What's going on with this site???
What's going on with this site??? |
For decades The Two Babylons, by the late Rev. Alexander Hislop has been heralded by many Christians as a classic in the area of Christian Apologetics. Years ago, reading it for the first time as a new Christian, it made a deep impression on me. To tell a little of my own experience with this book, I waded through its entire 323 pages, its various footnotes and appendixes as well; not just once but three times in a period of about 1½ years. The third read took the longest; not only did I read the book, but for my own purposes I took notes in a rather haphazard cross-reference system. All of this took place before the concept of a story about the post-Flood world started growing in my head. I had no idea at that time what might be my reasons for going to such lengths, I just buckled down and did it. In fact at the time, I didn’t even have a computer. Even if I had, I would not have known much about using one. The copy of The Two Babylons that I was reading from was checked out from the public library. I had to check it out three consequent times in order to read it through the first time, and I am not a slow reader. Few books have stumped me like The Two Babylons by the Rev. Alexander Hislop. Perhaps that is why I never questioned too many of Hislop’s references or his methods of reasoning.
Before going further, let me state clearly now that I am not about to repudiate all of The Two Babylons as fruitless. However, as this website has grown it has come to my attention, that perhaps this book has been put on an undeserved pedestal. There are questions that should be and need to be answered. Again to clarify myself, I feel strongly that many of the formal doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church are not Biblical. But, the question addressed here; was Hislop right about every point he so vehemently argued? More and more it is coming to my attention that it is time for the subject of the origins of religions and beliefs as they have come down to the present to be reexamined from a more Biblical perspective. The Two Babylons is not the exhaustive work on the subject that many have for decades been so willing to believe. At best it is but the starting ground. At worst, because Hislop's language and the press his book has received over the years have given it more influence than it merits, it has served as a stumbling block to those who found comfort in its authoritarian air and looked no further.
For example, the miter worn by the Pope. Hislop claims that its design heralds back to the mystery religion of ancient Babylon. According to Ralph Woodrow, the author of The Babylon Connection?, the second book which is being looked at here, the design of the miter as it is today has gone through numerous changes. Many of the first were a far cry from the shape it takes today (Woodrow, 79). In the introduction to The Babylon Connection?, the author writes of how swept up with Hislop's findings many of his readers have become, "We quoted 'Hislop' as an authority on paganism, just like 'Webster' might be quoted on word definitions." Proof reading the first rough draft of this for me, a Pastor friend of mine had this to say:
"With regard to the main points, I think it's good to encourage critical vs. gullible reading. At the same time I'm surprised that someone (Woodrow) would bother to write a "rebuttal" of Hislop since anyone who reads much church history or old theology books learns to filter out anti-Catholic rhetoric anyway. Having not read Woodrow's book, I hope he has stronger points to make than "'well-known by whom," and "the Pope's hat has evolved." What is well established in history is the Constantinian synthesis that began about AD 312 when mass "conversions" brought pagans and their traditions into Christendom. Those pagan traditions logically go back to Babel, having evolved overtime but empowered by the same spirit. Therefore, while it is silly to make too much of details like the Pope's hat, I think Hislop's major thesis , i.e., a spiritual heritage reaching back to Babylon should not be lost sight of….&qu! ot; (Graciano)
(Please, remember reading this that when the previous quote was written it was but the first rough draft of this paper.)
Further into the introduction, Woodrow tells of his disappointment when evidence showed Hislop "not a reliable historian" in so much that often:
"Hislop's 'history' was often only mythology. Even though myths may sometimes reflect events that actually happened, 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'!" (Woodrow, intro.)
