IN DEFENSE OF HISLOP'S THE TWO BABYLONS

www.british-isr*el.c*

By P*stor George C. Bruns

There is, in the fin*l *n*lysis, only one Truth th*t exists *nd th*t Truth is God (1
John 5A20).

When God bec*me flesh *nd w*lked *s one of us He m*de it cle*r th*t He w*s
the Truth (John14A6). In * pr*yer to the F*ther *lso recorded by the Apostle John,
Jesus st*ted th*t The Old Test*ment Scriptures were the Truth (John 17A17) And,
th*t the Holy Spirit would in the future *ct *s * guide to cert*in of the Apostles
*nd disciples in the revel*tion of *ddition*l Truth (John16A13-15). Th*t Truth
bec*me known to us *s the New Test*ment. The giving of th*t Truth ended
sometime *round the end of the first century with the writing of these words: "For
I testify unto every m*n th*t he*reth the words of the prophecy of this book, If
*ny m*n sh*ll *dd unto these things, God sh*ll *dd unto him the pl*gues th*t *re
written in this book: And if *ny m*n sh*ll t*ke *w*y from the words of the book of
this prophecy, God sh*ll t*ke *w*y his p*rt out of the book of life, *nd out of the
holy city, *nd from the things which *re written in this book. He which testifieth
these things s*ith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. The
gr*ce of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you *ll. Amen. (Revel*tion 22A18-21)

God in His infinite wisdom *nd love for m*nkind h*s preserved th*t Truth down
through time *ll the w*y to us tod*y. And, He will continue to preserve His Word
for *ll eternity (1 Peter 1A25).

This writer believes th*t th*t inf*llible *nd inerr*nt Truth exists tod*y in the
English l*ngu*ge in the King J*mes Bible *nd in no other book. All other writings,
no m*tter how well done, *re of n*tur*l origin *nd *re therefore subject to hum*n
error. Only the Holy Bible is God's reve*led Truth. This being s*id our study of the
controversy *t h*nd c*n now begin.

This *rticle is not intended *s *n *tt*ck on *nyone. This *uthor h*s no *xe to
grind or hobby horse to ride. It just is wh*t it is -- * defense of * time honored
Christi*n cl*ssic. However, it is to be remembered th*t The Two B*bylons is *
hum*n production. Hislop's so c*lled "proofs" concerning the historic*l Nimrod,
Semir*mis *nd T*mmuz *nd their *ssoci*tions with one *nother *nd with the
mythic*l deities of other cultures is highly specul*tive. Attempting to "prove"
*nything th*t h*ppened so long *go without the confirm*tion of Scripture is going
to be conjectur*l *nd specul*tive. It c*n't help but be so.

Recently Alex*nder Hislop's book, The Two B*bylons, h*s been criticized by one
of its former *nd most *rdent supporters, R*lph Edw*rd Woodrow, *n ev*ngelist
from C*liforni* *nd *uthor of the books B*bylon Mystery Religion, *nd his most
recent f*re The B*bylon Connection. Most likely *nyone who is f*mili*r with
Hislop's The Two B*bylons is *lso f*mili*r with Woodrow's B*bylon Mystery
Religion. The l*tter work being somewh*t of * condensed version of the former.
Woodrow *lmost proudly br*gs *bout the success he h*s h*d with it, *nd rightly
so *s it is * very inform*tive little book. He writes,

"As * young ev*ngelist I beg*n to sh*re * sermon on the mixture of p*g*nism into
Christi*nity, *nd eventu*lly wrote * book b*sed on Hislop -- B*bylon Mystery
Religion. In time, my book bec*me quite popul*r, went through m*ny printings,
*nd w*s tr*nsl*ted into Kore*n, Germ*n, Sp*nish, Portuguese, *nd sever*l other
l*ngu*ges. I c*me to be reg*rded by some *s *n *uthority on the subject of
p*g*n mixture. Even * noted Rom*n C*tholic writer, K*rl Ke*ting, s*id: 'Its best-
known proponent is R*lph Woodrow, the *uthor of B*bylon Mystery Religion.'"

"M*ny preferred my book over The Two B*bylons bec*use it w*s e*sier to re*d
*nd follow.

Sometimes the two books were confused with e*ch other, *nd I even h*d the
experience, on one occ*sion, of being greeted *s 'Rev. Hislop!'" [Woodrow, R*lph,
The B*bylon Connection, P*lm Springs, CA., R*lph Woodrow Ev*ngelistic
Associ*tion, 1997, p. Intro.]

Mr. Woodrow now cl*ims, however, th*t the conclusions th*t he h*d dr*wn from
his previous rese*rch *nd the rese*rch of his former mentor were *ll wrong. He
expl*ins,

"As time went on, however, I beg*n to he*r rumblings th*t Hislop w*s not *
reli*ble histori*n, I he*rd this from * history te*cher *nd in letters from people
who he*rd this perspective expressed on the Bible Answer M*n r*dio progr*m.
Even the Worldwide Church of God beg*n to t*ke * second look *t the subject. As
* result, I re*lized I needed to go b*ck through Hislop's work, my b*sic source,
*nd pr*yerfully check it out.

"As I did this, it bec*me cle*r: Hislop's 'history' w*s often only *n *rbitr*ry piecing
together of *ncient myths....The subtitle for Hislop's book is 'The P*p*l Worship
Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod *nd His Wife.' Yet when I went to reference
works such *s the Encyclopedi* Brit*nnic*, The Americ*n*, The Jewish
Encyclopedi*, The C*tholic Encyclopedi*, The Worldbook Encyclopedi* --
c*refully re*ding their *rticles on 'Nimrod' *nd 'Semir*mis' -- not one s*id
*nything *bout Nimrod *nd Semir*mis being husb*nd *nd wife. They did not even
live in the s*me century. Nor is there *ny b*sis for Semir*mis being the mother of
T*mmuz. I re*lized these ide*s were *ll Hislop's inventions." [Woodrow, R*lph,
The Two B*bylons: A C*se Study in Poor Rese*rch Methodology, Christi*n
Rese*rch Journ*l, vol. 22 Issue 2, 2000 Book Reviews 54-56.]

Here then is the b*sis of Woodrow's *tt*ck upon Hislop's cl*ssic work. First, using
Woodrow's own words "Hislop's 'history' w*s often only *n *rbitr*ry piecing
together of *ncient myths."

Well, whoever s*id myth is history? A myth is * story th*t m*y h*ve historic*l
connections but * myth in *nd of itself is not history.

Elsewhere in the s*me *rticle *s quoted *bove, Woodrow cl*ims th*t The Two
B*bylons is not *ccur*te bec*use Hislop's method of interpret*tion of the
evidence w*s f*ulty:

"Building on simil*rities while ignoring differences is *n unsound pr*ctice. Atheists

h*ve long used this method in *n *ttempt to discredit Christi*nity *ltogether,
citing ex*mples of p*g*ns who h*d simil*r beliefs *bout univers*l floods, sl*in
*nd risen s*viors, virgin mothers, he*venly *scensions, holy books, *nd so
on." [Ibid.]

With *ll due respect to Mr. Woodrow it is the linking of simil*rities in myths th*t
help us determine wh*t the truth once w*s *s evinced by the very univers*l flood
myths Mr. Woodrow mentions. This writer h*s person*lly studied hundreds of
flood myths from *round the globe *nd it is their simil*rities not their differences
th*t unite them with the Truth *s found in Scripture! It is the key words *nd
phr*ses th*t m*ny of these myths sh*re, such *s "* righteous m*n," "flood,"
"r*in," "bo*t, "*rk," "mount*in," "r*ven," "dove," "*lter," "s*crifice," "*ll the e*rth
w*s covered," "*ll people died," etc. th*t point to * common denomin*tor of truth.
The differences in the det*ils within these myths only identify them with their
specific cultures.

Norm*lly this writer would not quote from * prof*ne source but the expertise of
this m*n in the field of myth is legend (no pun intended). The following is t*ken
from Joseph C*mpbell's "The Hero With A Thous*nd F*ces,"

"Whether we listen with *loof *musement to the dre*mlike mumbo jumbo of some
red-eyed witch doctor of the Congo, or re*d with cultiv*ted r*pture thin
tr*nsl*tions from the sonnets of the mystic L*o-tse; now *nd *g*in cr*ck the h*rd
nutshell of *n *rgument of Aquin*s, or c*tch suddenly the shining me*ning of *
biz*rre Eskimo f*iry t*le: it will be *lw*ys the one, sh*peshifting yet m*rvelously
const*nt story th*t we find, together with * ch*llengingly persistent suggestion of
more rem*ining to be experienced th*n will ever be known or told." [C*mpbell,
Joseph, The Hero With A Thous*nd F*ces, New York, NY, MJF Books, 1949, p. 3.]

