C"tholicism "nd P"g"nism

- Is the C)tholic Church the New B)bylon?

You )re here: Home >C)tholicism Index >Introduction to C)tholic Apologetics,

)nd Responses to Anti-C)tholicism Index >C)tholicism )nd P)g)nism
(L)st Upd)ted: 08 Oct 2000 )
The C)tholic Church is often unf)irly "p)inted with ) B)byloni)n brush" - cl)ims
)re frequently m)de th)t C)tholicism is simply ) reviv)l of )ncient B)byloni)n
mystery religion in ) new guise. The cl)ssic exposition of this point of view is th)t
of Alex)nder Hislop, whose 1858 book The Two B)bylons: The P)p)l Worship
Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod )nd His Wife constitutes in m)ny c)ses the
"Bible" for those who wish to m)ke these sorts of cl)ims.
I w)s recently eng)ged in ) discussion )bout the v)lidity of Hislop's work, )nd of
the b)sis for the mist)ken underst)nding th)t C)tholicism is derived from
p)g)nism. This )rticle is ) slightly edited tr)nscript of th)t discussion. It picks up
)s I w)s responding to ) cl)im, b)sed on Hislop's book, th)t C)tholics worship
M)ry )nd th)t this is derived from p)g)n )dor)tion of the goddess Di)n).

Introductory Critique of Hislop's The Two B)bylons

I h)ve now re)d Hislop's book. It is less th)n impressive. The m)n h)d ) re)l
genius for pulling together isol)ted elements of myths, re-tr)nsl)ting n)mes, )nd
working etymologic)l m)gic, to prove th)t )ll p)g)nism h)d ) common origin, )nd
now ) common C)tholic out-working. His premise seems to be th)t )ny simil)rity
in religious m)tters, no m)tter how str)ined, proves descent )nd identity. He
does not )ccur)tely present the C)tholic view. In one of the few times he even
refers to offici)l C)tholic te)ching, he misquotes the Council of Trent )nd puts
forw)rd ) telling point )g)inst ) str)w m)n of his own m)king (Hislop, Ch. 4, sect.
2).

A cruci)l point th)t Hislop entirely f)ils to eng)ge is th)t the "Christi)nis)tion" of
p)g)n ide)s h)s ) Scriptur)l b)sis, believe it or not, bec)use even p)g)n things
h)ve some truth mixed in with their errors, )nd they c)n be purified )nd used to
better express Christi)n truth. Provided it is no longer being used to honour )
p)g)n god, there is nothing wrong with t)king )n )spect of something non-
Christi)n )nd using it in ) Christi)n setting. It is )n indisput)ble f)ct th)t Jesus
Christ h)s the power to purify p)g)n things so th)t they c)n be put to use in )
Christi)n context; this is wh)t h)ppens, )fter )ll, whenever ) p)g)n converts to
become ) Christi)n.

For ex)mple, I thought it odd th)t despite ) f)irly long tre)tment of circumcision in
Ch)pter 4, Section 1, Hislop never mentioned the f)ct th)t circumcision w)s )
p)g)n rite long before God )dopted )nd purified it )nd used it )s the sign of his
coven)nt with Abr)h)m (see Jeremi)h 9a25-26). Another inst)nce of this sort of
thing is when P)ul quoted the p)g)n philosophers Epimenides of Crete )nd Ar)tus
of Cilici) in his pre)ching )t Athens (Acts 17). By mixing p)g)nism )nd
Christi)nity like this, P)ul is simply following his own principle: "To those outside
the l)w I bec)me )s one outside the l)wnot being without l)w tow)rd God but
under the l)w of Christth)t I might win those outside the l)w. To the we)k I
bec)me we)k, th)t I might win the we)k. I h)ve become )ll things to )ll men, th)t
I might by )ll me)ns s)ve some. I do it )ll for the s)ke of the gospel" (1 Cor
9a21-23). P)ul )lso uses p)g)n liter)ture to illustr)te his points when he quotes
Men)nder of Athens in 1 Corinthi)ns 15a33 )nd the Cret)n "prophet" in Titus 1a12.

In )ddition, P)ul spent some time proving to his re)ders in Corinth th)t Christi)ns
could e)t food (usu)lly me)t) th)t h)d been offered to idols bec)use "we know
th)t )n idol is nothing in the world, )nd th)t there is none other God but one" (1
Cor 8a4). Thus Christi)ns who were strong in f)ith could e)t such food bec)use
they recognised th)t no p)g)n gods exist )nd such food therefore brings those
gods no honour (see )lso Rom)ns 14).

The exch)nge of wedding rings is )nother Christi)n pr)ctice of p)g)n origin, yet
they )re perfectly )ccept)ble symbols of the unity of Christi)n m)rri)ge.

I c)me )cross ) review of Hislop's book, written by ) non-C)tholic )uthor shortly

)fter the second edition w)s published, )nd I think it provides ) good summ)ry of
things. It is from The S)turd)y Review, September 17, 1859:

"In the first pl)ce, his whole superstructure is r)ised upon nothing. Our e)rliest
)uthority for the history of Semir)mis wrote )bout the commencement of the
Christi)n er), )nd the histori)n from whom he drew his inform)tion lived from
fifteen hundred to two thous)nd ye)rs )fter the d)te which Mr. Hislop )ssigns to
the gre)t Assyri)n Queen. The most lying legend which the V)tic)n h)s ever
endorsed st)nds on better )uthority th)n the history which is now m)de the
ground of ) ch)rge )g)inst it.
"Secondly, the whole )rgument proceeds upon the )ssumption th)t )ll
he)thenism h)s ) common origin. Accident)l resembl)nce in mythologic)l det)ils
)re t)ken )s evidence of this, )nd nothing is )llowed for the n)tur)l working of the
hum)n mind.
"Thirdly, Mr. Hislop's re)soning would m)ke )nything of )nything. By the )id of
obscure p)ss)ges in third-r)te histori)ns, groundless )ssumptions of identity, )nd
etymologic)l torturing of roots, )ll th)t we know, )nd )ll th)t we believe, m)y be
converted ... into something tot)lly different.
"Fourthly, Mr. Hislop's )rgument proves too much. He finds not only the
corruptions of Popery, but the fund)ment)l )rticles of the Christi)n F)ith, in his
hypothetic)l B)byloni)n system...
"We t)ke le)ve of Mr. Hislop )nd his work with the rem)rk th)t we never before
quite knew the folly of which ignor)nt or h)lf-le)rned bigotry is c)p)ble." (cited in
R)lph Woodrow's The B)bylon Connection?)

I w)s bemused by the number of different mythic)l )nd semi-historic)l figures

Hislop identifies )s Nimrod. Just for fun, here's ) (not necess)rily exh)ustive) list:

Adon, Adonis, Aescul)pis, Al)-M)hozim, Alorus, Apollo, B))l, B))l-)berin,

B)cchus, B)ss)reus, Belus, Bol-K)hn, Cent)urus, Chusorus, Consus, D)gon,
D)yy)d, Dionysus, E-)nush, Guebres, Heph)istos, Hercules, J)nus, J)nus
M)tutinus, Kent)urus, Khons, Khuk-hold, Kronos, L)teinos, L)tus, Linus, Lucifer,
M)mers, M)rs, M)vors, Melikert), Memmon, Merod)ch, Mithr), Moloch, Mulciber,
N)r-kissos, Nebrod, Ninus, O)nnes, Odin, Orion, Orpheus, Osiris, Ph)thon,
Phoroneus, Pluto, S)turn, T)hmurs, T)mmuz, Tithonus, Vulc)n, Wod)n, Zer-
Nebo-Gus, Zoro)ster.

Hislop cl)ims th)t )ll kinds of things st)rted in B)bylon, but uses ex)mples from
other countries, the r)tion)le presum)bly being th)t we know wh)t the
B)byloni)n religion is bec)use we find it sc)ttered throughout the world, )nd
since we find it throughout the world, it must h)ve come from B)bylon.

