The Two Babylons
The book “The Two Babylons” was
written by Alexander Hislop and was first published in 1916. The book had a most alarming
subtitle which was “The Papal Worship Proved To Be The Worship Of Nimrod And His
Wife”. Since it’s first appearance
the book has impacted the thinking of many people - ranging from those in cults to
dedicated Christians who hunger for a move of God and are concerned about anything which
might hinder that flow. The books basic premise is that Babylon has continued up to our
present day, in disguise, as the Roman Catholic Church - thus the idea of Two Babylons,
one ancient and one modern. Because this book
is very detailed, having a multitude of notes and references many people, including the
Jehovah’s Witnesses, assumed that it was factual.
I remember myself quoting “Hislop” as an authority on paganism almost the
same as “Webster” might be quoted on word definitions.
Recently I have been very concerned about
writers who “stretch the string” a little to prove a point, especially has this
been so with the Watchtower Society and has led to a number of articles on our website and
in this journal. I was discussing this with my Pastor recently and he told me of a book by
Ralph Woodrow titled “The Babylon Connection”.
I obtained a copy of this book from my local Christian bookstore and on
reading it I was amazed at the revelations about Hislop’s
book. I shall quote portions from this book and would recommend anyone interested in this
subject to obtain a copy for themselves, the cost is marginal.
Hislop says that if we were to look back at the
kind of religion which was practiced in ancient Babylon we would find people attending
mass, taking a small round wafer, worshipping a cross, going to confession, being baptised
with water for the remission of sins etc etc. The Roman Catholic Church, according to
Hislop “can trace its lineage far beyond the era of Christianity, back over 400
years, to near the period of the flood and the building of the Tower of Babel”. It
all started, he says, with Nimrod and his wife Semiramis. Unfortunately any information
about Nimrod and Semiramis is at best, sketchy. The Bible mentions Nimrod as the
“mighty hunter” but he is only mentioned four times and his wife is never
mentioned. Nevertheless Hislop claims to know all kinds of information about Nimrod and
his wife. According to Hislop, Nimrod was a skilled horse trainer, a military leader, the
ringleader when the giants rebelled against heaven, the Babylonian Mysteries were formed
to glorify him, he introduced the worship of the serpent. He also claimed a number of
firsts for Nimrod - first to breed dogs and leopards for hunting, first to teach the art
of horsemanship, first to carry war against his neighbours, first to bear the title
Shepherd-king, first to gather mankind into communities, first of mortals that reigned,
first to offer idolatrous sacrifices, first to bear the title Moloch, first king after the
flood, first of mankind that was deified and so the list of exploits goes on. Hislop puts all this and much more together on
assumed similarities and it is not until one stands back and looks objectively that this
can be seen. The similarities are just that - similarities from mythology. There simply is no
historical proof of most of the
data contained in Hislop’s book.
By this same method we could assumed that the
Biblical Peter and Paul were the same person. Each was an Israelite. Each lived at the
same time. Each had a Jewish background. Each was a convert to Christ. Each was an
Apostle. Each was a Biblical writer. Each suffered martyrdom. And each name began with
“P”. But of course we know that they were two separate people. Take enough
stories, enough names, enough centuries, translate from one language to another and a
careless writer in the future might pass off all kinds of misinformation. Hislop has done
exactly the same with Semiramis, taking many similarities from myths and legends and
assigning them all to Semiramis. In so doing Hislop cites many similarities and ignores
the differences and comes to the conclusion that all these different goddesses were but
variations of one goddess - a deified Semiramis. Ralph
Woodrow says in his book “I have carefully checked the articles on “Nimrod”
and “Semiramis” in many recognised reference works including The Encyclopaedia
Americana, The Encyclopaedia Britannica, The Encyclopaedia Judaica, The Encyclopaedia of
Religion, The New Catholic Encyclopaedia, The World Book Encyclopaedia . NOT ONE SAYS
ANYTHING ABOUT NIMROD AND SEMIRAMIS BEING HUSBAND AND WIFE!. Not only is there no mention
of Nimrod being married to Semiramis, the information that is given tends to rule this out
entirely.”
An article in “The Saturday Review”
written just after the second edition of Hislop’s book was published said this:
“In the first place his whole superstructure
is raised upon nothing ...The most lying legend which
the Vatican has ever endorsed stands on better authority than the history which is now
made the ground of a charge against it. Secondly, the whole argument proceeds upon the
assumption that all heathenism has a common origin. Accidental resemblances in
mythological details are taken as evidence of this, and nothing is allowed 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.”
As the reader can see Hislop reverted to much
fiction and myth to “prove” his point and sadly many used his book as proven
fact in later years. I am not condoning the
many things the Catholic Church does that are not in keeping with the Word of God but I
believe Hislop’s book is a little “over the top” in bringing the so called
facts as “proof”.
Further points will be added to this article after the publication of our next Journal.