Al Hisslops book
The Two Bablyons, was full of examples of such "connections" as your post attempts to claim, making all sorts of claims against the Catholic Church, equating its practices with pagan practices from ages past even.
Let me tell you a true story of "The Two Babylons."
(Scene 1 as the lights come up on stage):
This was written by a 'scholar' who seemed to be beyond repute, in the 1800's. In it he made many fantastical claims of the link of ancient paganism, going back to Nimrod, to the Catholic Church. It appeared to be heavily researched and footnoted. None questioned it. It was met with uncritical acclamation and acceptance.
It was accepted as the authoritative, indisputable tome on this "fact".
This state of affairs continued for the next 100 years!
(End Scene 1, the stage darkens)
(Scene 2, the light come up on stage):
Enter Ralph Woodrow in the later 20th century.
Ralph Woodrow became the world's foremost expert on The Two Babylons. In fact, he wrote his own modernized version - Babylon Mystery Religion
It was a huge success! It was so successful, in fact, that many times he was mistaken for Al Hisslop himself and the author of the Two Babylons!
His book had several printings and was a world wide success.
All was well, until . . . ..
(End of Scene 2, the stage darkens. . . . )
(Scene 3, a spotlight comes up on Ralph Woodrow and a historical scholar . . . what follows is a fictionalized representatino of their conversation)
Historian: "Ralph" he said, "What did you use as source material for this? It is very flawed and inaccurate!"
Ralph: What? You have to be kidding! I used material that was heavily researched and has been widely accepted as scholarly! You must be mistaken!
Historian: "No Ralph, I'm not. . . you need to check this out for yourself. There are many, many historical errors in this book!"
Others also said much the same thing to Ralph . . it was quite puzzling. . . .
(End Scene 3, the stage darkens . . . )
(Scene 4, the lights come up . . .)
Ralph couldn't shake what his friends and historians were telling him. They couldn't be right, but how could they all be saying the same thing if they weren't? What was up? How could there be such a discrepency?
Being a man of utmost integrity and honor, he decided there was only one course of action he could take. That course of action was to verify himself EVERY source used by Hislop and determine for himself, once and for all, the truth of the matter.
At great expense of time and money, he painstakingly hunted down every last source used by Hislop over 100 years ago . . no easy task, for some were exceptionally difficult to find. He poured himself into the task.
At long last, he had reached his conclusion. The Two Babylons were full of error, and made associations between paganism and Christianity where no legitimate association existed. He discovered that SIMILARITY does not equate with sameness and that appearances can be very deceiving.
In fact he discovered that the use of the wedding ring is pagan, the cross is pagan, and the fish symbol (a Christian symbol) was pagan . . .
But what he realized was this: just because pagans used these things, that did not make the Christian use of them pagan!
By his research, Hislop had been shown to have exaggerated and even invented "facts".
Ralph was left with no other choice. He had to pull his book, an international best seller, at great financial loss to himself, because it was based on Hislop's work, which made it full of error and false claims regarding the Catholic Church and the so-called "paganization of christianity".
He then wrote a new book, The Babylon Connection.
Here are Woodrow's own words:
My original book had some valuable information in it. But it also contained certain teachings that were made popular in a book many years ago, THE TWO BABYLONS, by Alexander Hislop. This book claims that the very religion of ancient Babylon, under the leadership of Nimrod and his wife, was later disguised with Christian-sounding names, becoming the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, two “Babylons”—one ancient and one modern. Proof for this is sought by citing numerous similarities in paganism. The problem with this method is this: in many cases there is no connection.
Because Hislop wrote in the mid-1800's the books he refers to or quotes are now quite old. I made considerable effort to find these old books and to check Hislop's references; books such as
Layard's
Nineveh and Its Remains,
Kitto's
Cyclopeidia of Biblical Literature,
Wilkinson's
Ancient Egyptians, as well as old editions of Pausanias, Pliny, Tacitus, Herodotus and many more. When I checked his footnote references, in numerous cases I discovered they do not support his claims.