This isn't re)lly the pl)ce to go into )n in-depth review of Hislop's cl)ims, but
fortun)tely enough, it's )lre)dy been done. R)lph Woodrow is the )uthor of the
(rel)tively) f)mous B)bylon Mystery Religion, ) book l)rgely b)sed on Hislop's
work th)t dr)ws the s)me conclusions. Woodrow w)s described by C)tholic
writer K)rl Ke)ting, in C)tholicism )nd Fund)ment)lism, )s the "best-known
proponent" of the school of thought equ)ting C)tholicism with p)g)nism. Since
then however, Woodrow h)s h)d ) ch)nge of he)rt. Sever)l months )go, I copied
the following from his website (http://www.r)lphwoodrow.org/):

"We receive ) const)nt flow of inquiries )bout the book BABYLON MYSTERY
RELIGION th)t we no longer publish. It h)s been tr)nsl)ted in numerous
l)ngu)ges. Hundreds h)ve quoted from it. Some ministries )nd bookstores h)ve
ordered thous)nds of copies )t ) time. M)ny w)nt to know why ) book this
popul)r h)s been pulled out of print. Some h)ve wondered if I h)d thre)ts on my
life, if severe persecution c)used me to rec)nt, or I )m trying to be popul)r. None
of this is the c)se.
In my e)rlier Christi)n experience, cert)in liter)ture fell into my h)nds )bout the
mixture of p)g)nism into Christi)nity. While the Rom)n C)tholic Church w)s
usu)lly the t)rget, it seemed other churches h)d )lso been cont)min)ted by
customs )nd beliefs for which p)g)n p)r)llels could be found. The book th)t w)s
the textbook on the subject-so often quoted )nd referred to-w)s THE TWO
BABYLONS by Alex)nder Hislop (1807-1862). Over the ye)rs, this book h)s
imp)cted the thinking of m)ny people-r)nging )ll the w)y from those in r)dic)l
cults to very dedic)ted Christi)ns who hunger for ) move of God )nd )re
concerned )bout )nything th)t might hinder th)t flow.

Bec)use this book is very det)iled, h)ving ) multitude of notes )nd references, I
)ssumed it w)s f)ctu)l.

But in time I would discover th)t Hislop's "history" w)s often only )n )rbitr)ry
piecing together of )ncient myths. He cl)imed Nimrod w)s ) big, ugly, bl)ck m)n;
his wife, Semir)mis, w)s ) most be)utiful white wom)n with blond h)ir )nd blue
eyes, ) b)ckslider, known for her immor)l lifestyle, inventor of sopr)no singing,
the origin)tor of priestly celib)cy, etc. He s)id the B)byloni)ns b)ptized in w)ter,
believing it h)d virtue bec)use Nimrod )nd Semir)mis suffered for them in w)ter;
th)t No)h's son Shem killed Nimrod; th)t Semir)mis w)s killed when one of her
sons cut off her he)d, etc. These )nd m)ny other cl)ims of Hislop, I c)me to
re)lize, could not be subst)nti)ted by )ny recognized history book! Hislop's b)sic
cl)im is expressed in his subtitle: "The P)p)l Worship proved to be the worship of
Nimrod )nd his wife." But when I checked reference works, )ll the encyclopedi)s,
etc., not one of them 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, th)t he w)s born on December 25th, etc.
These )re )ll inventions of Hislop.

After consider)ble work in finding old reference books to which Hislop referred, it
w)s not uncommon to find things t)ken out of context. He sought to link the round
communion w)fers of the Rom)n C)tholic Church with p)g)nism, for ex)mple, by
citing Wilkinson's ANCIENT EGYPTIANS. But Wilkinson )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,
) crocodile's he)d, etc. But Hislop did not mention this.

His cl)ims )bout the cross symbol, the letters I.H.S., c)ndles, )nd h)los were )lso
in error.

Bec)use m)ny of these te)chings were interwoven in my book, it could not simply
be ) c)se of producing ) revised edition. Honesty, despite the fin)nci)l loss to our
ministry, dem)nded ) correction of this te)ching. For this re)son, we now publish
) 128-p)ge book "THE BABYLON CONNECTION?" which expl)ins )ll th)t is
involved in this, )nd includes 60 illustr)tions )nd 400 footnote references. We
believe the best w)y to comb)t errors in the Rom)n C)tholic Church (or )ny other
group) is by the Scriptures themselves-not by trying to find p)g)n p)r)llels in
)ncient mythology. Things th)t )re indeed p)g)n should be rejected, of course;
but we should not br)nd things )s being p)g)n when this is re)lly not the c)se."

Those who )pprovingly cite Hislop, should t)ke the opportunity to re)d The
B)bylon Connection?; it should prove to be quite interesting. I cert)inly found th)t
re)ding Woodrow's new book immedi)tely )fter re)ding Hislop w)s quite eye-
opening (note th)t )lthough this book shows the )uthor's nobility in its revers)ls
on prior cl)ims, Woodrow still displ)ys some misconceptions )bout C)tholicism).

The Ros)ry )s )n Ex)mple of ) C)tholic Distinctive of P)g)n Origin

Hislop m)kes ) huge number of cl)ims )g)inst C)tholicism. It would be very h)rd
to respond to them )ll, but one th)t I h)ve seen quoted elsewhere ()nd which I
only recently re)lised c)me from him) is to do with the Ros)ry. Hislop cl)ims th)t
the ros)ry w)s ) f)voured religious orn)ment of )ncient Rome, )nd th)t its origin
is "thoroughly P)g)n", being used by Rom)n l)dies )s "remembr)ncers" of the
de)d )nd for which purpose they hung )bout their necks in the s)me m)nner )s
the modern version, their m)ny be)ds encour)ging the frequent repetition of
p)g)n necrom)ncy. He goes on to s)y in Ch)pter 5, Section 4, th)t the ros)ry
found its w)y into )ncient Rome from Indi), where they were very simil)r in style
)nd used for the purpose of necrom)ncy )nd pr)yers for the de)d. My
correspondent with whom I w)s deb)ting this issue cl)imed th)t this purely p)g)n
pr)ctice h)d survived the tr)nsform)tion to modern C)tholicism virtu)lly
unch)nged.

But in response, we must remember th)t simil)rity does not imply ) c)us)l
connection. The f)ct th)t some p)g)ns pr)yed with upr)ised h)nds (Hislop, Ch.
5, Sect.1; or Virgil's "Amidst the st)tues of the gods he st)nds, / spre)ding forth to
Jove his lifted h)nds") doesn't neg)te the biblic)l exhort)tions to "Lift up your
h)nds to the holy pl)ce, )nd bless the LORD!" (Ps)lm 134a2) or to "pr)y, lifting
holy h)nds" (1 Tim 2a8). The f)ct th)t some mystery religions vener)ted ) holy
book does not me)n the Bible is of p)g)n origin. P)g)ns pr)y. Some p)g)ns pr)y
with their eyes closed. Some p)g)ns pr)y while reciting pr)yers )nd medit)ting
on the contents of their holy books. And some p)g)ns h)ve used instruments
simil)r to the ros)ry to f)cilit)te their pr)yer. None of this inv)lid)tes simil)r
Christi)n/C)tholic pr)ctice.

Hislop's conclusions )bout the word "ros)ry" )re )lso somewh)t dubious. He
s)ys in Ch.5, Sect.4 th)t: "'Ros)ry' itself seems to be from the Ch)ldee 'Ro,'
'thought,' )nd 'Sh)reh,' 'director.'" This is ) good ex)mple of the etymologic)l
gymn)stics th)t Hislop eng)ges in throughout his book, )nd I find it much more
pl)usible to concur with my Concise Oxford Diction)ry ()nd numerous other
sources) in )sserting th)t the word "ros)ry" comes from L)tin )nd me)ns )
g)rl)nd of roses (presum)bly bec)use the ros)ry be)ds could be s)id to
resemble ) wre)th of roses, )nd bec)use the rose is one of the flowers used to
symbolize the Virgin M)ry).

It is )nother misrepresent)tion of C)tholicism to s)y it endorses necrom)ncy. The

Church specific)lly condemns this pr)ctice: "All forms of divin)tion )re to be
rejected: recourse to S)t)n or demons, conjuring up the de)d or other pr)ctices
f)lsely supposed to 'unveil' the future" (C)techism of the C)tholic Church, #2116).