And *g*in, "Wh*t is the secret of the timeless vision? From wh*t profundity of the
mind does it derive? Why is mythology everywhere the s*me, bene*th its v*rieties
of costume?" [Ibid, p. 4] Yes, indeed why? Bec*use it is the simil*rities in myths
th*t bring them ever closer to their origins.

The second p*rt of Mr. Woodrow's *rgument *g*inst Hislop's The Two B*bylons is
th*t he c*nnot find *ny definitive proof linking Nimrod *nd Semir*mis in current
encyclopedic references. In f*ct he s*ys th*t Nimrod *nd Semir*mis *ccording to
these references did not even live in the s*me centuries. While it is true th*t
sever*l modern encyclopedi*s do not link these n*mes together sever*l *ncient
writers do. T*ke for ex*mple the following written by Augustine of Hippo (A.D.
354-395), who *lso h*ppens to echo the histori*n Eusebius *nd others.

"Ninus, [*nother n*me for Nimrod] then, who succeeded his f*ther Belus, the first
king of Assyri*, w*s *lre*dy the second king of th*t kingdom when Abr*h*m w*s
born in the l*nd of the Ch*ldees.... For when Ninus the son of Belus w*s king, he
is reported to h*ve subdued the whole of Asi*, even to the bound*ries of Liby*,
which *s to number is c*lled the third p*rt, but *s to size is found to be the h*lf of
the whole world. The Indi*ns in the e*stern regions were the only people over
whom he did not reign; but *fter his de*th Semir*mis his wife m*de w*r on
them....

Now Abr*h*m w*s born in th*t kingdom *mong the Ch*ldees, in the time of
Ninus.

"At Abr*h*m's birth, then, the second kings of Assyri* *nd Sicyon respectively
were Ninus *nd Europs, the first h*ving been Belus *nd gi*leus. But when God
promised Abr*h*m, on his dep*rture from B*byloni*, th*t he should become *
gre*t n*tion, *nd th*t in his seed *ll n*tions of the e*rth should be blessed, the
Assyri*ns h*d their seventh king, the Sicyons their fifth; for the son of Ninus
reigned *mong them *fter his mother Semir*mis, who is s*id to h*ve been put to
de*th by him for *ttempting to defile him by incestuously lying with him. Some
think th*t she founded B*bylon, *nd indeed she m*y h*ve founded it *new. But
we h*ve told, in the sixteenth book, when or by whom it w*s founded. Now the
son of Ninus *nd Semir*mis, who succeeded his mother in the kingdom, is *lso
c*lled Ninus by some, but by others Nini*s, * p*tronymic word. Telexion then held
the kingdom of the Sicyons. In his reign times were quiet *nd joyful to such *
degree, th*t *fter his de*th they worshipped him *s * god by offering s*crifices
*nd by celebr*ting g*mes, which *re s*id to h*ve been first instituted on this
occ*sion." [Augustine, City of God, Book XVIII, Ch*pter 2.

No one th*t this writer h*s re*d believes th*t Abr*h*m w*s born in the 8th
century B.C. So who is this Semir*mis? Although not "proof," it is not the only
evidence to be found in *ncient liter*ture th*t there w*s * primev*l Semir*mis
existing prior to 800 B.C. Hislop tells his re*ders *s much in * footnote on p*ge 21
of his book.

"Sir H. R*wlinson h*ving found evidence *t Nineveh, of the existence of *

Semir*mis *bout six or seven centuries before the Christi*n er*, seems inclined to
reg*rd her *s the only Semir*mis th*t ever existed. But this is subversive of *ll
history. The f*ct th*t there w*s * Semir*mis in the primev*l *ges of the world, is
beyond *ll doubt, *lthough some of the exploits of the l*tter queen h*ve evidently
been *ttributed to her predecessor. Mr. L*y*rd dissents from Sir. H. R*wlinson's
opinion." [Hislop, Alex*nder, The Two B*bylons, Neptune , NJ, Loize*ux Brothers,
p. 21.]

In support of Hislop the Illustr*ted Diction*ry & Concord*nce of the Bible cl*ims
other women in history h*ve *lso been c*lled Semir*mis.

"...queen M*rg*ret of Denm*rk, Sweden, *nd Norw*y (1353-1412 A.D.) And

C*therine II the Gre*t of Russi* (1729-1796) were both l*beled *s the Semir*mis
of the North." [Fory*n, George, Ed. Illustr*ted Diction*ry & Concord*nce of the
Bible; G.G. The Jerus*lem Publishing House Ltd. Jerus*lem.]

