Orson Pratt on the Textual Reliability of the Bible

Critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints love to abuse a source from Orson Pratt (1811-1881), an early LDS apostle, The Bible and Tradition, Without Further Revelation, an Insufficient Guide. In his review of chapter 7, “The Bible” from Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson’s dreadful book, Mormonism 101, LDS apologist Ben McGuire wrote the following:

ORSON PRATT, THE BIBLE, AND REVELATION

The chapter on the Bible begins with a short excerpt from a pamphlet that the authors title The Bible an Insufficient Guide, by Orson Pratt:

Add all this imperfection to the uncertainty of the translation, and who, in his right mind, could, for one moment, suppose that the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse of the whole Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original?²

To begin, our authors have incorrectly attributed their excerpt. Orson Pratt's work was not called The Bible an Insufficient Guide. Its title was The Bible and Tradition, Without Further Revelation, an Insufficient Guide. It was published in Liverpool in 1850 as the third of three pamphlets addressing the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. My own copy of the text is the 1945 reprint by Deseret News Press. However, the title has not been changed.

Now, you might suggest that I am picking at details, and possibly I am. Yet, the details as we will see, show a consistent pattern of McKeever and Johnson presenting the worst possible image of the LDS Church, both past and present, and consistently ignoring conflicting or corrective statements issued by the leaders of the LDS Church both past and present. There is a significant difference between the two titles, the complete title showing Pratt's intent in writing the pamphlet, while the title provided by the authors clearly portrays an attack on the Bible-which better proves their asserted reason for writing this chapter.

What is the imperfection of which Pratt speaks at the beginning of the citation? He spells it out in his text as follows:

We all know that but a few of the inspired writings have descended to our times, which few quote the names of some twenty other books which are lost, and it is quite certain there were many other inspired books that even the names have not reached us. What few have come down to our day, have been mutilated, changed and corrupted, in such a shameful manner that no two manuscripts agree. Verses and even whole chapters have been added by unknown persons; and we do not know the authors of some whole books; and we are not certain that all those which we do know, were written by inspiration.³

Pratt also makes the following observations:

Would God reveal a system of religion expressed in such indefinite terms that a thousand different religions should grow out of it? Has God revealed the system of salvation in such vague uncertain language on purpose to delight Himself with the quarrels and contentions of His creatures in relation to it? Would God think so much of fallen man, that He would give His Only Begotten Son to die for them, and then reveal His doctrine to them in a language altogether ambiguous and uncertain?⁴

What is the solution according to Pratt? Divine revelation. Both on an individual basis, and through prophets called by God.⁵ This is his theme, and it reflects the core beliefs on scripture of the LDS faith. This belief McKeever and Johnson consistently avoid in their portrayal of Mormonism.

Pratt's observations at the time were valid. There is no question that the manuscripts of the Bible are not in agreement. We have the addition or subtraction of whole chapters, particularly in the Old Testament where differing traditions place two substantially different versions of the Book of Jeremiah for example. Or, the only English translation of the Bible available to Pratt, the King James Version, which contained the Johanine Comma: a passage in 1 John long recognized as a corruption which has since been removed from nearly every modern translation of the text. The fact that the oldest manuscripts did not agree in all points everywhere has not changed since Pratt wrote this. Does this invalidate the text? No. Does Pratt indicate that this invalidates the text. No, he does not. Instead, he suggests that because of these evidences-evidences which are based in clearly observable facts, that the Bible itself cannot stand as its own witness to its truth.

This concept has been repeated again and again, and not just within LDS circles. The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy admits that only in the original autographs (the original documents penned by the apostles and the other inspired writers) were the Biblical texts inerrant. Do we have such a document? No. Can such a condition or belief guarantee then that the inspired word is provided with complete accuracy? No.

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.⁶

This same document also stresses the need for the witness from the Spirit of God as to the truth of the document. Here, the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy indicates that the scripture is insufficient as its own witness, just as Pratt wrote. Would not this witness of the Spirit of God qualify as divine revelation?

The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.⁷

The Roman Catholic Church in 1943 issued a Papal Encyclical by Pope Pius XII entitled Divino Afflante Spiritu. This document officially recognized within the Roman Catholic Church the need for the church to recognize textual criticism to restore the text of the Bible to as close to its original form as was possible. Of the Encyclical, the following two passages are noteworthy:

Wherefore let him diligently apply himself so as to acquire daily a greater facility in biblical as well as in other oriental languages and to support his interpretation by the aids which all branches of philology supply. This indeed St. Jerome strove earnestly to achieve, as far as the science of his time permitted; to this also aspired with untiring zeal and no small fruit not a few of the great exegetes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, although the knowledge of languages then was much less than at the present day. In like manner therefore ought we to explain the original text which, having been written by the inspired author himself, has more authority and greater weight than any even the very best translation, whether ancient or modern; this can be done all the more easily and fruitfully, if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text.

In the present day indeed this art, which is called textual criticism and which is used with great and praiseworthy results in the editions of profane writings, is also quite rightly employed in the case of the Sacred Books, because of that very reverence which is due to the Divine Oracles. For its very purpose is to insure that the sacred text be restored, as perfectly as possible, be purified from the corruptions due to the carelessness of the copyists and be freed, as far as may be done, from glosses and omissions, from the interchange and repetition of words and from all other kinds of mistakes, which are wont to make their way gradually into writings handed down through many centuries.⁸

We may ask, what is the difference between Pratt's remarks and the above? To most of us there is very little difference. The major point of disagreement is that Pratt sees that only God can restore the original truth given the likelihood of producing the original text. Both of the other documents state that scholarship can restore to us the original text as far as is both possible and necessary.

Now, let's examine the LDS Church's characterization of the Bible. Brigham Young said in July of 1853, in a General Conference of the Church:

I have acknowledged the Bible from the time I could be taught by my parents to revere it. They taught me that it was the sacred word of God. And as far as it could be translated correctly from the Hebrew and Greek languages, it is given to us as pure as it possibly could be given. The Bible is mine, and I am not prepared to have you rob me of it, without my consent. The doctrine in it is mine, which I firmly believe.⁹

Joseph Smith remarked, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers."¹⁰ This is the same thing that the drafters of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy would state more than a century later.

Notes for the Above

² Orson Pratt, Orson Pratt's Works (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1945), 195-196.

³ Ibid.

⁴ Ibid., 196-197.

⁵ Ibid., 198.

⁶ The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Section III, Paragraph e. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy was produced at an international summit conference of evangelical leaders sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) and held at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in the fall of 1978. It is nearly universally accepted by Evangelicals and holds wide support among other groups of Protestants. The authors of Mormonism 101 endorse this statement, and include a link to it on their Web site.

⁷ Ibid., Section I, paragraph 3.

⁸ Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, September 30, 1943, paragraphs 16-17, emphasis added.

⁹ Brigham Young, "Effects and Privileges of the Gospel, Etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 24 July 1853, Vol. 1 (London: Latter-Day Saint's Book Depot, 1854), 238-239.

¹⁰ Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, edited by Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City; Deseret Book Company, 1976), 327.

No, Russia is *NOT* prophesied in Ezekiel!

And thus say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, Iam against thee, O God, the chief prince (LXX: ἄρχοντα Ρως; Heb:נְשִׂיא רֹאשׁ) of Meshech and Tubal. (Ezek 38:3)

Among some groups and individuals, it is often stated that Russia is prophesied as an end-times villain in Ezek 38-39, including Ezek 38:3 as quoted above. As Michael S. Heiser notes:

This interpretive strategy is based, in part, on an effort to associate the geographic places named in Ezekiel 38-39 (e.g., Meshech) and then combing historical sources for “tyrant candidates.” At other times, historical identification of God has been attempted by playing with the Hebrew word and creating false linguistic connections with the names of historical figures. In this regard, Lust observes that the Septuagint renders the phrase נְשִׂיא רֹאשׁ (nesi’ rō’sh) as archonta Rōs (“commander of Ros”), and so modern readers can easily mistake the phrase as pointing to Russia.

An equation with Russia is exegetically indefensible and incoherent. Of its many problems,[276] the most lethal is its violation of Hebrew grammar. There are two possible readings allowed by Hebrew syntax for the phrase nesi’ rō’sh: (1) “God, the prince, the chief” (of Meshech and Tubal), and (2) “Gog, chief prince” (of Meshech and Tubal). Both options translate rō’sh as “chief” and thus eliminate understanding it as a place name. Consequently, “Russia” has no exegetical basis according to Hebrew grammar. (Michael S. Heiser, Reversing Hermon: Enoch, The Watchers & The Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ [Defender Publishing, 2017], 170-71)

Heiser, in note 276 on pp. 318-19, adds the following against those who wish to see Ezek 38-39 as being, in part, a prophecy of Russia:

[T]here is no such place-name rō’sh known in the ancient world. As Astour has noted, the closest geographical correlation that could be argued is “Ra’shi (or Ara’shi) of Neo-Assyrian records, a district on the border of Babylonia and Elam . . . which had nothing in common with Meshech and Tubal” (M.C. Astour, “Ezekiel’s Prophecy of Gog and the Cuthean Legend of Naram-Sin,” Journal of Biblical Literature 95 [1976]: 567, note 4). Further, the place-name “Rosh” would have had no meaning to an ancient Hebrew audience, since “the name Rus was first brought to the region of the Kiev by the Vikings in the Middle Ages” (E. Yamauchi, Foes from the Northern Frontier: Invading Hordes from the Russian Steppes [Wipf & Stock Publishers; 2003], 23). Rus and the longer Russia are of course Indo-European words, while Hebrew is from the Semitic language family. Consequently, a Rosh:Russia equation is a linguistic fallacy (false etymology). Additionally, aside from Genesis 10’s placement of Meshech and Tubal in Anatolia, Ezekiel’s descriptions of those places in Ezek 27:12-15 have them located among nations adjacent to Anatolia. The place-names are thus not the Russian cities, but ancient ethnic groups firmly situated in the ancient near eastern geographical reality of the Hebrew Bible.

Here is Ezek 27:12-15, referenced by Heiser as biblical evidence against such a nonsense reading of the Bible:

Tarshish traded with you because of your wealth of all kinds of goods; they bartered silver, iron, tin, and lead for your wares. Javan, Tubal, and Meshech -- they were your merchants; they trafficked with you in human beings and copper utensils. From Beth-togarmah they bartered horses, horsemen, and mules for your wares. The people of Dedan were your merchants; many coastlands traded under your rule and rendered you tribute in ivory tusks and ebony. (1985 JPS Tanakh Translation)

The Rosh = Russia interpretation is a nonsense theory slain by the facts. 

Michael S. Heiser on the biblical evidence for a local flood

Speaking of the biblical evidence for a local flood, Dr. Michael S. Heiser wrote the following:

First, the phrases in the Flood narrative that suggest a global event occur a number of times in the Hebrew Bible where their context cannot be global or include all people on the planet. For example, the phrase “the whole earth” (kol ‘erets) occurs in passages that clearly speak of localized geography (e.g., Gen. 13:9; 41:57; Lev. 25:9, 24; Judg. 6:37; 1 Sam. 13:3; 2 Sam. 24:8). In such cases, “whole land” or “all the people in the area” are better understandings. Those options produce a regional flood event if used in Gen. 6-8 where the phrase occurs. Second, the Gen. 9:19 clearly informs us that “the whole earth” was populated by the sons of Noah. Gen. 10 (see 10:1) gives us the list of the nations spawned by the sons of Noah—all of which are located in the regions of the ancient Near East, the Mediterranean, and the Aegean. The biblical writers knew nothing of nations in another hemisphere (the Americas) or places like India, China, or Australia. The language of Gen. 10 therefore allows Gen. 7:21 to be restricted to only (or even some) of the people groups listed in the Table o Nations. The interpretation is consistent with a localized flood. Third, the phrase “all humankind” (kol ‘adam) used in Gen. 7:21 also appears in contexts that cannot speak of all humans everywhere (e.g., Jer. 32:20; Psa. 64:9 can only refer to people who had seen what God had done, not people on the other side of the world). Lastly, Psa. 104:9 appears to forbid a global flood, since it has God promising to never cover the earth with water as had been the case at creation. (Michael S. Heiser, Reversing Hermon: Enoch, The Watchers & The Forgotten Mission of Jesus Christ [Defender Publishing, 2017], 278 n. 38)

Bart Ehrman vs. James White, Did the Bible Misquote Jesus?

I finally got round to watching the Bart Ehrman and James White debate, Did the Bible Misquote Jesus? Ehrman has the debate hosted on his You Tube account in two parts:

Personally, while White has more experience in public debates and this came out a bit during the debate, Ehrman won the debate, 6-4 if not 7-3 in terms of scholarly argumentation. But don’t take my word; watch the debate and decide for yourself.

Further Reading

Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (2d ed)

Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th ed)

Philip Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary

Philip Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts (2d ed)

Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence, ed. Daniel B. Wallace

James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (2d ed)

Brief Note on 1 Nephi 2:7

And it came to pass that he built an altar of stones, and made an offering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord our God. (1 Nephi 2:7)

While reading the Book of Mormon today, it struck me that Nephi would use the verb "to make" (Heb: עשׂה) with respect to the sacrifice Lehi offered. However, such is part-and-parcel of the Hebrew Bible where "to make" is often used in the sense of "to sacrifice."

In the Torah alone, עשׂה is coupled with the term for “sacrifice” (Hebrew: זֶבַח; sometimes מִנְחָה  [“gift”/”offering”]). There are multitudinous examples of such in the Old Testament, in the Torah alone, we have the following instances: Exo 10:25; 29:41; Lev 2:7, 8, 11; 6;14; 7:9; 17:8; 23:19; Num 6:17; 15:3, 5, 6, 8, 24; 28:5, 8, 26, 31; 29:39; Deut 12:27.

