The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology

[Daniel Marsh]

The Trinity according to Alexander Hislop—In His Own Words

https://bib.irr.org/trinity-according-alexander-hislop-in-his-own-words

The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology

https://www.equip.org/articles/the-two-babylons/

The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology

However, this book should be approached with caution due to its speculative methodology and lack of scholarly rigor. Hislop draws tenuous connections between ancient Babylonian paganism and Roman Catholic practices, often relying on superficial similarities rather than solid historical evidence. This approach can lead to misconceptions and distract from the clear teachings of Scripture. Seminaries emphasize the importance of sound biblical exegesis and credible historical research, warning that Hislop’s work can lead students astray by promoting unfounded theories rather than truth grounded in the Bible. Additionally, while The Two Babylons addresses the important issue of syncretism, it does so in a way that lacks the necessary scholarly foundation, making it an unreliable resource for serious theological study and discussion.

Identifying the Flawed and Speculative Methodology
Hislop’s The Two Babylons often falls into the trap of speculative minutiae, drawing tenuous connections between Catholic practices and ancient Babylonian paganism. His method involves identifying superficial similarities and then asserting causation without robust evidence. This approach can distract believers from the clear teachings of Scripture and lead them into unnecessary and unfounded controversies, which Scripture warns against (1 Timothy 1:4).

As previously discussed, The Two Babylons is riddled with logical fallacies such as post hoc ergo propter hoc, false cause, and hasty generalization. These fallacies weaken the credibility of Hislop’s arguments and illustrate the dangers of building doctrinal or historical claims on speculative connections rather than sound biblical exegesis and reliable historical evidence.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (After This, Therefore Because of This): Hislop often assumes that because two practices or symbols resemble each other, one must have caused the other. He claims that many Catholic traditions originated from Babylonian practices simply due to superficial similarities, without solid historical evidence of direct influence.
False Cause (Correlation vs. Causation): Hislop draws connections between Catholic rituals and pagan practices, suggesting causation where only correlation might exist. He fails to account for other possible explanations for these similarities, such as independent cultural developments.
Hasty Generalization: Hislop frequently makes broad claims about the Catholic Church based on selective or isolated examples. He generalizes from a few supposed parallels, ignoring the complex history and theology behind Catholic traditions.
Confirmation Bias: Hislop selectively interprets evidence that supports his thesis while ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts it. This approach skews his conclusions and undermines the credibility of his arguments.
Appeal to Tradition: Hislop appeals to the authority of early Protestant reformers and their criticisms of the Catholic Church without critically examining the validity of these critiques in the light of historical evidence.
These logical fallacies weaken Hislop’s arguments, making The Two Babylons less credible from a rigorous, truth-seeking biblical perspective.
https://www.bibletruths.org/critical-review-of-alexander-hislops-the-two-babylons/

[AdHoc]

20 minutes ago, Daniel Marsh said:

The Trinity according to Alexander Hislop—In His Own Words

https://bib.irr.org/trinity-according-alexander-hislop-in-his-own-words

The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology

https://www.equip.org/articles/the-two-babylons/

The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology

However, this book should be approached with caution due to its speculative methodology and lack of scholarly rigor. Hislop draws tenuous connections between ancient Babylonian paganism and Roman Catholic practices, often relying on superficial similarities rather than solid historical evidence. This approach can lead to misconceptions and distract from the clear teachings of Scripture. Seminaries emphasize the importance of sound biblical exegesis and credible historical research, warning that Hislop’s work can lead students astray by promoting unfounded theories rather than truth grounded in the Bible. Additionally, while The Two Babylons addresses the important issue of syncretism, it does so in a way that lacks the necessary scholarly foundation, making it an unreliable resource for serious theological study and discussion.

Identifying the Flawed and Speculative Methodology
Hislop’s The Two Babylons often falls into the trap of speculative minutiae, drawing tenuous connections between Catholic practices and ancient Babylonian paganism. His method involves identifying superficial similarities and then asserting causation without robust evidence. This approach can distract believers from the clear teachings of Scripture and lead them into unnecessary and unfounded controversies, which Scripture warns against (1 Timothy 1:4).