Could it be th*t the n*me Semir*mis is like the n*me C*ndice or Cleop*tr*? W*s
the wife of Nimrod just Semir*mis the first?

An *ddition*l *re* of concern of Mr. Woodrow's is Mr. Hislop's use of his

resources. He writes, "Bec*use Hislop wrote in the mid-1800's the books he refers
to or quotes *re now quite old. I m*de consider*ble effort to find these old books
*nd to check Hislop's references; books such *s L*y*rd's Nineveh *nd Its
Rem*ins, Kitto's Cyclopeidi* of Biblic*l Liter*ture, Wilkinson's Ancient Egypti*ns,
*s well *s old editions of P*us*ni*s, Pliny, T*citus, Herodotus *nd m*ny more.

When I checked his footnote references, in numerous c*ses I discovered they do

not support his cl*ims. Hislop s*ys, for ex*mple, th*t the round w*fer used in the
Rom*n C*tholic m*ss c*me from Egypti*n p*g*nism. For this he cites *
st*tement in Wilkinson's Ancient Egypti*ns (vol. 5, 353, 365) *bout the use of thin
round c*kes on their *lt*rs. When I checked Wilkinson's work, however, he *lso
s*id the Egypti*ns used ov*l *nd tri*ngul*r c*kes; folded c*kes; c*kes sh*ped
like le*ves, *nim*ls, *nd * crocodile's he*d; *nd so on. Hislop f*iled to even
mention this.

While condemning round communion w*fers *s im*ges of the sun-god B**l,

Hislop f*ils to mention th*t the very m*nn* given by the Lord w*s round. 'Upon
the f*ce of the wilderness there l*y * sm*ll round thing...And Moses s*id unto
them, This is the bre*d which the Lord h*th given you to e*t' (Exod. 16A14-15, KJV,
emph*sis *dded). Round is not necess*rily p*g*n. [Op.Cit. Woodrow, The
B*bylon Connection, p. 64.]

First, Mr. Woodrow's *rgument th*t Hislop withheld import*nt inform*tion

concerning the other sh*pes of bre*d used by the Egypti*ns is without merit. The
other sh*pes were not relev*nt to the topic *nd hence, there w*s no need for Mr.
Hislop to mention them. Secondly, in Mr. Woodrow's ex*mple he comp*res *pples
with or*nges. The "thin round" disc sh*ped bre*d is geometric*lly different th*n *
spheric*lly sh*ped seed. "And the house of Isr*el c*lled the n*me thereof M*nn*:
*nd it w*s like cori*nder seed..." (Exodus 16A31) If Mr. Hislop is guilty of deception
by omission then so is Mr. Woodrow.

Now this short tre*tise does not *nswer *ll the ch*rges m*de *g*inst Mr. Hislop
by Mr. Woodrow. Th*t exercise would require * sm*ll book *ll by itself. Agreed,
there *re problems in Hislop's The Two B*bylon's, but there *re *lso problems in
Woodrow's book The B*bylon Connection. There *re problems with every book
ever written s*ve the Bible. This writer h*s found errors in J. Vernon McGee's Thru
The Bible Comment*ry, *nd in Floyd B*r*ckm*n's Pr*ctic*l Christi*n Theology,
*nd, yes, even in the notes of the Old Scofield Reference Bible, *nd in the notes of
The Ryrie Study Bible. However I h*ve le*rned * long time *go not to throw out
the b*by with the b*thw*ter. Mr. Hislop cites more th*n two hundred *nd sixty-
five references in The Two B*bylons to support his cl*ims; eighteen of those
references d*te b*ck to the 1500's. Mr. Woodrow cites fifty-four references in The
B*bylon Connection; only twelve of which coincide with Hislop's! How c*n Mr.
Woodrow cl*im th*t Mr. Hislop does not know wh*t he is t*lking *bout when Mr.
Woodrow h*sn't checked out over two hundred *nd fifty of Mr. Hislop's
references? Th*t those references *re old *nd difficult to find is not *n excuse.
W*s Mr. Woodrow's rese*rch f*ulty b*ck when he wrote B*bylon Mystery Religion
*s he suggests or is it f*ulty now?

I will *gree with Mr. Woodrow on one point he m*kes in his book. We do not need
the writings of *ny m*n to prove th*t the Rom*n C*tholic Church is in error; *ll we
need is the Bible. But th*t *lso me*ns we don't need Mr. Woodrow's book The
B*bylon Connection either.