Here we have the Hebrew and Greek of Exo 10:25 and 29:41 (emphasis added):

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר מֹשֶׁ֔ה גַּם־אַתָּ֛ה תִּתֵּ֥ן בְּיָדֵ֖נוּ זְבָחִ֣ים וְעֹל֑וֹת וְעָשִׂ֖ינוּ לַיהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵֽינוּ׃  

And Moses said, Thou must give us also sacrifices and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice unto the Lord our God.

וְאֵת֙ הַכֶּ֣בֶשׂ הַשֵּׁנִ֔י תַּעֲשֶׂ֖ה בֵּ֣ין הָעַרְבָּ֑יִם כְּמִנְחַ֙ת הַבֹּ֤קֶר וּכְנִסְכָּהּ֙ תַּֽעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֔הּ לְרֵ֣יחַ נִיחֹ֔חַ אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַיהוָֽה

And the other lamb thou shalt offer at even, and shalt do thereto according to the meat offering of the morning, and according to the drink offering thereof, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the Lord.

Is it problematic to cite Joseph Fitzmyer?

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:

‘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 kai genos eimen, “of him we too are offspring” (Phaenomena 5). Luke may have changed the Ionic eimen to Attic semen, but he more likely found it so in a source, because the Attic form was current. It appears also in frg. 4 of the second-century B.C. Jewish apologist, Aristobulus, quoted in Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica 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.

In response to this misinformed diatribe, Christopher wrote the following:

//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:

Defending the LDS reading of Acts 17:28-29

In my article Latter-day Saint Theology and Acts 17:28-29, I discussed the theology implications of Paul’s quotation of Pagan poets and the affirmation that we are the same γενος as God the Father, something that is consistent with Latter-day Saint anthropology (theology of man).

Recently, a very errant Evangelical Protestant attempted to refute the long-standing LDS interpretation of this passage by appealing to the following paper:

Brent A. Moody, Function and Meaning of Pagan Quotations in Acts 17:28

Sadly for the critic, those who actually read the article will realise that appealing to this research paper supports, not negates, the Latter-day Saint reading. Consider the following (emphasis added):

Prior to the speech section (Acts 17:22-31), Luke shifted the desire for "novelty" onto the pagans (Acts 17:21). Paul's speech provided a reversal when he connected himself to traditional pagan philosophy and condemned their idolatrous behavior. (p. 7)

Paul's reference to "your own poets" points to pagan writers. He used these pagan authors much like he would Scripture with a Jewish audience. (p. 9)

The second quote, "we are indeed his offspring" (Acts 17:28b), is from Aratus' Phaenomena. Aratus was a student of Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism. The idea was common in Stoic thought. Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus says, "εκ σου γαρ γενος εσμεν"--for we are your offspring. Luke's third person statement is "Του γαρ και γενος εσμεν." The ESV translates, "For we are indeed his offspring" (Acts 17:28). Edward's suggestion that Luke uses Aristobulus' quotation of Aratus as an immediate source seems legitimate. For my purpose, the immediate source of Luke's quote is less significant than the fact that these concepts were well established in Greek philosophy by the second century BC. Ferguson claims,

Everyone would know Aratus's poem, and this particular idea does not of itself necessarily indicate any extensive knowledge of Greek literature.

Most significant is that in the presence of Stoic opponents Paul quoted Stoic philosophy in support of his beliefs. Witheringon states, "From a rhetorical point of view the function of the . . . quotations here is to cite an authority recognized by one's audience to support one's point."

The pagan origin of the quotes has been confirmed. The next goal is to consider their meaning. Dibelius' identified three main themes around which Paul's address is built:

1. God, Creator and Lord of the world, needs no temples, for he does not stand in need of anything (vv. 24, 25).

2. God created man in order that they should seek after him (vv. 26, 27)

3. The relationship of men with God-they 'are offspring of God'--should exclude all worship of graven images (vv. 28, 29) (pp. 10-12)

Balch's article on the Stoic Posidonius aids in analyzing the Areopagus speech. Posidonius believed in the kinship of God to man. Posidonius' opposition to idolatry, similar to Paul, is affirmed by God's providence:

Greek were also wrong in modelling gods in human form; for, according to him, God is this one thing alone that encompasses us all . . . the nature of all that exists . . . What man, then if he has sense, could be bold enough to fabricate an image of God resembling any creature amongst us? Nay, people should leave off all image-carving, and, setting apart a sacred precinct and a worthy sanctuary, should worship God without an image.(pp. 16-17)

Instead of being problematic to the Latter-day Saint position, this paper provides strong support thereto. One has to wonder if the critic, a self-proclaimed “Mormon Studies Scholar,” bothered to read the article in full before endorsing it as a sound refutation of the common LDS reading of Acts 17:28-29?