts
in his commentary on the book of Romans that Paul held to this position as
well//
There are plenty of Christians, LDS and
non-LDS, that view Adam as a symbolic figure rather than a literal one. I am
not one of them, but what exactly does this have to do with the exegesis of
either the verse or of Fitzmyer's point, that Paul is endorsing the Poem of
Aratus as a point to teach the Athenians that God is greater than the base
idols of their worship? Whether conservative Christians maintain that Adam is
historical, or "liberal" Christians view him as a symbolic figure, or
if some feel that Adam is used fluidly in different texts as either historical
or symbolic really has nothing to do with my argument now, does it? This is a
red herring, Fred.
//So your source doesn't even believe that Adam
was literal, historical figure, let alone the literal, procreated (spiritual or
otherwise) son of Heavenly Father and Mother. Same species? Mr. Davis, Father
Fizmyer doesn't believe that Adam ever existed in time and space at all!//
Let's propose that Fitzmyer is indeed asserting
that Adam is in this instance a symbol for mankind, exactly how does this help
your argument? Again, nice red herring that has nothing to do with the
inevitable conclusion that "[human beings] are related to [God] as
kin." You have not addressed this point at all, nor his view that he was
arguing that there is nothing in the account that distances Paul's use of the
poem from the truth that he was presenting. You've done nothing to argue your
point that Paul was not endorsing this idea. Do you remember your argument
here? Why are you instead making an attempt to poison the well here with a
irrelevant sidebar discussion of Fitsmyer's view of Adam's historicity? That's
a cornucopia of fallacious argumentation, Fred, and you know it.
//So would you have us believe that
theologically liberal, Roman Catholic Jesuit Priest, Joseph A. Fizmyer is
endorsing Latter-day Saint theology here? If so, you're sorely mistaken. //
Endorsing LDS theology? I've never made such a
claim. That's a pretty pathetic retort. What I have shown is a scholar who
states that "God is not only near to human beings, but they are related to
him as kin". So far, aside from falsely accusing me of abusing his
commentary, without providing any cogent explanation of how, you only appealed
to his liberal leanings on Adam (irrelevant), and his background as a Roman
Catholic (irrelevant), you've avoided responding to the actual statement
entirely. Furthermore, it shows there is certainly disagreement here that Paul
is distancing himself from the Aratus poem as wholly pagan. Fitzmyer, like it
or not, argues that Paul is endorsing this.
//You're eisegeting things into Fizmyer that he
didn't say, mean, or intend.//
How do you support this? You've exegeted
nothing, but have wandered down a very irrelevant topic of Adam's historicity
assuming than that can compensate for your complete avoidance of his citation.
Christopher's response was brilliant; the commentary from the self-professed "Mormon Studies Scholar"? The following is rather apt:
