Alexander Hislop

[Athanasius377]

There is something that is bothering me. I have noticed on several occasions that well-meaning christian brothers and sisters have cited a dubious work (or a derivative) from Alexander Hislop's book called The Two Babylons . . . . The work as best I can tell (I have not read the entire book nor do I wish to) is a mashup of various mystery religions and cults with the aim of tying pagan practice to the modern Church of Rome. Hislop seems to isolate on aspect of religion "A" and draw a parallel with an earlier religion "B" then point out that the English word sounds like religion "B" therefore Roman Catholic practice "C" is pagan. His conclusions are just as convoluted and false as his arguments. This is in no way a valid historical methodology and no reputable historian would ever publish such rubbish. So why are so many christians think this is an acceptable source and authority for history? Furthermore why do christians think it is ok to defame other christians using this source? Is that not bearing false witness against thy neighbor?

Proverbs 14:5-8 (NKJV)

5 A faithful witness does not lie,
But a false witness will utter lies.
6 A scoffer seeks wisdom and does not find it,
But knowledge is easy to him who understands.
7 Go from the presence of a foolish man,
When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.
8 The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way,
But the folly of fools is deceit.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Most people I've seen quote him exhibit an anti-Catholic bias and are uncritically accepting of criticism of the Catholic Church especially but all ancient Christianity in general. It isn't about being scholarly or the truth but confirmation bias. There are plenty of more educated protestant critiques but they are harder to expound than the simple notion that ancient Christians (contrary to every devout Christian author we see) purposefully integrated pagan systems of worship, belief and practice into their own.

 

[Athanasius377]

Most people I've seen quote him exhibit an anti-Catholic bias and are uncritically accepting of criticism of the Catholic Church especially but all ancient Christianity in general. It isn't about being scholarly or the truth but confirmation bias. There are plenty of more educated protestant critiques but they are harder to expound than the simple notion that ancient Christians (contrary to every devout Christian author we see) purposefully integrated pagan systems of worship, belief and practice into their own.

I could not agree more. There are protestant critiques of Roman practices that are sometimes dismissed as anti-catholic and then there are those that really are anti-catholic such as Hislop's work. The only way I can describe what Hislop has done is to slander and defame an entire group of christians on the basis of the flimsiest of historical research. It usually comes up around Easter when someone will make the claim that Easter came from Ishtar and therefore pagan not realizing that English word is derived from the German word Ostern and is completely unrelated to Ishtar.

What I think most people that are using arguments like the ones presented in Hislop's work is the same sort of methodology that the film Zeitgeist used in trying to discredit Christianity as a whole. At the time christians cried foul and rightly pointed out historical non-sense that made up the bulk of its claims. However some of the same christians look the other way when someone makes the claim that a bishop mitre is hat to honor the fish god Dagon because mitres are what Roman Catholic bishops wear. Evidently not realizing just how corrosive sensational arguments are to their own faith.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Best as I can tell Hislop's methodology amounts to two things: making things up and parallelomania.

And by making things up, I mean that quite literally. Best as I can tell Hislop is the originator of the idea that Nimrod was married to Semiramis and their son was Tammuz. There's literally nothing in any ancient sources, legends, or mythologies by which to make such a claim. Hislop pulled it completely out of thin air; and has been repeated and parroted by the ignorant and gullible ever since.

The Bible says nothing about Nimrod's spouse(s) or children. And the Bible is our sole source about the figure of Nimrod.

Semiramis is a semi-legendary (if not completely legendary) queen of Assyria, wife of King Ninus the legendary (and likely mythological) founder of Nineveh.

Tammuz was an Akkadian fertility god, with no connection to Nimrod, Ninus, or Semiramis.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Inkfingers]

I have a copy somewhere and recall not being impressed by the scholarship.

 

[Knee V]

Best as I can tell Hislop's methodology amounts to two things: making things up and parallelomania.

