Critiquing Louis Midgley and the topic of angels being used to reveal new scriptural texts, Matthew A. Paulson wrote the following:
Angels Who Bring Heavenly
Books
BYU professor Louis Midgley has states
[sic],
Those steeped in traditional theological
perspectives are offended because the text Joseph Smith gave us, the story of
its recovery, and the relics are difficult to explain away as allegorical, mythical,
or merely highly symbolic ways of talking about what is ultimately ineffable and
entirely mysterious. Among such hostile professors of religion, either sectarian
or secular, is the dogma that angels simply do not bring books of new
scripture.” (Quote is from Louis Midley’s persona book review of By the Hand
of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion by
Terryl L. Givens on Amazon website; www.amazon.com.
[viewed Jan. 10, 2006])
Despite the false claims of Mormon
scholars, the Book of Mormon is not the only book that has come from heaven.
Besides the Qur’an, another holy book came from heaven to the Elkesites.
According to Hippolytus (AD 170-236), the Elkesites arrived in Rome with a book
Alcibiades from Apameia from Syria who was an evil man. He brought this book of
modern revelations to have come from Elkesai, the founder of the group. It was
recorded that the book had fallen from the sky. (Matthew A. Paulson, Breaking
the Mormon Code: A Critique of Mormon Scholarship Regarding Classical Christian
Theology and the Book of Mormon [Livermore, Calif.: WingSpan Press, 2006],
232)
Firstly, it should be obvious that Louis Midgley (whom I know
personally) was speaking about the acceptance of additional books of revelation
as authentic revelation by 19th century and modern Christians. Of
course, Louis knows about the Qur’an and other works (including the book of
Revelation, which was revealed, by Jesus, via an angel, to John). Furthermore,
Paulson’s presentation of (1) Elkesite beliefs concerning the origins of their
holy book and (2) Hippolytus’ understanding in “Refutation of all Heresies” is,
to put it nicely, inadequate.
The best monograph in English on the topic is that of:
G. P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai:
Investigations into the Evidence for a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse of the
Second Century and Its Reception by Judeo-Christian Propagandists (Texts
and Studies in Ancient Judaism 8; Tübingen:
J. C. B. Mohr, 1985)
The following are key excerpts dealing with the above two
topics:
(1) On Elkesite understandings of the origin of their holy
book:
The Two Heavenly Figures of
Gigantic Size
Most likely, the interest of the
book was more in the male angel than in his female companion. This is apparent
from the passage (the opening passage?) in which the two figures were
introduced. As can be inferred from the four parallel accounts of this passage,
the male figure was mentioned first, subsequently his enormous measurements
were recorded; only then reference was made to his companion, the Holy Spirit,
a female being of equally great size. Note further that in his speaking of the
revelatory character of the book, Alcibiades made explicit reference only to
the male angel: “it (the book) had been revealed by an angel whose height was
24 schoeni . . .” (Hippolytus, Ref IX 13,2). Cf. 13,4a: “he” had
proclaimed a new remission of sins.
If we may rely on the above two
passages of Hippolytus, Ref IX 13, the message of the book was said to
have been revealed particularly by the male figure. This quite possibly implies
that the words, “I bear witness to you (plur.) on the Day of the Great
Judgment”, were presented as a declaration made by this angelic being. It would
seem, in other words, that in the Aramaic book it was the great male angel
himself who declared that on the Great Judgment-day he would assist the hearers
of his revelation.
The gigantic (or rather cosmic?)
dimensions of the angel and his being accompanied by the Holy Spirit indicate
that he was thought to be a heavenly figure of high rank and position. Perhaps
some kind of esoteric speculation underlies the detailed calculation of their
measurements.
A few features of the manlike
angel may be elucidated by comparing them with ideas about such celestial
figures as the archangel Michael, the heavenly Melchizedek, and the Son of Man
in 1 Enoch.
As we have seen above, pp. 181f
and 186f, there are reasons to assume that the angel was called hyl(’) ksy(’),
“Hidden Power”. It is attractive to explain this name in the light of the
concept of the hidden Son of Man as it occurs in the Similitudes of Enoch.
According to 1 Enoch 62,7, the Son of Man was hidden from the beginning and
preserved in God’s presence; but now God had revealed him to the elect (cf.
48,6f), and before long he would manifest himself in order to save the
righteous and to punish and destroy the sinners, the kings and the mighty (1
Enoch 46,4–6; 48,8f; 55,4; 62,3–10). The Son of Man was clearly regarded as an
eschatological Saviour figure; his hiddenness was therefore just temporary. In
the near future he would be revealed to the whole world. I think that the
enormous male angel of the book was called “Hidden Power” for a similar
reason: as yet he was hidden with God but in the imminent universal war he was
believed to manifest himself and to intervene in behalf of the faithful.
Likewise the designation “Great
King” (Epiphanius, Pan 19,3,4; cf. Hippolytus, Ref IX 15,1)
suggests that the manlike angel was expected to protect and defend the
faithful. It is not improbable that some of the eschatological duties of the
guardian angel of Israel, Michael, “the Great Prince”, were transferred to this
huge angelic being. The identification of a supreme heavenly being with Michael,
the head of the heavenly host, is not an isolated instance: there are strong
indications that also the Son of Man, the heavenly “king” Melchizedek (in 11
Qumran Melchizedek), and, in Christian texts, Jesus Christ were identified with
Michael.