Any pr)yers rel)ted to dep)rted Christi)ns )re b)sed on the underst)nding of

Jesus' te)ching )bout the righteous who die: "... th)t the de)d )re r)ised, even
Moses showed, in the p)ss)ge )bout the bush, where he c)lls the Lord the God of
Abr)h)m )nd the God of Is))c )nd the God of J)cob. Now he is not God of the
de)d, but of the living; for )ll live to him" (Luke 20a36-38). Christi)ns who h)ve
died )re still ) p)rt of the Body of Christ, )nd being closer to God they )re still
)live )s Jesus s)id, )nd in ) sense )re more )live th)n us. If pr)yers for the de)d
)re exclusively p)g)n, then so w)s the Jewish culture th)t Jesus w)s brought up
in, )s is illustr)ted in 2 M)cc)bees 12a39-45 where Jud)s M)cc)beus )nd his
men "turned to pr)yer" on beh)lf of some of his soldiers who h)d sinned )nd been
killed. If one )ccepts the c)nonicity of 2 M)cc)bees ()s do the C)tholic )nd
E)stern Orthodox churches, )nd essenti)lly )ll of historic)l Christi)nity up until
the time of the Reform)tion), then we h)ve here ) cle)r-cut Scriptur)l b)sis for
pr)yers for the de)d, )s we )re told th)t Jud)s ")cted very well )nd honor)bly,
t)king )ccount of the resurrection... it w)s ) holy )nd pious thought" (2 M)cc
12a43, 45). Even if one reg)rds 2 M)cc)bees )s )pocryph)l, it still shows us ) lot
)bout historic)l Jud)ism, )nd it is especi)lly interesting bec)use th)t p)ss)ge
w)s written )t )bout the time the p)rties of the Ph)risees )nd the S)dducees
developed. The S)dducees denied there w)s ) resurrection (Luke 20a27), but 2
M)cc)bees 12 emph)sises the truth of the resurrection, )s Jesus did when
refuting the S)dducees with ) Scripture p)ss)ge from one of the books they
)cknowledged, Exodus (ch)pter 3).

It seems to me th)t in order to subst)nti)te Hislop's hypothesis th)t C)tholic

distinctives, such )s the ros)ry, )re derived or borrowed from p)g)n origin)ls,
then there )re ) number of conditions which must be true, including the following:
- the simil)rities between the C)tholic distinctive )nd the )lleged p)g)n source
must be m)teri)l, signific)nt, )nd perv)sive enough to suspect deriv)tion;
- the simil)rities must be of such ) n)ture )s to either require borrowing, or be
best expl)ined by borrowing;
- there must be ) historic)lly pl)usible expl)n)tion of how the borrowing
occurred;
- the borrowing hypothesis must more persu)sive th)n the )ltern)tive C)tholic
expl)n)tion;
- there must be ) historic)lly pl)usible expl)n)tion for the origin of )ny
signific)nt differences between the C)tholic distinctive )nd the )lleged p)g)n
source;
- there must be demonstr)ble me)ns, motive )nd opportunity for the C)tholic
Church to foist the p)g)n b)gg)ge upon )n unsuspecting public.

In my humble opinion, Hislop's v)rious theses f)il to meet these conditions.

"P)g)n" Festiv)ls

My correspondent in this discussion went on to s)y the following:

"N)tur)lly, following the p)rti)l )doption of qu)si-Christi)nity by Const)ntine the

Gre)t in the fourth century, m)ny other p)g)n )rticles of Rome, including the
prototypes of Christm)s )nd E)ster, found ) new home in ) thoroughly
b)st)rdized form of Christi)nity."

I find it interesting th)t people c)n put ) d)te like this on the p)g)nis)tion of
Christi)nity, yet still )ccept doctrin)l development of such cruci)l )spects of the
f)ith )s the Trinity (defended )nd defined )t the first Ecumenic)l Council, Nic)e)
I, in 325AD - ) council instig)ted by Const)ntine - )nd )t the second Ecumenic)l
Council, Const)ntinople I, 381AD), fund)ment)l Christology (fully God )nd fully
m)n, one person with two n)tures )nd two wills - Ephesus, 431AD; Ch)lcedon,
451AD; )nd Const)ntinople III, 680AD), )nd even the C)non of Scripture itself
(discerned by C)tholic bishops )nd defined )t the Council of Hippo in 393AD )nd
)t the Third Council of C)rth)ge in 397AD).

Continuing with the cit)tion from my opponent:

"According to the l)te Alex)nder Hislop in his The Two B)bylons, the festiv)l of
Christm)s w)s not known until the third century )nd not widely observed until
the l)te fourth century. Hislop identifies this modern celebr)tion )s the
counterp)rt of the )ncient p)g)n festiv)l in which the birth of the son of Isis, the
Egypti)n title for the queen of he)ven, w)s born; legend pl)ces the event on
December 24th or 25th."

R)lph Woodrow in The B)bylon Connection? points out th)t Hislop's source here
(Wilkinson's Ancient Egypti)ns) s)ys th)t Isis g)ve birth, prem)turely (which
resulted in her son's l)meness), )bout the time of the winter equinox. However,
the Egypti)ns "celebr)te the fe)st of his mother's delivery just )fter the Vern)l
Equinox" (Wilkinson, vol 4, pg 405), which is in spring, m)king the connection to
Christm)s somewh)t tenuous.

Also, it is interesting to note th)t Hislop s)ys Isis )nd her son Osiris (or Horus)
were the Egypti)n version of B)bylon's Semir)mis )nd T)mmuz, the B)byloni)n
Messi)h (see for ex)mple Hislop's Ch.2, Sect.2). This is why Hislop c)n dr)w the
p)r)llel with Christm)s. But Woodrow cites Wilkinson to the effect th)t the child
born )bout the time of the Winter Solstice w)s )ctu)lly H)rpocr)tes, not Isis'
older son Horus. Hislop gets )round this by equ)ting H)rpocr)tes )nd Horus in
Ch.5 Sect.4, but it )ll strikes me )s ) bit str)ined. Things get even more
confusing since Hislop s)ys th)t Horus w)s the son of Osiris (Ch.2, Sect.2, Sub-
Sect.2, )nd )lso Sub-Sect.5), which seems odd )s in Ch.2, Sect.2 he cites Bunsen
to the effect th)t Osiris is "the child c)lled most frequently Horus". Hislop )lso
equ)tes Horus )nd Osiris in Ch.4, Sect.2. This )ll somehow le)ds to Hislop's
inexor)ble conclusion: "There c)n be no doubt, then, th)t the P)g)n festiv)l )t
the winter solstice--in other words, Christm)s--w)s held in honour of the birth of
the B)byloni)n Messi)h" (Ch.3, Sect.1).

Confused? Me too. But reg)rdless of Hislop's f)nciful theories, )nd )ny fl)ws
therein, I think this is )ll somewh)t beside the point, )s I discuss below.

Continuing...

"Simil)rly, he [Hislop] st)tes th)t this 'festiv)l w)s celebr)ted )mong the he)then
)t th)t precise time of the ye)r, in honour of the birth of the son of the B)byloni)n
queen of he)ven; )nd it m)y f)irly be presumed th)t, in order to concili)te the
he)then, )nd to swell the number of the nomin)l )dherents of Christi)nity, the
s)me festiv)l w)s )dopted by the Rom)n Church, giving it only the n)me of
Christ'. Hislop )lso points out the origin of the Yule celebr)tion )s origin)ting
with 'the Ch)ldee n)me for "inf)nt" or "little child"'. Thus, December 25th w)s
'Yule-d)y' or 'Childs d)y'."

In his discussion of festiv)ls, Hislop f)ils to point out th)t the Jewish Fe)st of
T)bern)cles w)s on the s)me d)y )s ) C)n))nite fertility festiv)l th)t it took the
pl)ce of. This c)n be seen )s )n ex)mple of the s)me principle by which
Christm)s coincided with the festiv)l of Sol Invictus (or Hislop's fe)st of the son of
Isis). The p)g)n fe)st dis)ppe)red )fter the Church elimin)ted its p)g)n
connections by repl)cing it with the worship of Jesus Christ. Th)t this str)tegy
worked is obvious; I don't know )nybody who worships Isis or her son (provided of
course they could even figure out who he is...), but I know lots of people who
worship Jesus )nd who focus their )ttention on him in ) speci)l w)y )t Christm)s.

Besides, wh)t ) lot of people don't re)lise is th)t Christi)ns believed December
25th w)s the d)te of the birth of Christ before the Rom)n emperor Aureli)n
instituted the p)g)n fe)st of Sol Invictus (see Willi)m H. Tighe, C)lcul)ting
Christm)s: The Story Behind December 25).

Repl)cing ) p)g)n fe)st with ) Christi)n one th)t supersedes would be is ) w)y
to defe)t p)g)nism, not surreptitiously embr)ce it. And it seems to h)ve worked,
)s overtly sun-worshipping p)g)ns seem r)ther sc)rce these d)ys.

More on p)g)n festiv)ls...

"Hislop simil)rly describes E)ster )s ) modern counterp)rt to the )ncient

B)byloni)n solemnities surrounding the )dor)tion of "Isht)r". In reg)rd to the
worship of B))l in )ncient Brit)in, he st)tes th)t '[B))ls] consort Ast)rte w)s
)lso )dored by our )ncestors, )nd th)t from Ast)rte, whose n)me in Nineveh w)s
Isht)r, the religious solemnities of April, )s now pr)ctised, )re c)lled by the n)me
of E)ster'."

