The Babylon Connection?

by Ralph Edward Woodrow

Shows that claims about Babylonian origins often lack connection - takes a closer look at the oft-quoted The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop providing some much needed clarification on the subject. Suppose we could go back in time--back to the days of ancient Babylon. What kind of religion would we find being practiced there? According to Alexander Hislop we would find people attending a mass partaking of a little round wafer worshiping a cross going to confession being baptized with water for the remission of sins burning wax candles and bowing before a divine Mother and Child. We would notice that places of worship featured a tower. Priests wearing a circular tonsure dressed in black garments would give those who died the last rites. With monks and nuns in abundance the Babylonians would be practicing essentially all the rites known today in the Roman catholic Church! According to Alexander Hislop it all started with Nimrod and his wife Semiramis thus the subtitle of The Two "the Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife." But any information about Nimrod and Semiramis in history books is at best sketchy. In the Bible Nimrod "the mighty hunter" is only mentioned four times--and his wife is never mentioned! Nevertheless Hislop claims to know all kinds of detailed information about Nimrod and his wife....By now the reader may be asking the obvious Where does Hislop get all this information? The answer is clear. Based on mere similarities he merges a variety of mythological stories together so that the hero in each becomes Nimrod. The Bible says Nimrod was a "mighty one"; in mythology Hercules was a mighty one or giant--so Hercules must have been Nimrod! Nimrod was known as "a mighty hunter"; in mythology Orion is called the Hunter--so Orion must have been Nimrod! The building of the Tower of Babylon is commonly linked with Nimrod; in mythology Kronos

Genres: Christianity, Religion

122 pages, Paperback

First published March 1, 1997

Reviews

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Catholic Church is the subject of so much controversy. It's often referred to as "The Whore of Babylon," and the Pope as the anti-Christ.

This book shows where many of those false allegations sprung from and underscores the stupidity of such calumniation.

Very interesting.

[Yibbie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well, now I’m curious, mostly convinced, but also just a smidgen undecided about a theory I had never questioned before. I have heard all my life that Hislop’s book The Two Babylons is a masterpiece of research and discernment. Now I have never read Hislop’s work, but I have read serval other works by authors that think extremely highly of his work and have based their own works on his premise and research. This little book has called all of that into doubt for me. As it’s only been a little over 24hrs since I first heard that there was even a question about his work; I’m still processing most of it.
The main premise of Woodrow’s book is that Hislop’s methodology is deeply, irreparably, flawed. He calls into question his use of mythology, his drawing of parallels where they might don’t exist, his misquoting of sources, and his torture of various etymologies. To do that, he takes often takes Hislop’s methods to the extreme conclusion and makes them ridiculous. Woodrow wants us to see that we don’t need to be fearful of supposed paganism behind every bush and symbol and to fully enjoy the freedom we have in Christ. He also wants us to see that we have everything we need in Scripture to effectively evangelize a Catholic. We don’t need to know the history behind every unscriptural practice to be able to recognize it.
So I was 95% convinced that Woodrow was right, but because I have not read Hislop, I still feel that I should read a little bit of it myself just to see if it’s as bad as he says. It may be harder for me to check out the accuracy of his quotes, but I may be able to spot some the logical fallacies.
Unfortunately, this book could use some work itself. It’s easy enough to understand, but occasionally it’s hard to figure out if he is quoting a source or explaining an idea. It can also be a little abrupt at the transitions.

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book needs to be read by anyone who has been exposed to Hislop's The Two Babylons. It is a much needed corrective to one of the most embarrassing episodes in anti-Catholic polemics. The book appeals to us to return to a basic rule in evangelizing Catholics: stick to the Scriptures. The Two Babylons is essentially esoteric in its own way and should be rejected as readily as it has been discredited.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

WOODROW REJECTS HIS EARLIER BOOK, WHICH WAS BASED ON "THE TWO BABYLONS"

Ralph Woodrow is the author of many other books and publications such as 'Babylon Mystery Religion, Ancient and Modern,' 'Great Prophecies of The Bible,' '"Three Days And Three Nights" Reconsidered,' etc.

In this 1997 book Woodward repudiates his 'Babylon Mystery Religion' book (written in 1966 when he was only 27); he has elsewhere also reconsidered his former rejection of the Christmas celebration in 'Christmas Reconsidered,' and his former rejection of Easter in 'Easter: Is It Pagan?'.