As previously discussed, The Two Babylons is riddled with logical fallacies such as post hoc ergo propter hoc, false cause, and hasty generalization. These fallacies weaken the credibility of Hislop’s arguments and illustrate the dangers of building doctrinal or historical claims on speculative connections rather than sound biblical exegesis and reliable historical evidence.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (After This, Therefore Because of This): Hislop often assumes that because two practices or symbols resemble each other, one must have caused the other. He claims that many Catholic traditions originated from Babylonian practices simply due to superficial similarities, without solid historical evidence of direct influence.
False Cause (Correlation vs. Causation): Hislop draws connections between Catholic rituals and pagan practices, suggesting causation where only correlation might exist. He fails to account for other possible explanations for these similarities, such as independent cultural developments.
Hasty Generalization: Hislop frequently makes broad claims about the Catholic Church based on selective or isolated examples. He generalizes from a few supposed parallels, ignoring the complex history and theology behind Catholic traditions.
Confirmation Bias: Hislop selectively interprets evidence that supports his thesis while ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts it. This approach skews his conclusions and undermines the credibility of his arguments.
Appeal to Tradition: Hislop appeals to the authority of early Protestant reformers and their criticisms of the Catholic Church without critically examining the validity of these critiques in the light of historical evidence.
These logical fallacies weaken Hislop’s arguments, making The Two Babylons less credible from a rigorous, truth-seeking biblical perspective.
https://www.bibletruths.org/critical-review-of-alexander-hislops-the-two-babylons/

Hislop's work can be criticized, no doubt. But I tried a little experiment over the years that proved that even if Hislop was correct, he would not be believed. With modern research means it is relatively easy to discover the meaning of Christmas, Easter and All Saints (Halloween). They are of pagan origin built on superstition and the movements of the stars and moon and the solstices and equinoxes of the norther hemisphere. The sun-god of Egypt is the same as the Greek sun-god. Just his name changed. And my esteemed brethren, when being informed of the pagan origin and nature of these feasts,  do not go and investigate, but become angry with me for spoiling, or trying to, spoil their fun.

But proof comes from an unlikely place. Jeremiah, prophesying on the eve of the Babylonian captivity, in Chapter 10, describes the way of the heathen that Israel took. It involves cutting down an evergreen, mounting it so as not to move and bedecking it with silver and gold to be worshiped. Now, if a cursory study is made of the ritual of the central and northern European nations including Great Britain, how much more detail is needed to realize that Jeremiah, some 500 years before Christ, meant the Christmas Tree. But you and I both know that reporting ones findings of such feasts helps nothing. Christians love pagan feasts and will not give them up, even the heinous fertility rites of Easter.

But for the student who is not convinced of all this, he/she is faced with more proof, this time from Daniel Chapter 2. A seeming impossibility arises because the four world powers run consecutively. How is it possible that as each empire replaces the previous one, that the little stone can attack the last one but destroy THEM ALL? The three previous ones are no longer empires and have been pulverized hundreds, nay, thousands of years previous. Well, the answer can only be that there is something about them that COMMON and virile, that lives on even when politics, wars, trading and industry is LONG GONE. That is, what strong and enduring thing was holding them together. Again we turn to research and find that they all practiced the SAME RELIGION.

Could it be that the evidence, both secular and Biblical, is so compelling that Hislop didn't need all the proofs that were available. Maybe he knew that the real students would find compelling evidence by them selves. Could it be also that Hislop is called into question, not because of lack of evidence, but because he touched the Christian's most cherished feasts.?Israel would not celebrate Hitler's birth day as a national feast. Why do the Christians fight so hard to ostensibly honor our Lord on Baal's days?

[D. Adrien]

The silence to this is deafening.

[Vine Abider]

On 11/6/2024 at 6:07 PM, AdHoc said:

Hislop's work can be criticized, no doubt. But I tried a little experiment over the years that proved that even if Hislop was correct, he would not be believed. With modern research means it is relatively easy to discover the meaning of Christmas, Easter and All Saints (Halloween). They are of pagan origin built on superstition and the movements of the stars and moon and the solstices and equinoxes of the norther hemisphere. The sun-god of Egypt is the same as the Greek sun-god. Just his name changed. And my esteemed brethren, when being informed of the pagan origin and nature of these feasts,  do not go and investigate, but become angry with me for spoiling, or trying to, spoil their fun.

But proof comes from an unlikely place. Jeremiah, prophesying on the eve of the Babylonian captivity, in Chapter 10, describes the way of the heathen that Israel took. It involves cutting down an evergreen, mounting it so as not to move and bedecking it with silver and gold to be worshiped. Now, if a cursory study is made of the ritual of the central and northern European nations including Great Britain, how much more detail is needed to realize that Jeremiah, some 500 years before Christ, meant the Christmas Tree. But you and I both know that reporting ones findings of such feasts helps nothing. Christians love pagan feasts and will not give them up, even the heinous fertility rites of Easter.

But for the student who is not convinced of all this, he/she is faced with more proof, this time from Daniel Chapter 2. A seeming impossibility arises because the four world powers run consecutively. How is it possible that as each empire replaces the previous one, that the little stone can attack the last one but destroy THEM ALL? The three previous ones are no longer empires and have been pulverized hundreds, nay, thousands of years previous. Well, the answer can only be that there is something about them that COMMON and virile, that lives on even when politics, wars, trading and industry is LONG GONE. That is, what strong and enduring thing was holding them together. Again we turn to research and find that they all practiced the SAME RELIGION.