Hislop wrote The Two Babylons; Or The Papal Worship: Proved To Be The Worship Of Nimrod and His Wife to expose how religion, outside of Biblical Christianity, in particular the Roman Catholic Church, as having been founded upon an initial apostate religion that originated in Babel. Personally, I could go along with that to a certain degree. However, my own theory has more to do with a de-evolution from the Truth that had once been completely known in the Garden of Eden before the Fall, followed by times of gradual, climatic, even the quided and willful abandonment, of the one true God. It makes sense to me that this "exchanging of truth for lies" probably happened more climatically at times than at others. For example, whatever did happen in the way of specific details, at Babel? To a large degree, The Two Babylons seemed to answer this question. However, after considering Ralph Woodrow’s book, The Babylon Connection? and! careful weighing - especially of chapters 7, Fact Or Fable? and 8, Pagan Connection?- my questioning of Hislop's vision of Babel went into high gear. Woodrow definitely makes some valid points.
Among the evidence that Woodrow justifiably asks us to consider is a drawing by Henry Austen Layard, from his excavation of the ruins of ancient Nimrud. Hislop claims this to be a scene picturing Nimrod, the "mighty hunter," placing the horns of a bull on his head to symbolize, among other things, his might. (Hislop, p 34) Though this may be possible (after all Layard did find this object in Nimrud) the evidence is a bit circumstantial. As Woodrow points out, Layard mentions nothing about either of the human like figures as being Nimrod (Layard, 605). Hislop's reasoning here would be kind of like finding a Barbie doll wearing skates 1000-2000 years from now in the ruins of what are today Hamilton City, California and claiming the doll to be a representation of Dorothy Hamil!
Woodrow also questions some of Hislop’s word choices. Taking a closer look, I have to admit the validity of his point. It is only human, and in the imperfect medium of the printed (computerized) word to get your meaning across to some extent necessary and acceptable to use emotional trigger words to make a point. But Rev. Hislop does tend to over do it, using such terms as "well-known," "everybody" and "everyone knows". At times his choice of wording does seem to border on the fringe of an attempt to psychologically mold the reader to except whatever point he is making at the time without question. Hislop uses the term, "well-known," by my count at least 34 times; as Woodrow points out "well-known by who?" (Woodrow, 86-88). Further on the author of The Babylon Connection sums up by saying:
‘…most are definitely not that "well-known" and not "everyone" knows them to be true. Since we don’t won’t to be dummies, there is a tendency to accept such statements –and arguments based on them—without question. After all, they are "well-known"!’ (Woodrow, 88)
Also, the author of The Babylon Connection?, points out that the identity of a woman named Semiramis being the wife of Nimrod is questionable; as I have found out in my own research of ancient history and legend to develop the story lines of my own fictional stories. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (Knight), Sammuramat was the wife of Adad-nirari III (812 to 783 B.C) who reigned during the time Jehoahaz was king of Israel. According to The Oxford Classical Dictionary:
"Semiramis in history was Sammu-ramat, wife of Shamshi-Adad V of *Assyria, mother of Adad-nirari III, with whom she campaigned against *Commagene in 805 BC. Her inscribed stelae of kings and high officials in Assur. In Greek legend, she was the daughter of the Syrian goddess Derceto at Ascalon, wife of Onnes (probably the first Sumerian sage Oannes) and then of Ninos, eponymous king of *Nineveh; she conquered '*Bactria' and built' '*Babylon' ( *Berossus denied this). In Armenian legend, she conquered *Armenia (ancient *Uratu), built a palace and waterworks, and left inscriptions."
W. Schramm. Historia 1972, 513-21; F.W. Konig, Die Persika des Ktesias von Knidos, Archiv fur Orientforschung Beiheft 18 (1972), 37-40; V. Donbaz, Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project (1990), 5-10; Moses Khorenats'I, History of the Armenians, ed, R.W. Thomson (1978), 93-104; (Hornblower, 1383)
In this entry Sammuramat is named as the wife of the father of Adad-nirari III, the earlier reference claims her as the wife of his son. Either way the dates involved are much too late for her to have been the wife of the Biblical Nimrod. And here lies the crux of the problem, for much of Hislop's notions on ancient Babel hinges on this one point, as witnessed by the full title of the book, The Two Babylons Or The Papal Worship: Proved To Be The Worship Of Nimrod and His Wife.