It is not difficult to relate our
interpretation of the huge manlike figure as a guardian angel and a heavenly
representative of the faithful to the book’s announcement of a war among the
impious angels (Hippolytus, Ref IX 16,4). It will be recalled that the
future war was said to have repercussions in all impious kingdoms. This feature
suggests that the godless angels were thought to be the protagonists of these
kingdoms. We may assume that it was part of the revelation granted by the
“Hidden Power” to assure his addressees that he would protect them during the
imminent final war and that he was about to destroy the godless angels and
their protégés upon earth.
There are reasons to surmise, in
conclusion, that the manlike angel of the book was more than a revealer angel:
the idea seems to have been that the eschatological Saviour himself had
appeared to the author. It will be clear that this hypothesis enables us to
explain why in later Christian traditions the angel is called “Son of God”
(Hippolytus, Ref IX 13,3) and “Christ” (Epiphanius, Pan 19,3,4;
19,4,1; etc.).
The eschatological functions of
this angel and those of his female companion, the Holy Spirit, were left
unmentioned in the introductory description of these heavenly figures.
Apparently, the purpose of this passage of the book was only to describe their
appearance. It is noteworthy that according to the book, the huge male angel
was accompanied by an equally tall female figure.
I think that the second angel,
the Holy Spirit, was conceived as a female being merely because in the Hebrew
and Aramaic languages the word for “spirit” is grammatically feminine (cf.
above, n. 19). In any case, the belief in the existence of two supreme angels
seems to me more fundamental than their being regarded as male and female. Are
we dealing with a representation of the two chief manifestations of God
according to the Hebrew Bible through an Angel of the Lord and through the
Spirit of the Lord (who in Ps. 51:13 and Isa. 63:10 and in later Jewish texts
is called “Holy Spirit”)? (G. P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai:
Investigations into the Evidence for a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse of the
Second Century and Its Reception by Judeo-Christian Propagandists [Texts
and Studies in Ancient Judaism 8; Tübingen:
J. C. B. Mohr, 1985], 196-99)
(2) On Hippolytus’s presentation of the origins of the
Elkesite holy book in “Refutation of all Heresies”:
The Book of Revelations
Finally, we present the data in
the Refutation relating to the content and the message of the book (ἡ
βίβλος, cf. IX 13,1.4; 15,1f.3.5; X 29,1).
Evidently, Hippolytus had no
direct knowledge of this book. Information about the book is found exclusively
in his reports of words and views of Alcibiades.
I do not aim at distinguishing
clearly between quotations and other references to the book. For, firstly, it
is not always easy to decide where we are dealing with a citation, and where
not, and, secondly, the other references to the book are not a priori
less valuable for our knowledge of the book than literal quotations.
a. The book contained the
description of a vision of two celestial figures of enormous dimensions who had
appeared to the anonymous author of the book.
Ref IX 13,2f.:
“(Alcibiades said that the book) had been revealed by an angel whose height was
24 schoeni — that is 96 miles — and whose girth was 4 schoeni; from
shoulder to shoulder he was 6 schoeni; the tracks of his feet were three
and a half schoeni long — that is fourteen miles —, the breath being one
and a half and the height half a schoenus. With him was a female whose
dimensions, he said, accorded with those mentioned, the male being the Son of
God and the female was called ‘Holy Spirit’.”
From a comparison between IX 13,3
and 15,1 it appears that the male angel was also designated as “the Great
King”.
b. It was foretold in the book
that within three years a war among the impious angels of the North
would break out. Presumably this war was thought of as the opening act of an
apocalyptic drama.
Ref IX 16,3: “Honour also
the Sabbath, since it is one of these days. But beware of undertaking anything
on the third day of the week too, for, when again three years of Emperor Trajan
are completed, from the time he reduced the Parthians to his own sway, when
three years have been completed, the war among the impious angels of the North
breaks out. Thereby all impious kingdoms are troubled.”
c. The book seems to have
stipulated how men should act if they wished to be sure of “peace and a share
with the just” (cf. IX 15,3).
Ref IX 13,4: “(Alcibiades
said) that he (the male angel) had proclaimed a new remission of sins ‘as good
news to men in the third year of Trajan’s reign.’”
Ref IX 15,3: “. . . also
to you there will be peace and a share with the just, as soon as you have heard
this book (and have been baptized a second time with your garments on).”
Ref IX 15,2f.: “Let him
call to witness the seven witnesses written in this book: ‘Lo, I call to
witness the heaven and the water and the holy spirits and the angels of prayer
and the oil and the salt and the earth. I call to witness these seven witnesses
that I shall sin no more, I shall not commit adultery, I shall not steal, I
shall not do injustice, I shall not be greedy, I shall not hate, I shall not break
faith, nor shall I take pleasure in any evil deeds.’”
d. The prescription, “honour the
Sabbath” (IX 16,3), indicates that we are dealing with a Jewish book.
More questionable is whether the author was familiar with Christian ideas.
Alcibiades’ designation of the male angel as the Son of God seems to be a
reference to (Jesus) Christ, but we are not warranted to say that this title
and its possible application to Jesus Christ stem from the text of the book.
The references to Parthia, the Parthians, and in particular to Emperor Trajan
and his victory over the Parthians (IX 13,1.4, and 16,4 according to Roepper’s
emendation) give a clue to the historical situation in which the book was
written. (G. P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai: Investigations
into the Evidence for a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse of the Second Century
and Its Reception by Judeo-Christian Propagandists [Texts and Studies in
Ancient Judaism 8; Tübingen:
J. C. B. Mohr, 1985], 87-88)