Oblio
Creed or Chaos
- Jun 24, 2003
- 22,324
- 865
- 66
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Critical Evaluation of The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop
Dustin Segers
Throughout this book, Hislop makes an attempt to show that the Roman Catholic Church is nothing more than a re-constitution of ancient Babylon. One way that Hislop attempts to demonstrate this is by documenting numerous references to the similarity of words between the ancient Chaldee and Hebrew languages due to their close phonetical relatedness (see I.H.S. example below). Other similarities and generalizations were used to basically debunk the teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. These similarities were used by Hislop to show how pagan Babylonian beliefs infiltrated the ancient Hebrew culture and that these pagan beliefs were adopted into the sacraments, doctrines, and general practices of the Roman Catholic Church. There are other portions of the book where this same basic logic is used, but it does not seem to be consistent with the argument that is posited and unsubstantiated generalizations are made. For example, on page 164, in relation to the letters that are found on the Catholic eucharist wafer, Hislop argues that the letters I.H.S. do not signify 'Jesus the Savior of all men' (in Latin) but instead these letters signify "'Isis, Horus, Seb,' that is, 'The Mother, the Child, and the Father of the gods," - in other words, 'The Egyptian Trinity.'" Hislop provides no footnoted documentation for this assertion and it seems to be a logically inconsistent and broadly generalized statement without any historical or literary evidence to support it. Another problem is that the actual letters that are used on the wafer would only be meaningful to a person that is familiar with the English or Latin alphabet. The ancient worshippers of Egypt were not familiar with this alphabet, because it was yet to be invented. Thus, it is a chronological impossibility that the ancient Egyptians would have been able to come to the conclusions that the letters on the wafer represent their false trinity.
Note: In reality, it is a faulty Latin transliteration of the Greek contraction "Jesus", and was later rationalized to Iesus Hominum Salvator = Jesus Saviour of Men (mankind). This would also fit with Catholic transubstantiation doctrine that regards the wafer as becoming the body of Christ. -- JPH, with thanks to a reader)
Another example of this type of inconsistency can be found in chapter three, page 99, where Hislop is discussing the eighty-fifth psalm. Hislop states that the eighty-fifth Psalm was written soon after the Babylonian captivity and because of the captivity, they were inspired to write the eighty-fifth psalm. Conservative Christian scholars hold that the majority of the Psalms, including psalm eighty-five, were written about the tenth century B.C. So, if psalm eighty-five was written at least 400 years before Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah, how is it possible that this tenth century B.C. Psalm was written after the Hebrews came out of Babylon? Unless Hislop held to a later date for the writing of the Psalms or a much earlier invasion and subsequent deportation of the Jews to Babylon, this seems to be an irreconcilable inconsistency in Hislop's scholarship.
Section five of chapter six focuses on a discussion of the name of the beast and the number of his name. Hislop posits that the name of the beast was related to the name of the ancient god Saturn, and thus each of the ancient letters for this name spelled out S-T-U-R respectively. According to Hislop, these letters can be added up and give the number 666, which implied that the pope, who was prefigured by the ancient pagan god Saturn, was the antichrist (p. 269). This seems to be another example of the broad generalizing that was discussed earlier.
Concluding Summary -- The Two Babylons could be perplexing to the new Christian due to the scholarly and hermeneutical inconsistencies used to debunk Roman Catholicism. This reviewer cannot recommend this book for serious study on the basis of 3 reasons; 1.) Hermaneutical and interpretive inconsistencies committed by the author, 2.) Outdated scholarly sources and the fact that The Two Babylons was written well over 100 years ago, and 3.) Conclusions drawn based on false phonetic relationships and broad generalizations.
Dustin Segers
Throughout this book, Hislop makes an attempt to show that the Roman Catholic Church is nothing more than a re-constitution of ancient Babylon. One way that Hislop attempts to demonstrate this is by documenting numerous references to the similarity of words between the ancient Chaldee and Hebrew languages due to their close phonetical relatedness (see I.H.S. example below). Other similarities and generalizations were used to basically debunk the teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. These similarities were used by Hislop to show how pagan Babylonian beliefs infiltrated the ancient Hebrew culture and that these pagan beliefs were adopted into the sacraments, doctrines, and general practices of the Roman Catholic Church. There are other portions of the book where this same basic logic is used, but it does not seem to be consistent with the argument that is posited and unsubstantiated generalizations are made. For example, on page 164, in relation to the letters that are found on the Catholic eucharist wafer, Hislop argues that the letters I.H.S. do not signify 'Jesus the Savior of all men' (in Latin) but instead these letters signify "'Isis, Horus, Seb,' that is, 'The Mother, the Child, and the Father of the gods," - in other words, 'The Egyptian Trinity.'" Hislop provides no footnoted documentation for this assertion and it seems to be a logically inconsistent and broadly generalized statement without any historical or literary evidence to support it. Another problem is that the actual letters that are used on the wafer would only be meaningful to a person that is familiar with the English or Latin alphabet. The ancient worshippers of Egypt were not familiar with this alphabet, because it was yet to be invented. Thus, it is a chronological impossibility that the ancient Egyptians would have been able to come to the conclusions that the letters on the wafer represent their false trinity.
Note: In reality, it is a faulty Latin transliteration of the Greek contraction "Jesus", and was later rationalized to Iesus Hominum Salvator = Jesus Saviour of Men (mankind). This would also fit with Catholic transubstantiation doctrine that regards the wafer as becoming the body of Christ. -- JPH, with thanks to a reader)
Another example of this type of inconsistency can be found in chapter three, page 99, where Hislop is discussing the eighty-fifth psalm. Hislop states that the eighty-fifth Psalm was written soon after the Babylonian captivity and because of the captivity, they were inspired to write the eighty-fifth psalm. Conservative Christian scholars hold that the majority of the Psalms, including psalm eighty-five, were written about the tenth century B.C. So, if psalm eighty-five was written at least 400 years before Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah, how is it possible that this tenth century B.C. Psalm was written after the Hebrews came out of Babylon? Unless Hislop held to a later date for the writing of the Psalms or a much earlier invasion and subsequent deportation of the Jews to Babylon, this seems to be an irreconcilable inconsistency in Hislop's scholarship.
Section five of chapter six focuses on a discussion of the name of the beast and the number of his name. Hislop posits that the name of the beast was related to the name of the ancient god Saturn, and thus each of the ancient letters for this name spelled out S-T-U-R respectively. According to Hislop, these letters can be added up and give the number 666, which implied that the pope, who was prefigured by the ancient pagan god Saturn, was the antichrist (p. 269). This seems to be another example of the broad generalizing that was discussed earlier.
Concluding Summary -- The Two Babylons could be perplexing to the new Christian due to the scholarly and hermeneutical inconsistencies used to debunk Roman Catholicism. This reviewer cannot recommend this book for serious study on the basis of 3 reasons; 1.) Hermaneutical and interpretive inconsistencies committed by the author, 2.) Outdated scholarly sources and the fact that The Two Babylons was written well over 100 years ago, and 3.) Conclusions drawn based on false phonetic relationships and broad generalizations.
Upvote
0
, although popularly, they stand for the Latin Iesus Hominum Salvator meaning Jesus, Savior of Mankind (which also fits the teaching of Transubstantiation, where the bread and wine are said to become the body and blood of Christ).