There is speculation that perhaps there was an earlier Semiramis, but at this point I have not been able to even establish if Sammuramat and Semiramis are indeed the same name, one being the Assyrian form and the latter being the Greek equivalent. The truth seems to be that the name Sammuramat "…is the only Assyrian or Babylonian name discovered so far having any phonetic resemblance to that of the famous legendary queen, Semiramis." Therefore, though the two names are often cited as being interchangeable (Ann, 347; Foryan; Self), that would not seem to constitute solid proof.
In Goddesses in World Mythology, Sammuramat is stated as being interchangeable with the name Semiramis. The entry reads:
Semiramis:
Mesopotamia; Babylonia; Assyria
Wildbirds; Creater of Life; Love and Sexuality; Unhappiness; Selfishness
A goddess queen who ruled the city of Nineveh and founded the city of Babylon.
She left the earth as a dove, and was worshiped for fertility.
When Semiramis needed a lover to replace her husband, King Ninus, after he died, she chose Ara, but Ara rejected her advances because he loved his wife, Nvard. The angry Semiramis then tried to capture Ara with a large contingent of soldiers, but they killed him by mistake. Grief-stricken, Semiramis had his body taken to her palace in hopes that his life could be restored. When he did not return from the dead, she dressed another one of her lovers in Ara's clothing, and made love to him instead. (Ann, 347)
If you are familiar with my Seeker World Stories you may recognize the fact that my story of the Seeker is based in part on this entry. If you have any knowledge of Armenian myth, you probably recognise Ara as the name of the first legendary king of Armenia. Considering this as a whole, this passage seems to substantiate that there was a Semiramis/Sammuramat who was the Biblical wife of Nimrod, as well as a few of Hislop's other concepts of ancient Babel, Nimrod and his wife, at least on the surface. But only as long as Ninus and Nimrod are indeed one and the same, but do we know for sure that Ninus and Nimrod are one and the same? Hislop says so. But, the only connection between the two given here is that Semiramis ruled Nineveh and "founded the city of Babylon." Is this proof? Remember, that in an earlier reference it is said that the Babylonian Historian Berosus denied that Semiramis/Sammuramat founded Babylon (Knight). Being much closer to that time period in question than we are wouldn't he be more of an authority?
One more possible hitch to Hislop's scenario is that most of the relative legends that do hint at memories of Semiramis/Sammuramat being the wife of the Biblical Nimrod - at least as far as I have been able to establish so far - seem to date back at the earliest to the Assyrians. That's perhaps a bit too late for the time of the Biblical Nimrod.
As far as the connection between Ninus and Nimrod being one and the same, that too is unsettled. In numerous examples through out his book Woodrow points out that Hislop's etymological arguments are often not on as solid a foundation as the casual reader may believe. I am no means an expert, but due to an amateur interest in etymology I have picked up a few things. Mainly, that when dealing with ancient and dead languages 'word games' are the best any one can do. Also, from the bits and pieces of morphological rules of phonetics, languages, etc. that I have picked up on, some of the 'word games,' Hislop plays in order to develop a point appear to have some rationality, while others are really grasping at straws. Perhaps, Hislop may have been on to something when he equates Nimrod to Ninus. Consider this passage in The Oxford Classical Dictionary:
"Nimrod is a corruption of Ninurta, the patron deity of Nimrud, known Biblically as ancient Calah." (Hornblower, 1045)
But even here, the connection is tenuous. I wouldn't risk my scholarly credentials on such a connection even if I had any.
On September 17, 1859, The Saturday Review, had this to say in review of Hislop's The Two Babylons:
"…the whole argument proceeds on the argument that all heathenism has a common origin. Accidental resemblances in mythological details are taken as evidence of this, and nothing is left for the natural working of the human mind.
Thirdly, Mr. Hislop's method of reasoning would make anything of anything. By the aid of obscure passages in third rate historians' groundless assumptions of identity, and etymological torturing of roots, all that we know, and all that we believe, may be converted…. into something totally different.
Fourthly, Mr. Hislop's argument proves too much. He finds not only the corruptions of Popery, but the fundamental articles of the Christian Faith, in his hypothetical Babylonian System…" (qtd. in Woodrow, 20) - italics mine.