After summarizing the teaching about Nimrod and Semiramis in Alexander Hislop's influential book 'The Two Babylons,' he comments, "Such is an outline, according to Hislop, of the history of Nimrod and his wife. By now the reader may be asking the obvious question: Where does Hislop get all this information? The answer is clear. Based on mere similarities, he merges a variety of mythological stories together so that the hero in each becomes Nimrod." (Pg. 5)

He points out, "Over and over Hislop claims that all kinds of things started 'in Babylon,' yet when it comes right down to it, the examples he gives are usually from some OTHER COUNTRY. He reasons that if a tribe in Africa worshipped a cross, the cross must have been an object of worship in Babylon! If the egg was regarded as sacred in China, the egg was a sacred object in Babylon! If round cakes were a part of Egyptian rituals, round cakes were used in Babylon! If a mother with child in her arms was worshipped in India, a mother with child was worshipped in Babylon! In other words, we know what the Babylonian religion was, because we find it SOMEWHERE ELSE in the world. Because it is somewhere else in the world, we know it came from Babylon! This is circular reasoning." (Pg. 23)

He asks, "What could possibly be the basis for saying SHEM, Noah's son, killed Tammuz? ... Hislop, ignoring the context... builds only on a similarity of names... Shem, Noah's son, was an actual person... But in checking the various encyclopedias, Tammuz is NEVER described as an actual person; he is NEVER mentioned as the son of Nimrod; Semiramis is NEVER mentioned as his mother! These are all inventions of Hislop!" (Pg. 40-41)

He notes, "'Mystery Babylon' is described as seated on 'seven mountains' (Rev 17:9) ... [Hislop] describes the Pope as 'he who has his seat on the seven hills of Rome.' But it is the VATICAN Hill that is the seat of the Pope and the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church---this was not one of the seven hills of Rome!... Harper's Bible Dictionary includes a map confirming this point." (Pg. 50)

This book is certainly as controversial as Woodrow's first "Babylon" book was (but to a different group of readers/reviewers), but his biblical and historical arguments are well worth reading for anyone studying such matters. Read BOTH books, and make up your own mind.

[Todd Bryant · Rating 5 out of 5]

I think with most serious, but immature Christians—when our journey first began, we were "on fire" for the Lord. Though that is a good thing in principle, it often opens us up to superstition and conspiracy theories. Anything—and I mean anything in our lives—can become taboo or pagan or sinful or conspiracy.

Sadly, such superstitions have been propagated by well-intentioned pastors who were taught such things early in their Christian life and never took the time to research for themselves.

Case in point—there was a book written by Alexander Hislop in the 19th century entitled "The Two Babylons". This book essentially links every pagan practice throughout history to Babylon and Nimrod specifically. Hislop proposes that all kinds of things from Christmas to birthday cakes to wax candles (yes, wax candles) are pagan and come to us from Nimrod and Babylon.

Admittedly, I was exposed to Hislop's book early on in life. However, I only read about 10 pages of it back then. I turned to the pages that made the case against things I wanted to be against and I ignored the rest—and really, I missed his entire premise. One of the reasons I did this is that his book is a very, very difficult read and gets monotonous at times. Having spoken with some other pastor friends, I think my approach to Hislop's book is common. The sad thing is, I missed the just absolutely bizarre things he proposed as well as some of his ridiculous claims (like wax candles being pagan).

The author of "The Babylon Connection?"—Ralph Woodrow—was convinced that Hislop's book was spot on. He ended up writing his own book, "Babylon, Mystery Religion" that made the same case as Hislop, but was a much easier read. He was challenged by some readers and began to do his own independent research. After much research, he was convinced by the evidence that Hislop's book (and thus, his own book) had a faulty foundation based on a faulty reasoning. This book—"The Babylon Connection?"—refutes not only Hislop's "The Two Babylons", but the author's own work, "Babylon, Mystery Religion." Understand, the author went to great pains to do all the research for you. He points out that all of those references supplied by Hislop aren't what they are presented to be.

If you've been convinced that everything in the world is pagan—from Christmas trees to the fish symbol on the back of a car—you owe it to yourself to read this book. If you have been convinced that Hislop is reliable, you REALLY owe it to yourself to read this book. The case made against "The Two Babylons" here is solid.

I am thankful for an author transparent enough to admit his own fault and write a rebuttal of his own previous work.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Refutes this book: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11...

[Anthony Lawson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Woodrow's earlier work Babylon Mystery Religion was mostly based on Hislop's The Two Babylon's. Woodrow realized later upon further research that Hislop's book (and in consequence so was his) were wrong and wrote The Babylon Connection to show why.

[Yophielle · Rating 1 out of 5]

I cannot believe a nonfiction book would exist without any evidence for its claims. That's fiction, not nonfiction.

[Harry · Rating 4 out of 5]

Waiting for this contra-Hislop for a long time.