And by making things up, I mean that quite literally. Best as I can tell Hislop is the originator of the idea that Nimrod was married to Semiramis and their son was Tammuz. There's literally nothing in any ancient sources, legends, or mythologies by which to make such a claim. Hislop pulled it completely out of thin air; and has been repeated and parroted by the ignorant and gullible ever since.

The Bible says nothing about Nimrod's spouse(s) or children. And the Bible is our sole source about the figure of Nimrod.

Semiramis is a semi-legendary (if not completely legendary) queen of Assyria, wife of King Ninus the legendary (and likely mythological) founder of Nineveh.

Tammuz was an Akkadian fertility god, with no connection to Nimrod, Ninus, or Semiramis.

-CryptoLutheran

When I read the OP, I was going to post a question asking if he was the fella of fake-Nimrod lore. That answers my question.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is something that is bothering me. I have noticed on several occasions that well-meaning christian brothers and sisters have cited a dubious work (or a derivative) from Alexander Hislop's book called The Two Babylons . . . . The work as best I can tell (I have not read the entire book nor do I wish to) is a mashup of various mystery religions and cults with the aim of tying pagan practice to the modern Church of Rome. Hislop seems to isolate on aspect of religion "A" and draw a parallel with an earlier religion "B" then point out that the English word sounds like religion "B" therefore Roman Catholic practice "C" is pagan. His conclusions are just as convoluted and false as his arguments. This is in no way a valid historical methodology and no reputable historian would ever publish such rubbish. So why are so many christians think this is an acceptable source and authority for history? Furthermore why do christians think it is ok to defame other christians using this source? Is that not bearing false witness against thy neighbor?

Proverbs 14:5-8 (NKJV)

5 A faithful witness does not lie,
But a false witness will utter lies.
6 A scoffer seeks wisdom and does not find it,
But knowledge is easy to him who understands.
7 Go from the presence of a foolish man,
When you do not perceive in him the lips of knowledge.
8 The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way,
But the folly of fools is deceit.

Well, just because Hislop and his derivative followers, like Ralph Woodrow for instance, have written some critiques of the Catholic church that are hit-and-miss, doesn't mean we can ignore whatever egregious behavior or doctrinal deviations that some leaders and spokesmen in the Catholic Church have promulgated through the centuries. And just like we can't ignore some of the mistakes of Luther or Calvin, or whoever, we can't ignore what is amiss in the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, or the Southern Baptist Convention for that matter.

 

[Athanasius377]

Well, just because Hislop and his derivative followers, like Ralph Woodrow for instance, have written some critiques of the Catholic church that are hit-and-miss, doesn't mean we can ignore whatever egregious behavior or doctrinal deviations that some leaders and spokesmen in the Catholic Church have promulgated through the centuries. And just like we can't ignore some of the mistakes of Luther or Calvin, or whoever, we can't ignore what is amiss in the Catholic Church, or the Orthodox Church, or the Southern Baptist Convention for that matter.

I agree with the last part of your post. Error should be exposed and I for one have criticized Rome on biblical and historical grounds. Hislop's work wasn't merely a hit-and-miss critique, rather it was sensationalism posing as scholarship. Whatever Hislop's intentions were the ends do not justify the means. Furthermore Ralph Woodrow withdrew his book from publication that supported the "findings of Alexander Hislop because of the errors and falsehoods Hislop promoted. You can find the article written by Woodrow here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree with the last part of your post. Error should be exposed and I for one have criticized Rome on biblical and historical grounds. Hislop's work wasn't merely a hit-and-miss critique, rather it was sensationalism posing as scholarship. Whatever Hislop's intentions were the ends do not justify the means. Furthermore Ralph Woodrow withdrew his book from publication that supported the "findings of Alexander Hislop because of the errors and falsehoods Hislop promoted. You can find the article written by Woodrow here.

Thanks for the article link. Very interesting. And while I've long since set aside my copy of Ralph Woodrow's book, Babylon Mystery Religion, it's good to know that Woodrow eventually has come around to seeing the shortcomings in his former use of Hislop. At the same time, it'd be interesting to see what Woodrow has to say in his new book mentioned in the article.