Another thought provoking point that Woodrow makes is the ramifications of the arguments made by Hislop to deem an action or symbol "pagan." He makes a strong case that by using the same methods as Hislop, we could easily call the Bible and/or God Himself pagan, by reason of how similarities in the Bible to many 'pagan religions' are extensive. A few examples mentioned in The Babylon Connection? include the practice of kneeling to pray, priests and fires that are kept lit constantly, not to mention the God of the Bible showing Himself as a burning bush and as a pillar of fire! In one of the Psalms the Lord is mentioned as having a cup in his hand just as the woman of "Mystery Babylon" in the book of Revelation. Thrones, crowns ...(Woodrow, 100-106). Woodrow also offers this bit of food for thought...
"Suppose someone criticized a brick church building, arguing that bricks came from Babylon: "And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick and burn them throughly" (Gen. 11:3). But the use of bricks is too general to make a Babylonian connection. Would a wood-frame building, covered with plaster be less Babylonian? Well, no for the Babylonians also used plaster! (Dan.5:5)." (Woodrow, 106)
Among the final arguments that Woodrow makes in his commentary on The Two Babylons, his first two opening paragraphs in chapter nine, "Excess Baggage" impressed me:
"The Pope is Nimrod’s representative, Hislop says, the head of Devil-worship, "to bring ALL its abominations into the Church, as he has done." Has the Pope brought ALL the abominations of Devil-worship into the Church? When Hislop makes extreme statements such as this, he unfortunately discredits his valid points.
Hislop says of the Roman Catholic Church, its doctrines and disciplines "in ALL essential respects, have been derived from Babylon," and that it teaches "ALL that is dishonoring to the Most High, and ruinous to the moral and spiritual welfare of mankind." The word "all," in this context, is inappropriate. Despite the "excess baggage" it has accumulated over the centuries, the Roman Catholic Church teaches many things that are honorable and moral." (Woodrow, 111)
From here Woodrow goes on to promote the practice exemplified by Paul in finding "common ground" to build upon when spreading the Gospel.
As stated earlier, The Two Babylons Or The Papal Worship: Proved To Be The Worship Of Nimrod and His Wife, by Alexander Hislop is considered a classic. It is rather unnerving to realize that a "classic" reference work could be accepted for so long, for the most part unquestioned, without many of it's short comings being previously exposed to public view, but to a large extent that seems to be exactly what has happened. At this point I wouldn’t say "throw" Hislop's book, "out with the trash," but it is very hard to discern which of Hislop’s facts are facts, when so many of his "facts" are questionable and/or an unresponsible stretching of something to make it into something it is not. I do know this, there are at least two quotable sentences in the whole book:
"Surely if one thing more than another be proved in the previous pages, it is this, that the Bible is no cunningly devised fable, but that holy men of old spake and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. What can account for the marvellous unity in all the idolatrous systems of the world, but that the facts recorded in the early chapters of Genesis were real transactions, in which, as all mankind were involved, so all mankind have preserved in their various systems, distinct and undeniable memorials of them, though those who have preserved them have long lost the true key to their meaning?" (Hislop, 289-290)
There may well be many more things that Hislop is right about, but I for one am disappointed in his methods of scholarship. If the email and responses I have received from this site thus far are any indication, the subject of religious origins, Babel and how mankind once knew the truth of God does need to be examined. But, this examination should not end at the reading of the late Rev. Hislop's, The Two Babylons Or The Papal Worship: Proved To Be The Worship Of Nimrod and His Wife, neither should it be given up after reading Woodrow's, The Babylon Connection? It should however as Woodrow so poetically puts it:
"To all my brothers and sisters in Christ who feel that finding Babylonian origins for present-day customs or practices is of great importance, my advice is to move cautiously in this area, lest we major in 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" of our own making (Woodrow, 32)."