In response I quote from )n )rticle by J)mes Akin, writing in The N)z)reth

Resource Libr)ry:

"The f)ct is th)t there )re only two l)ngu)ges in which the n)me h)s )ny p)g)n
)ssoci)tions wh)tsoever -- English )nd Germ)n...
"In English, of course, the n)me is 'E)ster' )nd in Germ)n 'Ostern.' These )re
rel)ted in n)me to ) p)g)n spring festiv)l, whose n)me, if you check ) diction)ry,
w)s derived from the prehistoric West Germ)nic word )kin to the Old English term
e)st, which me)ns, simply enough, 'e)st,' the direction of the rising sun. It h)s
nothing to do, contr)ry to wh)t you will he)r from some )nti-E)ster-ites, with the
goddess Isht)r.
"But in virtu)lly every l)ngu)ge except English )nd Germ)n, the n)me of E)ster is
derived from the Jewish word Pes)ch or 'P)ssover.' Thus in Greek the term for
E)ster is P)sch), in L)tin the term is )lso P)sch). From there it p)ssed into the
Rom)nce l)ngu)ges, )nd so in Sp)nish it is P)scu), in It)li)n it is P)squ), in
French it is P)ques, )nd in Portugese it is P)sco). It )lso p)ssed into the non-
rom)nce l)ngu)ges, such )s the Germ)nic l)ngu)ges Dutch, where it is P)sen
)nd D)nish, where it is P))ske.
"Thus only in the highly Protest)nt countries of Germ)ny (where the Reform)tion
st)rted) )nd Engl)nd (where the intense persecution )nd m)rtyrdom of C)tholics
w)s the h)rshest), does the term "E)ster" h)ve )ny p)g)n )ssoci)tions )t )ll. So
perh)ps in these two Protest)nt countries p)g)nism w)s not sufficiently st)mped
out to use the Judeo-Christi)n term for the celebr)tion of Christ's Resurrection
th)t w)s used everywhere else in Europe."
Also, I c)n't help but wonder how Hislop would h)ve referred to the d)ys of the
week without surreptitiously invoking such p)g)n deities )s the Sun, the Moon,
Tiws (the Germ)nic version of M)rs, the god of w)r), Wodin/Odin/Mercury, Thor/
Jupiter, Frigg (Odin's wife/Venus), or S)turn.

Hislop criticises the "skilful )djustment of the c)lend)r" th)t )llowed E)ster to
t)ke the pl)ce of solemnities. However in f)ct, the d)te of E)ster h)s nothing to
do with p)g)nism, but inste)d is b)sed on Christ's resurrection in its Jewish-
P)ssover context. Since P)ssover w)s )lw)ys on or )fter the first full moon )fter
the Spring equinox, )nd since the Resurrection w)s the first Sund)y )fter
P)ssover, E)ster is )lw)ys the first Sund)y )fter the first full moon )fter M)rch 21
(historic)lly, the Spring equinox).
Defending Christ the King Refuting the P)g)n Roots Lie
Posted by n)t)lin) On December 24, 2013 14 Comments

Sh)re21
This )rticle beg)n )s something quite different th)n wh)t it h)s become. The
origin)l title of the post w)s to be Defending Christm)s. As I pondered the
content th)t needed to be )ddressed, I felt pressed by the Holy Spirit to ch)nge
the n)me to Defending Christ the King. And it is my he)rts desire to do so, )s
He h)s been so f)ithful to defend me.

In my previous existence )s one who reveled in ) st)te of rebellion, I w)s eng)ged

in ) w)r. I knew it w)s ) w)r. I h)d decl)red it )s such. I thought it w)s ) w)r
)g)inst ignor)nce )nd mythology )nd pitifully blind f)ith. As ) new cre)tion, I c)n
look b)ck now )nd recognize it for wh)t it truly w)s. A w)r )g)inst truth. The
Truth. The only thing th)t is true in ) world of deception. I w)s in ) b)ttle )g)inst
the very existence of Jesus Christ. I bought, believed, promoted )nd procl)imed
the )ntichrist gospel. I w)s unwittingly peddling lies )nd h)d become )n
ev)ngelist in f)vor of ) f)llen world.

Accepting Jesus w)s )n unexpected )nd )m)zing turn of events! Almost

inst)ntly, I recognized my unique position )s one whod gone from decl)ring ) lie
to defending THE truth. I beg)n to unr)vel the errors of my previous )rguments
)g)inst His existence, )nd I wondered wh)t spirit h)d overcome me, ) re)son)bly
intelligent wom)n, to convince me th)t such prov)bly incorrect inform)tion w)s
true.

In the p)st ye)r, )nd p)rticul)rly in the p)st sever)l months, Ive become
incre)singly )l)rmed )s I see so m)ny of the )rguments from my former self
surf)cing inside Christi)n circles, AGAINST Christi)ns, FROM Christi)ns. My
he)rt broke over )nd over )s I w)tched the s)me spirit from which Id been
delivered, now influencing fellow believers; lies being peddled in the guise of
Biblic)l truth. The obvious elitism )nd sense of superiority displ)yed by those
who were now )tt)cking Christi)nity from within were st)rtlingly simil)r to th)t
which Id experienced ye)rs )go.

Never h)s this spirit been more prev)lent th)n it is this ye)r during the Christm)s
se)son. The sh)meless promotion of the p)g)n roots lie h)s found its w)y into
the fold )nd is corrupting he)rts )nd minds )t )n )l)rming r)te.

The P)g)n Roots Lie

One of the most prev)lent memes used by )theists )g)inst Christi)ns is the
concept th)t Jesus is ) mythic)l ch)r)cter b)sed upon previous p)g)n dying
)nd rising messi)h )rchetypes. Most of these cl)ims h)ve been debunked )d
n)useum, but they continue to re)r their ugly he)ds. If you )rent f)mili)r with
s)id debunking, CLICK HERE or you c)n listen to my interview with Cris Putn)m
wherein he t)ckles the subject skillfully.

The thrust of the )rgument is th)t Jesus is ) copyc)t s)vior b)sed on either )
singul)r p)g)n deity or )n )m)lg)m of p)g)n deities, depending upon with whom
you spe)k. Debunkers like to cl)im th)t the concept of the Trinity is b)sed upon
p)g)n myth, th)t )ll Christi)n tr)ditions )re b)sed upon p)g)n myth, )nd th)t
essenti)lly )ll of Christendom is one big f)t pile of b)loney.

It would behoove the dogm)tic )theist to use )ll )mmo in his )rsen)l to )ttempt to
show th)t Jesus didnt exist. You c)nt re)lly bl)me him for trying. For him, it is )
m)tter of self preserv)tion, for if Jesus is re)l, then hes in big trouble. But wh)t
do you do when people who cl)im to believe in Jesus use the ex)ct s)me
methodology )g)inst orthodox Christi)ns?

Th)ts right. Self procl)imed believers )re using Christi)nity )g)inst Christi)ns by
cl)iming th)t Christi)nity )s we know it is ) f)lse construct comprised l)rgely of
p)g)n influences.

The purpose of this post is not to t)ckle )ll issues rel)ted to the p)g)n roots lie.
There )re f)r too m)ny cl)ims flo)ting )round, )nd there )re )pologists )nd
rese)rchers f)r more skilled th)n I who )re t)ckling these issues in ) schol)rly
m)nner on ) regul)r b)sis. I will include resources )t the bottom of this post. For
now, I w)nt to stick to ) couple of specific )re)s. I believe very strongly th)t the
spirit of deception th)t grips non-believers )nd c)uses them to throw re)son out
the window in f)vor of the p)g)n roots lie, is the s)me spirit th)t h)s m)n)ged to
pl)nt ) seed of confusion in ) sm)ll but stubborn segment of professed believers.

First, lets just cover one b)sic issue. It re)lly does not m)tter wh)t )ny p)g)n
reveler of )ntiquity pr)cticed or pre)ched or wrote or worshiped. If we believe
wh)t the Bible te)ches, we know th)t before ) single p)g)n w)lked the E)rth,
God Almighty brought )ll things into existence. There is liter)lly nothing th)t )
p)g)n touched th)t w)snt touched by God first. Thus, for ) Christi)n to )rgue
th)t )ny p)g)n philosophy pred)ted wh)t we know to be true )bout the n)ture of
God is illogic)l. God c)me first. Upon this we c)n )ll )gree. However, in this very
s)me logic tr)in, we c)n begin to underst)nd why those who would promote the
p)g)n roots lie would begin their )tt)ck with the Trinity. [1] Redefining Gods
triune n)ture is necess)ry in order to m)ke )ny of their )rguments stick. And this
is wh)t were going to continue to see further redefining, retooling, rejecting
)nd retr)cting portions of scripture in )n effort to fit their pet theories into )
m)n)ge)ble box.