As I did this [research], it became clear-
Hislop's "history" was often only mythology... an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths can not provide a sound basis for history. Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time, jump from one time to another, from one country to another, pick and choose similarities-why anything could be "proved"!
....While condemning round communion wafers as images of the sun-god Baal,
Hislop fails to mention that the very manna given by the Lord was round. “Upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing....And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat” (Exod. 16:14–15, KJV, emphasis added). Round is not necessarily pagan.
Hislop taught that Tammuz (whom he says was Nimrod) was born on December 25, and that this is the origin of the date on which Christmas is observed. Yet his supposed proof for this is taken out of context. Having taught that Isis and her infant son Horus were the Egyptian version of Semiramis and her son Tammuz he cites a reference that the son of Isis was born "about the time of the winter solstice." When we actually look up the reference he gives for this (
Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians, vol. 4, 405), the son of Isis who was born "about the time of the winter solstice was not Horus, her older son, but Harpocrates. The reference also explains this was a premature birth, causing him to be lame, and that the Egyptians celebrated the feast of his mother’s delivery in spring. Taken in context, this has nothing to do with a December celebration or with Christmas as it is known today.
The subtitle for Hislop’s book is
“The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.” Yet when I went to reference works such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Americana, The Jewish Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Worldbook Encyclopedia –
carefully reading their articles on “Nimrod” and “Semiramis” — not one said anything about Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife. They did not even live in the same century. Nor is there any basis for Semiramis being the mother of Tammuz.
I realized these ideas were all Hislop’s inventions.
----------------------
Building on similarities while ignoring differences is an unsound practice. Atheists have long used this method in an attempt to discredit Christianity altogether, citing examples of pagans who had similar beliefs about universal floods, slain and risen saviors, virgin mothers, heavenly ascensions, holy books, and so on.
As Christians, we don’t reject prayer just because pagans pray to their gods. We don’t reject water baptism just because ancient tribes plunged into water as a religious ritual. We don’t reject the Bible just because pagans believe their writings are holy or sacred.
The Bible mentions things like kneeling in prayer, raising hands, taking off shoes on holy ground, a holy mountain, a holy place in the temple, pillars in front of the temple, offering sacrifices without blemish, a sacred ark, cities of refuge, bringing forth water from a rock, laws written on stone, fire appearing on a person’s head, horses of fire, and the offering of first fruits. Yet, at one time or another, similar things were known among pagans. Does this make the Bible pagan? Of course not!
If finding a pagan parallel provides proof of paganism, the Lord Himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in His hand (Ps. 75:
. Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Pagans worshiped the sun; the Lord is the “Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called “the bright and Morning star” (Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagans built a high tower in Babylon; the Lord is a high tower (2 Sam. 22:3). Pagans worshiped idolatrous pillars; the Lord appeared as a pillar of fire (Exod. 13: 21–22). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Ps. 91:4).
.......I have since replaced this book with The Babylon Connection? a 128-page book with 60 illustrations and 400 footnote references. It is an appeal to all my brothers and sisters in Christ who feel that finding Babylonian origins for present-day customs or beliefs is of great importance. My advice, based on my own experience, is to move cautiously in this area, lest we major on minors. If there are things in our lives or churches that are indeed pagan or displeasing to the Lord, they should be dealt with, of course. But in attempting to defuse the confusion of Babylon, we must guard against creating a new “Babylon” (confusion) of our own making.
The TWO BABYLONS was thoroughly debunked.
It is an example of fraudulant scholarship, as is the scholarship of the sites you linked us to; and that so many christian groups who stand opposed to Catholicism accept it, and other works like it, blindly, without any kind of critcal evaluation of its contents is of great concern
To verify what I have said about this, one only has to read :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Babylons#Criticism
And Ralph Woodrow himself:
The two babylons:
A Case Study in Poor Methodology
a review of
The Two Babylons, or The Papal Worship
by Alexander Hislop
(Lorizeaux Brothers, 1990)
Originally Posted by bbwx
Reply With Quote