Could it be that the evidence, both secular and Biblical, is so compelling that Hislop didn't need all the proofs that were available. Maybe he knew that the real students would find compelling evidence by them selves. Could it be also that Hislop is called into question, not because of lack of evidence, but because he touched the Christian's most cherished feasts.?Israel would not celebrate Hitler's birth day as a national feast. Why do the Christians fight so hard to ostensibly honor our Lord on Baal's days?

Agreed.  I am fairly surrounded by nonbelievers who celebrate various of these holidays, who have no real idea what they are about.  I do my best to testify of Christ in these situations, all the while having no illusion that these holidays are anything but man made (at the least . . . demonically influenced at the most).  It does little good in bringing unsaved to the Savior, in attempting to inform them of the reality of these holidays.

And even the believers I gather with have various levels of celebration for these particular days.  Probably not much celebration related to Halloween, but to a certain degree some are pretty sold on Christmas and Easter.  Generally speaking the group adheres to the principle in Romans 14 and First Corinthians 8 regarding not judging or stumbling others for their individual belief in holidays and certain practices.  So if someone stands up in a gathering and declares around December 25th, "Praise the Lord that He came as a lowly baby to save mankind on this day!" - their declaration will be met with a sincere, "AMEN!"

[AdHoc]

8 minutes ago, Vine Abider said:

Agreed.  I am fairly surrounded by nonbelievers who celebrate various of these holidays, who have no real idea what they are about.  I do my best to testify of Christ in these situations, all the while having no illusion that these holidays are anything but man made (at the least . . . demonically influenced at the most).  It does little good in bringing unsaved to the Savior, in attempting to inform them of the reality of these holidays.

And even the believers I gather with have various levels of celebration for these particular days.  Probably not much celebration related to Halloween, but to a certain degree some are pretty sold on Christmas and Easter.  Generally speaking the group adheres to the principle in Romans 14 and First Corinthians 8 regarding not judging or stumbling others for their individual belief in holidays and certain practices.  So if someone stands up in a gathering and declares around December 25th, "Praise the Lord that He came as a lowly baby to save mankind on this day!" - their declaration will be met with a sincere, "AMEN!"

An honest appreciation. I too have the same experience. I do not particularly want to defend Hislop, and I certainly uphold the right of any brother to test his book. But considering the masses of Christians who join the High Feat Days of Baal I feel constrained to show what God thinks of this matter. When Aaron made the Golden Calf the people did two things. In Exodus 32:4 & 8 the people 1. did not give the molten image a strange name, but declared the calf as the "gods that brought Israel up out of Egypt", and 2. they rose up to have an orgy as they had learned from the Egyptians (Josh.24:14). The Christians, on the third day after the winter solstice (northern hemisphere), have the evergreen but dead tree, bedecked with silver and gold, rise up to play and give gifts to one another in the name of Jesus who removed our sins. But the day is dedicated to Baal's resurrection.

But I am with you about Romans. Let us be free to give our reasons without taking the seat of judgment against brothers.

[Vine Abider]

Well, on a more positive note, we (at least in the US) are getting ready to celebrate Thanksgiving Day, which to me, is a fairly pure holiday at its core!

Of course, thanksgiving and praise should be a part of each day, as we have been given so, so very much in Christ!!!!

[Daniel Marsh]

10 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Well, on a more positive note, we (at least in the US) are getting ready to celebrate Thanksgiving Day, which to me, is a fairly pure holiday at its core!

Of course, thanksgiving and praise should be a part of each day, as we have been given so, so very much in Christ!!!!

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5E0yZoHFjPHJxgAOE6Dk5gXraPtlyECn6OA&s

[Daniel Marsh]

10 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Well, on a more positive note, we (at least in the US) are getting ready to celebrate Thanksgiving Day, which to me, is a fairly pure holiday at its core!

Of course, thanksgiving and praise should be a part of each day, as we have been given so, so very much in Christ!!!!

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSwnyS-r5UOzVREOFj67THWlUEOyJ6u_Qjegw&s

[BibleStudent100]

20 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Well, on a more positive note, we (at least in the US) are getting ready to celebrate Thanksgiving Day, which to me, is a fairly pure holiday at its core!

So true Vine!  I concur that Thanksgiving, although historically flawed, is the least "offensive" of the holidays as it has little, if anything, to do with the Bible.  Easter and Christmas, although touting to be Bible based, drip with legacy custom appendages that originate with pagan celebrations.  

[BibleStudent100]

On 11/6/2024 at 5:07 PM, AdHoc said:

Why do the Christians fight so hard to ostensibly honor our Lord on Baal's days?

I hear you AdHoc; I don't get the Christian obsessions with celebrating Christmas.