O Holy Night

When I w)s ) lost )nd confused girl, not knowing wh)t I believed, there w)s one
time of ye)r when I w)s open to he)ring )bout the Gospel. Th)t time w)s
Christm)s. Id show up for church )nd would he)r )bout His mir)culous coming.
Id he)r )m)zing hymns th)t filled me with reverence for this Jesus born in
Bethlehem to be the s)vior of the whole world. My rebellion w)s deeply
entrenched, but the seeds pl)nted during those speci)l moments when I w)s told
F)ll on your Knees!, h)ve cle)rly come to fruition. I h)ve )ccepted His c)ll )nd
He is the Lord of my life.

Im)gine my confusion )nd s)dness when, ye)rs l)ter, )s ) Christi)n, I s)w )

group of believers who scorned )nd mocked th)t uniquely powerful time. Id )sk
myself, Wh)t is this )ll )bout?

Lets cle)r ) few things up. I do not procl)im th)t Jesus w)s born on December
25th. I do not deny th)t SOME se)son)l tr)ditions common to our culture m)y
h)ve v)gue simil)rities to p)g)n p)ctices. I do not eng)ge in tree worship. I do
not honor ) nebulous sun god. I do not recognize Nimrod )s my etern)l king. I do
not burn ) yule log. I do not believe in S)nt) Cl)us. I )m )fr)id of elves.

The cl)ims of those who believe Christm)s to be ) dirty dirty p)g)n festiv)l full of
perverted revelry include, but )re not limited to:

1. Christm)s trees )re downright evil. They )ltern)tively represent Nimrod

worship, goddess Ashtoreth worship, or just ) good old f)shioned ph)llic symbol.
They cl)im th)t Jeremi)h 10 explicitly l)ys out why Christm)s trees )re evil.
These cl)ims )re e)sily refuted HERE )nd HERE.

2. Jesus w)s not born on December 25, but ) WHOLE bunch of other gods were.

3. C)tholics usurped the p)g)n tr)ditions in )n effort to m)ke Christi)nity more

p)l)t)ble to he)thens, thus )nyone who celebr)tes Christm)s is ) he)then by
proxy. Or ) C)tholic.

4. The Jesus worshiped by orthodox Christi)ns is not the s)me Jesus )s

worshiped by the true believers who embr)ce ) Herbrew Roots Movement. (It is
)lso common for HRM folks to deny th)t they )re HRM, knowing th)t it is r)ther
b)d PR to publicly )ssoci)te with HRM)

It is import)nt to note th)t much of wh)t these )nti-Christm)s crus)ders would

h)ve you believe )bout the p)g)n roots of Christm)s extends into their
philosophy )bout the p)g)n roots of Christi)nity )s ) whole. For those who do
not worship by )dhering to OT l)w, they will s)y th)t you )re not doing it right,
th)t youre essenti)lly )n )ccident)l p)g)n/C)tholic, )nd th)t you m)y even end
up shining their shoes in He)ven if you m)ke it there )t )ll.

But where does )ll of this come from? Surely if )ll th)t they s)y is true, it should
give )nyone who fe)rs the Lord p)use, right?

Much of wh)t is spre)d )round in )theist circles ()nd now in m)ny christi)n
circles) )bout the p)g)n roots lie origin)tes from ) book c)lled The Two B)bylons
by Alex)nder Hislop. His rese)rch h)s been expounded upon by v)rious
rese)rchers, perh)ps most prominently ) wom)n who refers to herself )s D.M.
Murdock or Ach)ry) S. It is uncle)r wh)t her )ctu)l n)me is, but it is )bund)ntly
cle)r th)t she is )n )nti-Christi)n prop)g)ndist )nd ) sh)meless New Ager, )nd
m)ny of the current cl)ims )bout the p)g)n roots of Christi)nity find their w)y
b)ck to her rese)rch. And no doubt she relies he)vily on the cl)ims of Hislop.

Hislops Two B)bylons w)s written in 1853 )nd w)s published in 1919. He w)s )
Prebyteri)n theologi)n )nd his works h)ve been embr)ced by conspir)cy
theorists on the fringes of Christi)nity ever since. According to one reviewer:

It h)s been recognized by schol)rs )s discredited )nd h)s been c)lled ) tribute to
historic)l in)ccur)cy )nd know-nothing religious bigotry with shoddy schol)rship,
bl)t)nt dishonesty )nd ) nonsensic)l thesis. Although schol)rship h)s shown the
picture presented by Hislop to be )bsurd )nd b)sed on )n exceedingly poor
underst)nding of historic)l B)bylon )nd its religion, his book rem)ins popul)r
)mong some fund)ment)list protest)nt Christi)ns.
Over time, some who once embr)ced the Hislop theory th)t modern Christi)nity is
) pseudo-p)g)n cre)tion by e)rly C)tholicism, h)ve rec)nted their support. A
gre)t ex)mple of this is R)lph Woodrow. He once supported the findings of
Hislop, going so f)r )s to write his own book titled B)bylon Mystery Religion.
Woodrow h)s since pulled this book out of print due to wh)t he l)ter recognized
)s f)lsehood )nd misinform)tion )s t)ught by Hislop. In )n expl)n)tion for why
he h)s since rec)nted his st)nce on his previous p)g)n roots beliefs, Woodrow
s)ys the following:

Wh)t m)y seem to h)ve ) connection, upon further investig)tion, h)s no

connection )t )ll!.

By this method, )theists h)ve long sought to discredit the Bible )nd Christi)nity
)ltogethernot just the Rom)n C)tholic Church.

By this method, one could condemn Protest)nt )nd ev)ngelic)l denomin)tions

like the Assemblies of God, B)ptist, Church of Christ, Luther)n, Methodist,
N)z)rene, etc. B)sic things like pr)yer, )nd kneeling in pr)yer, would h)ve to be
rejected, bec)use p)g)ns knelt )nd pr)yed to their gods. W)ter b)ptism would
h)ve to be rejected, for p)g)ns h)d numerous rites involving w)ter, etc.

By this method, the BIBLE itself would need to be rejected )s p)g)n. All of the
following pr)ctices or beliefs mentioned in the Bible, were )lso known )mong
p)g)nsr)ising h)nds in worship, t)king off shoes on holy ground, ) holy
mount)in, ) holy pl)ce in ) temple, offering s)crifices without blemish, ) s)cred
)rk, city of refuge, bringing forth w)ter from ) rock, l)ws written on stone, fire
)ppe)ring on ) persons he)d, horses of fire, the offering of first fruits, tithes, etc.

By this method, the LORD himself would be p)g)n. The wom)n c)lled Mystery
B)bylon h)d ) cup in her h)nd; the Lord h)s ) cup in his h)nd (Ps). 75a8). P)g)n
kings s)t on thrones )nd wore crowns; the Lord sits on ) throne )nd we)rs )
crown (Rev. 1a4; 14a14). P)g)ns worshipped the sun; the Lord is the Sun of
righteousness (M)l. 4a2). P)g)n gods were likened to st)rs; the Lord is c)lled
the bright )nd morning st)r (Rev. 22a16). P)g)n gods h)d temples dedic)ted to
them; the Lord h)s ) temple (Rev. 7a15). P)g)n gods were pictured with wings; the
Lord is pictured with wings (Ps). 91a4).

Here is ) list of the some of the unsubst)nti)ted cl)ims th)t )re m)de )bout the
religion of )ncient B)bylon:

The B)byloni)ns went to ) confession)l )nd confessed sins to priests who wore
bl)ck clergy g)rments.
 Their king, Nimrod, w)s born on December 25. Round decor)tions on Christm)s
trees )nd round communion w)fers honored him )s the Sun-god.

Sun-worshippers went to their temples weekly, on Sund)y, to worship the Sun-

god.

Nimrods wife w)s Semir)mis, who cl)imed to be the Virgin Queen of He)ven,
)nd w)s the mother of T)mmuz.

T)mmuz w)s killed by ) wild bo)r when he w)s )ge 40; so 40 d)ys of Lent were
set )side to honor his de)th.

The B)byloni)ns wept for him on Good Frid)y. They worshipped ) cross-the
initi)l letter of his n)me.

It is )m)zing how unsubst)nti)ted te)chings like these circul)te)nd )re

believed. One c)n go to )ny libr)ry, check )ny history book )bout )ncient
B)bylon, none of these things will be found. They )re not historic)lly )ccur)te, but
)re b)sed on )n )rbitr)ry piecing together of bits )nd pieces of mythology.