Recently, after reviewing my page Did You Know? The Danger of Turning Christian Apologetics into a Religion a reader asked me to clarify my stance on Christmas. I explained to him that when I first read Hislop, I was extremely uncomfortable with Christmas. Years ago, when my husband's nieces were barely more than babies, one had just turned 3 the other was 4 almost 5, we took them in for little over a year. Not knowing how long they would be with us; I taught them as much as I could about the God of the Bible, using every opening I found. One such opening was Christmas. I made up a calendar with a verse/day countdown to Christmas day. I started with the very first promise that God gave to us in the Bible about the "Seed of a Woman", followed by such verses as "from the root of Jesse...," right on up to "In the beginning was the Word.....and the Word became flesh." Each day we would memorize that day's verse and discuss it. I kept the whole Santa thing in the background as much as I could, but with them not being my own children and with my own husband and family not seeing the commercialism of Christmas - not to mention the fact that it is celebrated at the wrong time of year- as a big deal... The children were the most important thing, that and the responsibility which I felt God had given to me to teach them in the ways of truth to equip them for their later years.
How did I deal with the Christmas tree issue? Well for one thing going back to Hislop, his research seems to state that the Christmas tree is pagan in origin in that it symbolizes the false branch of the Messiahship, i.e., Cush. It stands to reason then, that if there is a false branch there is also a true branch. Christians know that, Biblically, that would be the branch of David. So once again, a way to use what may once have been used to undermine the Truth to instead teach the truth. Actually, I wonder if the apostate religions really thought up those symbols, or if the "symbols" were originally used to teach the truth (much as we use flash cards to teach our children letters and their corresponding sounds) and then twisted. Historically, evil doesn't seem to have an originality of it's own, but usually takes an original truth and twists it out of shape. For example, the lie the serpent told Eve in the Garden of Eden; it was a lie founded on a truth.
To get back to the subject, the tree is often represented as a triangle, three sided, and a tree can also be viewed in three main parts, the roots, trunk, branches. I saw in this an opportunity to expose the children to the idea of the triune nature of God; of how He is but One, consisting of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but still only One. I used no commercialized ornaments, no cutsey Santas... I had paper mache balls decorated with scenes from Bible stories and little cards with various Bible verses...
Christmas gifts were exchanged on Christmas day in remembrance of the ultimate gift God gave of himself by entering into his own creation. In fact, the moment we opened our first gifts, we listened to a song by Reba McIntyre where she and the kids open their first gifts to the words, "Jesus, I open this just for you."
Perhaps, I am handling Christmas all wrong, if so I pray that God will show me how he wishes for me to deal with it in truth. In His time, I'm sure he will show me all things, but I don't think that it is in His plans for me to be that perfected while I am here on earth. I probably wouldn't be much good to him that way, because no one would be able to stand being around me. I just pray that those imperfections I suffer from do not become a stumbling block for anyone else and that I carry those responsibilities that come to me as He would have me…. (Note: As the original author, I took full liberties with the previous five paragraphs, which is why they are not in quotations)
Ann, Martha and Dorothy Myers Imel. Goddesses In World Mythology: A Biographical Dictionary. New York: Oxford UP, 1993.
Hislop, Rev. Alexander. The Two Babylons Or The Papal Worship: Proved To Be The Worship Of Nimrod and His Wife. Neptune, New Jersey: Loizeauz Brothers, 1959.
Foryan, George E. "Semiramis: Legendary Mysterious Great Queen of Assyria". November 16 1999.
Graciano, Rod. (Personal E-mail Message - quoted with permission). November 13 1999.
Knight, Kevin, ed. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, 1999. November 16 1999 .
Hornblower, Simon and Antony Spawforth, eds. The Oxford Classical Dictionary: The Ultimate Reference Work on the Classical World. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 1996.
Layard, Austen Henry. Nineveh And Babylon. London: J. Murray, 1849.
Self, Bryce. "Semiramis, Queen of Babylon". November 16 1999.
Woodrow, Ralph. The Babylon Connection? Palm Springs, CA: Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, 1997.
Charles Kimball, the Xenophile Historian, Pastor Rod Graciano & to Helena McNeilly, author of THE ENOCH TABLETS and THE LANGUAGE OF GOD for their much welcomed input & help editing the final drafts of this review.
Get your own Free Home Page
