The Babylon Connection?

In 1853, Scottish Presbyterian Alexander Hislop wrote the book "The Two Babylons: The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife," or "Romanism and Its Origins" a work of sensationalist, anti-Catholic propaganda purporting to be a historical expose on the origins of many Catholic traditions and images. This "classic" has been reprinted and its material regurgitated thanks to publishing houses like Chick Publications (owned by the late Jack Chick, from the comics and tracts of the same name). One modern former fan of the material, Ralph Woodrow, eventually realized that the entire theory was erroneous and published his own retraction (and debunking) of the theory in this work.I have access to an original copy of "The Two Babylons" but I hadn't read Woodrow's original work (which ENDORSED Hislop) but I do now own his retraction. The man makes no bones about it, he is a Protestant, and he has many problems with the Catholic Church and against Catholic teaching. However, he realizes that the "theory" of Alexander Hislop's work is completely bogus. Essentially the theory is that "Nimrod," the biblical figure, was essentially a stand in for Satan, and the origin of pretty much every pagan deity in history, and also the inspiration for Roman Catholicism with its Papal majesty, saints, rituals, etc. He also erroneously links Semiramis (a figure from many centuries later) and basically makes her the inspiration for every pagan goddess in history and tries to tie it to the cult of devotion to the Virgin Mary.The fact remains that if Hislop's theories were true, then they would actually prove ALL of Christianity to be "pagan" (and in his view, "Satanic") rather than just "Roman Catholicism." However, thankfully for Christians everywhere, his evidence is poor to non-existent. In semi-humorous fashion, Woodrow refutes many lines, lists and details of Hislop's book, showing the utter lack of careful research on the part of this 19th century writer, the leaps in logic, the speculation, etc. and how the whole thing falls apart.For the few that are interested in these sorts of things and especially those who "know someone" who read a Jack Chick Tract once and wondered about it, this nice short book is helpful.Catholics will leave feeling at least Woodrow respects them as an opponent and is not going to follow bogus, trumped up charges.

This book isn't as good as it should be, but it will do. I give him five stars, partly for content, but mostly for the guts to refute his own earlier book. He was willing to take financial loss for the sake of doing what was right. However, I also give this five stars for sticking a bur in the saddle of all those people who love Hislop's book (who ignorantly assert that Woodrow has given in to the Catholic Church, been deceived, or some such - utterly neglecting his criticism of it in the last chapter).Content quality of the book only rates three stars, for not going as far in dismantling Hislop as one could. It is long on critique of Hislop's argumentation, but more could be done. It is also long on critique of Hislop's history. Again, more could be done. His analysis of Hislop's overreaching in equating one pagan deity with a long litany of others is completely valid. But he neglects that neighboring cultures would sometimes adopt aspects of a particular deity to one of their own. This was also true between conquerors and the conquered. That said, it may be true that two different cultures have gods of fertility; yet this does not make them the same diety. It merely means that in each culture there is a god who has that substance under his control and patronage. The god Frey is not the same as the goddess Aphrodite, though they share some similar responsibilities.Woodrow does a fair job showing the problem Hislop's reasoning leads to when applied to Christianity. He could well have taken this argument much further regarding New Testament Christianity. He could have done even more with respect to Old Testament Judaism, if only he'd been more aware of Canaanite religion. [What? Our God uses the same titles as a pagan god for Himself? Yes. And He uses a temple, animal, grain, and wine sacrifices, washings, anointing, a lunar calendar, harvest celebrations, etc., even though the pagans already use these? Yes.] He also fails to show how much of what Protestants condemn in Catholicism is deeply connected to Jewish culture; or what Luther and Calvin still held in common with Catholics, which Zwinglian and Anabaptist off-shoots reject. But his objective remains to refute the Hislop's pile of hooey, not to defend Catholicism. Overall, his criticisms of Hislop could be much, much more devastating.Woodrow's critique of Catholicism is just one chapter, and (as a reviewing Catholic pointed out) lacks some depth in understanding on particular issues. However, it still puts on the table some of the concerns Protestants have about Catholicism.Those who think Woodrow missed the point that the Catholic Church did all these conversions of pagan practices over to Christianity miss the point of Woodrow's book. That said, they also seem to have missed at least the first four centuries of Christian history, from the writings of the early fathers, to the prayers written in the Catacombs. Hot button issues like the persecution of Protestants also have nothing to do with the point of this book. However, we should remember that Protestants did their own share of persecution (and theft) against Catholics in countries that became Protestant - not to mention persecuting each other. [Side note: There is no "scarlet thread" of martyred non-Catholic Christians through the centuries, no Protestants-but-for-the-name being persecuted by the Catholic Church. There were just heretics and wackos, until the Reformation. Even the Waldenses do not pass muster as "Bible believing Protestants."]This book could indeed have been a lot more meaty. But it suffices for the day.Give this to Woodrow: He is the only Christian author I have ever seen who was honest enough to admit he was wrong, pull is own best-selling book, and write a brief refutation of it. He did this knowing that it would mean the subsequent loss of his great popularity, as well as paid speaking engagements, and mountains of cash in future sales and sequels (like modern end-times gurus churn out in grotesque quantities). That, brothers and sisters, is a Christian man of character and honor.If you have a choice between Hislop's and this one, buy this one. It may not grip you fantazmagorical insights of the vast Catholic conspiracy, but it will give you truth.

Muy rápido el envío...quería una copia en papel.

I gave it as a gift to a great friend he seems to get into it

As above received in good time well within period suggested, thank you. Product i have wanted as I love the Two Babylons and wanted to see what this chap's reservations are. Have not finished book yet but am of the opinion that he has some reasonable points to make, he is far too dismissive of such a vast amount of information however. I agree with some of his views, but consider it too loyal to the apostate modern church which continues to move farther fron the Bible's requirements just about every decision it takes. (Women priests, sodomy, etc) indeed lowering beyond recognition the standards formerly cherished by Christians. How amazing too that the 'Protestant' priests threaten to rejoin the RCC, wow,what would our forefathers say, those who died in fire trying to give us a bible?! 2Pet 2:22? Most of Hislop's accusations still stand, even if he got a bit carried away.

you don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that the Hyslop book is far fetched and that many of his argument are spurious, but I really don''t see the necessity for Woodrow to be so dismissive and sarcastic. The first few pages showed me the mentality of the author and I am sorry to say this book has found a very good home in my bin. If someone wants to write a "serious" book on the short comings of Hyslop, then I'd be willing to give that a go too, but for this one; sorry it's not worth the paper it's written on, even if further on in the book he makes relevant points. The attitude comes across as that of a spoiled teenager who is being nasty to his parents.I most certainly would not recommend this book to anyone.

This is an interesting book looking into the background but I did find it difficult to really get into so it was a stop and start read.