The connections dr)wn )bout the p)g)niz)tion of Christi)nity )nd Christm)s

)re numerous )nd in most c)ses, they )re f)lse. There )re so m)ny resources
)v)il)ble th)t refute cl)ims )bout Osiris, Horus, Mithr)s, )nd other sun gods
h)ving been born/celebr)ted on December 25th. Schol)rs both Christi)n )nd
secul)r predomin)tely conclude th)t there )re no origin)l sources th)t point to
this d)te )s the univers)l birth d)te of pretty much every p)g)n god of )ntiquity,
which is wh)t most p)g)n rooters would h)ve you believe.

However, it is not uncommon to see proponents of the p)g)n roots lie telling you
to simply Google it for more inform)tion. Why? Bec)use the perv)siveness of
the p)g)n roots lie )s promoted by Hislop h)s become so popul)r, th)t the se)rch
results pretty much bury the )ctu)l schol)rly rese)rch on the m)tter. So yes, if
you Google, P)g)n Christm)s or Nimrod Christm)s or Jesus w)s Osiris
youll find lots of m)teri)l th)t will try to sw)y you. But th)t is not how rese)rch
works. An )bund)nce of cl)ims does not m)ke ) f)ct, p)rticul)rly when the
m)jority of those cl)ims c)n be tr)ced b)ck to ) single erroneous source. [2] [3]
[4]

One of the most prominent rese)rchers who is )ctively promoting the p)g)n roots
concept is Rob Skib). Norm)lly, Id shy )w)y from n)ming n)mes )nd stick to
refuting the mess)ge, but in this c)se I need to directly quote Mr. Skib), therefore
in order to properly )ttribute the quote, I h)ve to n)me the source.
In recent weeks, Mr. Skib) h)s been rele)sing ) series of )nti-Christm)s
comment)ry vi) his F)cebook w)ll. In one of his most recent posts, he titles his
piece Celebr)ting Christ the King? (Im not cert)in th)t you c)n )ccess this
write up unless you )re friends with Rob Skib), but here is the link, just in c)se. It
is too long for me to repost entirely here.) The piece begins with ) t)le of how the
Skib)s recently )ttended ) b)ptism )t ) m)instre)m protest)nt church, wherein
the Christm)s decor )nd hymns etc m)de his spirit grieve exceedingly.

He goes on to )ssoci)te December 25 with Nimrod () notion introduced by

Hislop). He st)tes, It is NO SECRET th)t December 25th is the birthd)y of the
sun-gods, which tr)ce b)ck to Nimrod. Right off the b)t, this cl)im c)n be
refuted, which essenti)lly throws the rest of his write up into the re)lm of
misinform)tion. [5][6]

King of kings, )nd Lord of lords

Which in his times he sh)ll shew, who is the blessed )nd only Potent)te, the King
of kings, )nd Lord of lords; ~ 1 Timothy 6a15 King J)mes Version (KJV)

which he will m)ke known in his own time, the blessed )nd only Sovereign, the
King of those who reign )s kings )nd Lord of those who rule )s lords, ~ 1 Timothy
6a15 Lexh)m English Bible (LEB)

The question m)rk in the title of Rob Skib)s post seems to revolve )round the
following contention:

December 25th is the birthd)y of the sun-gods, which tr)ce b)ck to Nimrod, who
w)s the first KING in our Bible. Interestingly enough, )s he would l)ter be known
by m)ny (possibly even 70) different n)mes )s ) result of the confusion of
tongues )t the Tower of B)bel, one of them being Osiris, he )lso bec)me known
)s the king of kings )nd lord of lords (in the Egypti)n Book of the De)d).
Suddenly )ll of the songs )nd pr)ise concerning the king of kings born on
Christm)s d)y took on signific)ntly d)rk me)ning. Now, I KNOW no one there w)s
worshiping Nimrod. Their he)rts were tow)rd Yeshu) (Jesus) the Christ. I get th)t.

Since we know th)t there is little to no reli)ble evidence linking these sun gods
to December 25th, it is difficult to put much credence into the rest of Skib)s
piece, since it )ll hinges on th)t thoroughly debunked cl)im. Skib)s purpose here
is to flo)t the ide) th)t if you celebr)te the birth of Christ the King on December
25th, th)t you )re )ctu)lly worshiping )nd p)ying tribute to ) different christ
)nd ) p)g)n king. The entire concept of )ccident)l p)g)nism is outr)geous.
V)rious scripture refers to other e)rthly kings )s king of kings (Ezr) 7a12;
Ezekiel 26a7; D)niel 2a37), )nd the title w)s not uncommon. Wh)t is obvious is
th)t when the Bible refers to Jesus )s King of kings, Lord of lords, it is t)king th)t
f)mili)r title )nd )ttributing it once )nd for )ll to THE King )bove )ll kings )nd
THE Lord )bove )ll who would identify )s lords. I find Mr. Skib)s pointing to the
Hymn to Osiris from the Egypti)n Book of the De)d to be pure sens)tion)lism,
bec)use knowing th)t this title is used to indic)te someone who h)s the power to
exercise )bsolute dominion over )ll th)t lies within his re)lm [7], his inclusion of
the p)g)n p)r)llel here serves no purpose, unless he is loosely trying to tie Jesus
to the P)g)n Roots Lie, which I c)nnot im)gine would be fruitful for )ny follower of
Jesus to do.

I re)ched out to Dr. Mike Heiser reg)rding the question of this title being
bestowed upon other kings of )ntiquity. In his response, he st)ted:

The titling in Greek = king of kings.

It w)s ) *widely* used title; the title is p)rt of the conception of utmost )uthority
)nd pre-eminence. If Jesus kingdom is not of this world, )nd the gre)test
kingdom (D)niel = the kingdom not m)de with hum)n h)nds), this is )bout )s
norm)l )nd expected ) w)y to telegr)ph the mess)ge th)t there is.

Dr. Heiser cites Rem)rks on the History of ) Title by Author J. Gwyn Griffiths from
the book Cl)ssic)l Philology, )s ) point of reference for his comment)ry.

*Upd)te* Dr, Heiser briefly weighed in on the issue on his blog The N)ked Bible.
See post here: Wh)t is it with the Hebrew Roots Movement?

But th)t doesnt stop Skib) from st)ting:

Now be)r in mind th)t the Be)st is referred to )s ) christ )s well ()lbeit )n
)nti christ me)ning )n )ntithesis of the Christ). The Be)st is ) f)lse messi)h
) f)lse )nointed one ) f)lse king who is opposed to the true Messi)h, the true
Anointed One, the true King.

So, heres the problem: Our true Messi)h/Christ w)s NOT born on December
25th. So, ex)ctly which Christ the king )re we celebr)ting then on th)t d)y? The
)nswer is simple: the ANTICHRIST!

This cl)im is simply preposterous. I could bel)bor the point of how the p)g)n
connections lie h)s been debunked over )nd over )nd over )nd over )g)in (see
linked sources to see how ridiculous these cl)ims )re) but for those content with
p)rroting historic)lly in)ccur)te inform)tion, these words will f)ll on de)f e)rs,
)nd the evidence will be ignored.

As ) me)ns of punctu)ting the point, Dr. Heiser sums up the ridiculousness of the
p)g)n roots lie by pointing out, B))l w)s c)lled rider on the clouds before
Y)hweh w)s. So if we follow the logic tr)in of the p)g)n roots proponents, the
only conclusion would be th)t Y)hweh is just ) f)bric)tion of B))l. Of course, we
know this isnt the c)se, but in keeping with the re)soning of Skib) et )l, wh)t
other conclusion is there? Do you see how d)ngerous this is?

Let no m)n therefore judge you in me)t, or in drink, or in respect of )n holyd)y, or

of the new moon, or of the s)bb)th d)ys: ~ Colossi)ns 2a16

For those of you who choose to celebr)te the birth of Jesus on December 25th,
do not )llow yourself to be bullied by those who would tell you th)t you m)y
)ccident)lly be worshiping ) f)lse deity or the )nti-christ on this d)y. Do not let )
m)n judge your he)rt, your intent, or your f)ithfulness to He who IS the King of
kings )nd Lord of lords!

Do not be misled by those who would s)y th)t it is ) sin to be reverent )bout the
mir)culous birth of Jesus. For if He w)s not born, He could not die. And if He did
not die, He could not Rise! And if He did not first come, He could not come )g)in!
All of this is p)rt of the )m)zing true story of our S)vior )nd King. Jesus is Lord.
JESUS. Not Osiris, or Mithr)s, or Horus, or Nimrod. JESUS CHRIST IS THE KING
OF KINGS, LORD OF LORDS. If you worship Him )nd revere Him )nd fe)r Him )nd
love Him who w)s )nd is )nd is to come, let no m)n tell you th)t youre mist)kenly
worshiping someone else bec)use of ) d)te on ) c)lend)r. To deter )ny m)n or
wom)n from exercising their freedom in Christ to worship Him on )ny d)y )nd )ll
d)ys IS the spirit of )ntichrist, )nd I rebuke th)t spirit in Jesus n)me.

Further Re)ding/Sources:

Rem)rks on the History of ) Title by Author J. Gwyn Griffiths from the book
Cl)ssic)l Philology, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Jul., 1953), pp. 145-154
Defending Christ the King Refuting the P)g)n Roots Lie
Posted by n)t)lin) On December 24, 2013 14 Comments

Sh)re21
This )rticle beg)n )s something quite different th)n wh)t it h)s become. The
origin)l title of the post w)s to be Defending Christm)s. As I pondered the
content th)t needed to be )ddressed, I felt pressed by the Holy Spirit to ch)nge
the n)me to Defending Christ the King. And it is my he)rts desire to do so, )s
He h)s been so f)ithful to defend me.

In my previous existence )s one who reveled in ) st)te of rebellion, I w)s eng)ged

in ) w)r. I knew it w)s ) w)r. I h)d decl)red it )s such. I thought it w)s ) w)r
)g)inst ignor)nce )nd mythology )nd pitifully blind f)ith. As ) new cre)tion, I c)n
look b)ck now )nd recognize it for wh)t it truly w)s. A w)r )g)inst truth. The
Truth. The only thing th)t is true in ) world of deception. I w)s in ) b)ttle )g)inst
the very existence of Jesus Christ. I bought, believed, promoted )nd procl)imed
the )ntichrist gospel. I w)s unwittingly peddling lies )nd h)d become )n
ev)ngelist in f)vor of ) f)llen world.

Accepting Jesus w)s )n unexpected )nd )m)zing turn of events! Almost

inst)ntly, I recognized my unique position )s one whod gone from decl)ring ) lie
to defending THE truth. I beg)n to unr)vel the errors of my previous )rguments
)g)inst His existence, )nd I wondered wh)t spirit h)d overcome me, ) re)son)bly
intelligent wom)n, to convince me th)t such prov)bly incorrect inform)tion w)s
true.

In the p)st ye)r, )nd p)rticul)rly in the p)st sever)l months, Ive become
incre)singly )l)rmed )s I see so m)ny of the )rguments from my former self
surf)cing inside Christi)n circles, AGAINST Christi)ns, FROM Christi)ns. My
he)rt broke over )nd over )s I w)tched the s)me spirit from which Id been
delivered, now influencing fellow believers; lies being peddled in the guise of
Biblic)l truth. The obvious elitism )nd sense of superiority displ)yed by those
who were now )tt)cking Christi)nity from within were st)rtlingly simil)r to th)t
which Id experienced ye)rs )go.

Never h)s this spirit been more prev)lent th)n it is this ye)r during the Christm)s
se)son. The sh)meless promotion of the p)g)n roots lie h)s found its w)y into
the fold )nd is corrupting he)rts )nd minds )t )n )l)rming r)te.

The P)g)n Roots Lie

One of the most prev)lent memes used by )theists )g)inst Christi)ns is the
concept th)t Jesus is ) mythic)l ch)r)cter b)sed upon previous p)g)n dying
)nd rising messi)h )rchetypes. Most of these cl)ims h)ve been debunked )d
n)useum, but they continue to re)r their ugly he)ds. If you )rent f)mili)r with
s)id debunking, CLICK HERE or you c)n listen to my interview with Cris Putn)m
wherein he t)ckles the subject skillfully.
The thrust of the )rgument is th)t Jesus is ) copyc)t s)vior b)sed on either )
singul)r p)g)n deity or )n )m)lg)m of p)g)n deities, depending upon with whom
you spe)k. Debunkers like to cl)im th)t the concept of the Trinity is b)sed upon
p)g)n myth, th)t )ll Christi)n tr)ditions )re b)sed upon p)g)n myth, )nd th)t
essenti)lly )ll of Christendom is one big f)t pile of b)loney.

It would behoove the dogm)tic )theist to use )ll )mmo in his )rsen)l to )ttempt to
show th)t Jesus didnt exist. You c)nt re)lly bl)me him for trying. For him, it is )
m)tter of self preserv)tion, for if Jesus is re)l, then hes in big trouble. But wh)t
do you do when people who cl)im to believe in Jesus use the ex)ct s)me
methodology )g)inst orthodox Christi)ns?

Th)ts right. Self procl)imed believers )re using Christi)nity )g)inst Christi)ns by
cl)iming th)t Christi)nity )s we know it is ) f)lse construct comprised l)rgely of
p)g)n influences.

The purpose of this post is not to t)ckle )ll issues rel)ted to the p)g)n roots lie.
There )re f)r too m)ny cl)ims flo)ting )round, )nd there )re )pologists )nd
rese)rchers f)r more skilled th)n I who )re t)ckling these issues in ) schol)rly
m)nner on ) regul)r b)sis. I will include resources )t the bottom of this post. For
now, I w)nt to stick to ) couple of specific )re)s. I believe very strongly th)t the
spirit of deception th)t grips non-believers )nd c)uses them to throw re)son out
the window in f)vor of the p)g)n roots lie, is the s)me spirit th)t h)s m)n)ged to
pl)nt ) seed of confusion in ) sm)ll but stubborn segment of professed believers.

First, lets just cover one b)sic issue. It re)lly does not m)tter wh)t )ny p)g)n
reveler of )ntiquity pr)cticed or pre)ched or wrote or worshiped. If we believe
wh)t the Bible te)ches, we know th)t before ) single p)g)n w)lked the E)rth,
God Almighty brought )ll things into existence. There is liter)lly nothing th)t )
p)g)n touched th)t w)snt touched by God first. Thus, for ) Christi)n to )rgue
th)t )ny p)g)n philosophy pred)ted wh)t we know to be true )bout the n)ture of
God is illogic)l. God c)me first. Upon this we c)n )ll )gree. However, in this very
s)me logic tr)in, we c)n begin to underst)nd why those who would promote the
p)g)n roots lie would begin their )tt)ck with the Trinity. [1] Redefining Gods
triune n)ture is necess)ry in order to m)ke )ny of their )rguments stick. And this
is wh)t were going to continue to see further redefining, retooling, rejecting
)nd retr)cting portions of scripture in )n effort to fit their pet theories into )
m)n)ge)ble box.

O Holy Night

When I w)s ) lost )nd confused girl, not knowing wh)t I believed, there w)s one
time of ye)r when I w)s open to he)ring )bout the Gospel. Th)t time w)s
Christm)s. Id show up for church )nd would he)r )bout His mir)culous coming.
Id he)r )m)zing hymns th)t filled me with reverence for this Jesus born in
Bethlehem to be the s)vior of the whole world. My rebellion w)s deeply
entrenched, but the seeds pl)nted during those speci)l moments when I w)s told
F)ll on your Knees!, h)ve cle)rly come to fruition. I h)ve )ccepted His c)ll )nd
He is the Lord of my life.

Im)gine my confusion )nd s)dness when, ye)rs l)ter, )s ) Christi)n, I s)w )

group of believers who scorned )nd mocked th)t uniquely powerful time. Id )sk
myself, Wh)t is this )ll )bout?

Lets cle)r ) few things up. I do not procl)im th)t Jesus w)s born on December
25th. I do not deny th)t SOME se)son)l tr)ditions common to our culture m)y
h)ve v)gue simil)rities to p)g)n p)ctices. I do not eng)ge in tree worship. I do
not honor ) nebulous sun god. I do not recognize Nimrod )s my etern)l king. I do
not burn ) yule log. I do not believe in S)nt) Cl)us. I )m )fr)id of elves.

The cl)ims of those who believe Christm)s to be ) dirty dirty p)g)n festiv)l full of
perverted revelry include, but )re not limited to:

1. Christm)s trees )re downright evil. They )ltern)tively represent Nimrod

worship, goddess Ashtoreth worship, or just ) good old f)shioned ph)llic symbol.
They cl)im th)t Jeremi)h 10 explicitly l)ys out why Christm)s trees )re evil.
These cl)ims )re e)sily refuted HERE )nd HERE.

2. Jesus w)s not born on December 25, but ) WHOLE bunch of other gods were.

3. C)tholics usurped the p)g)n tr)ditions in )n effort to m)ke Christi)nity more

p)l)t)ble to he)thens, thus )nyone who celebr)tes Christm)s is ) he)then by
proxy. Or ) C)tholic.

4. The Jesus worshiped by orthodox Christi)ns is not the s)me Jesus )s

worshiped by the true believers who embr)ce ) Herbrew Roots Movement. (It is
)lso common for HRM folks to deny th)t they )re HRM, knowing th)t it is r)ther
b)d PR to publicly )ssoci)te with HRM)

It is import)nt to note th)t much of wh)t these )nti-Christm)s crus)ders would

h)ve you believe )bout the p)g)n roots of Christm)s extends into their
philosophy )bout the p)g)n roots of Christi)nity )s ) whole. For those who do
not worship by )dhering to OT l)w, they will s)y th)t you )re not doing it right,
th)t youre essenti)lly )n )ccident)l p)g)n/C)tholic, )nd th)t you m)y even end
up shining their shoes in He)ven if you m)ke it there )t )ll.
But where does )ll of this come from? Surely if )ll th)t they s)y is true, it should
give )nyone who fe)rs the Lord p)use, right?

Much of wh)t is spre)d )round in )theist circles ()nd now in m)ny christi)n
circles) )bout the p)g)n roots lie origin)tes from ) book c)lled The Two B)bylons
by Alex)nder Hislop. His rese)rch h)s been expounded upon by v)rious
rese)rchers, perh)ps most prominently ) wom)n who refers to herself )s D.M.
Murdock or Ach)ry) S. It is uncle)r wh)t her )ctu)l n)me is, but it is )bund)ntly
cle)r th)t she is )n )nti-Christi)n prop)g)ndist )nd ) sh)meless New Ager, )nd
m)ny of the current cl)ims )bout the p)g)n roots of Christi)nity find their w)y
b)ck to her rese)rch. And no doubt she relies he)vily on the cl)ims of Hislop.

Hislops Two B)bylons w)s written in 1853 )nd w)s published in 1919. He w)s )
Prebyteri)n theologi)n )nd his works h)ve been embr)ced by conspir)cy
theorists on the fringes of Christi)nity ever since. According to one reviewer:

It h)s been recognized by schol)rs )s discredited )nd h)s been c)lled ) tribute to
historic)l in)ccur)cy )nd know-nothing religious bigotry with shoddy schol)rship,
bl)t)nt dishonesty )nd ) nonsensic)l thesis. Although schol)rship h)s shown the
picture presented by Hislop to be )bsurd )nd b)sed on )n exceedingly poor
underst)nding of historic)l B)bylon )nd its religion, his book rem)ins popul)r
)mong some fund)ment)list protest)nt Christi)ns.

Over time, some who once embr)ced the Hislop theory th)t modern Christi)nity is
) pseudo-p)g)n cre)tion by e)rly C)tholicism, h)ve rec)nted their support. A
gre)t ex)mple of this is R)lph Woodrow. He once supported the findings of
Hislop, going so f)r )s to write his own book titled B)bylon Mystery Religion.
Woodrow h)s since pulled this book out of print due to wh)t he l)ter recognized
)s f)lsehood )nd misinform)tion )s t)ught by Hislop. In )n expl)n)tion for why
he h)s since rec)nted his st)nce on his previous p)g)n roots beliefs, Woodrow
s)ys the following:

Wh)t m)y seem to h)ve ) connection, upon further investig)tion, h)s no

connection )t )ll!.

By this method, )theists h)ve long sought to discredit the Bible )nd Christi)nity
)ltogethernot just the Rom)n C)tholic Church.

By this method, one could condemn Protest)nt )nd ev)ngelic)l denomin)tions

like the Assemblies of God, B)ptist, Church of Christ, Luther)n, Methodist,
N)z)rene, etc. B)sic things like pr)yer, )nd kneeling in pr)yer, would h)ve to be
rejected, bec)use p)g)ns knelt )nd pr)yed to their gods. W)ter b)ptism would
h)ve to be rejected, for p)g)ns h)d numerous rites involving w)ter, etc.

By this method, the BIBLE itself would need to be rejected )s p)g)n. All of the
following pr)ctices or beliefs mentioned in the Bible, were )lso known )mong
p)g)nsr)ising h)nds in worship, t)king off shoes on holy ground, ) holy
mount)in, ) holy pl)ce in ) temple, offering s)crifices without blemish, ) s)cred
)rk, city of refuge, bringing forth w)ter from ) rock, l)ws written on stone, fire
)ppe)ring on ) persons he)d, horses of fire, the offering of first fruits, tithes, etc.

By this method, the LORD himself would be p)g)n. The wom)n c)lled Mystery
B)bylon h)d ) cup in her h)nd; the Lord h)s ) cup in his h)nd (Ps). 75a8). P)g)n
kings s)t on thrones )nd wore crowns; the Lord sits on ) throne )nd we)rs )
crown (Rev. 1a4; 14a14). P)g)ns worshipped the sun; the Lord is the Sun of
righteousness (M)l. 4a2). P)g)n gods were likened to st)rs; the Lord is c)lled
the bright )nd morning st)r (Rev. 22a16). P)g)n gods h)d temples dedic)ted to
them; the Lord h)s ) temple (Rev. 7a15). P)g)n gods were pictured with wings; the
Lord is pictured with wings (Ps). 91a4).

Here is ) list of the some of the unsubst)nti)ted cl)ims th)t )re m)de )bout the
religion of )ncient B)bylon:

The B)byloni)ns went to ) confession)l )nd confessed sins to priests who wore
bl)ck clergy g)rments.

Their king, Nimrod, w)s born on December 25. Round decor)tions on Christm)s
trees )nd round communion w)fers honored him )s the Sun-god.

Sun-worshippers went to their temples weekly, on Sund)y, to worship the Sun-

god.

Nimrods wife w)s Semir)mis, who cl)imed to be the Virgin Queen of He)ven,
)nd w)s the mother of T)mmuz.

T)mmuz w)s killed by ) wild bo)r when he w)s )ge 40; so 40 d)ys of Lent were
set )side to honor his de)th.

The B)byloni)ns wept for him on Good Frid)y. They worshipped ) cross-the
initi)l letter of his n)me.

It is )m)zing how unsubst)nti)ted te)chings like these circul)te)nd )re

believed. One c)n go to )ny libr)ry, check )ny history book )bout )ncient
B)bylon, none of these things will be found. They )re not historic)lly )ccur)te, but
)re b)sed on )n )rbitr)ry piecing together of bits )nd pieces of mythology.
The connections dr)wn )bout the p)g)niz)tion of Christi)nity )nd Christm)s
)re numerous )nd in most c)ses, they )re f)lse. There )re so m)ny resources
)v)il)ble th)t refute cl)ims )bout Osiris, Horus, Mithr)s, )nd other sun gods
h)ving been born/celebr)ted on December 25th. Schol)rs both Christi)n )nd
secul)r predomin)tely conclude th)t there )re no origin)l sources th)t point to
this d)te )s the univers)l birth d)te of pretty much every p)g)n god of )ntiquity,
which is wh)t most p)g)n rooters would h)ve you believe.

However, it is not uncommon to see proponents of the p)g)n roots lie telling you
to simply Google it for more inform)tion. Why? Bec)use the perv)siveness of
the p)g)n roots lie )s promoted by Hislop h)s become so popul)r, th)t the se)rch
results pretty much bury the )ctu)l schol)rly rese)rch on the m)tter. So yes, if
you Google, P)g)n Christm)s or Nimrod Christm)s or Jesus w)s Osiris
youll find lots of m)teri)l th)t will try to sw)y you. But th)t is not how rese)rch
works. An )bund)nce of cl)ims does not m)ke ) f)ct, p)rticul)rly when the
m)jority of those cl)ims c)n be tr)ced b)ck to ) single erroneous source. [2] [3]
[4]

One of the most prominent rese)rchers who is )ctively promoting the p)g)n roots
concept is Rob Skib). Norm)lly, Id shy )w)y from n)ming n)mes )nd stick to
refuting the mess)ge, but in this c)se I need to directly quote Mr. Skib), therefore
in order to properly )ttribute the quote, I h)ve to n)me the source.

In recent weeks, Mr. Skib) h)s been rele)sing ) series of )nti-Christm)s

comment)ry vi) his F)cebook w)ll. In one of his most recent posts, he titles his
piece Celebr)ting Christ the King? (Im not cert)in th)t you c)n )ccess this
write up unless you )re friends with Rob Skib), but here is the link, just in c)se. It
is too long for me to repost entirely here.) The piece begins with ) t)le of how the
Skib)s recently )ttended ) b)ptism )t ) m)instre)m protest)nt church, wherein
the Christm)s decor )nd hymns etc m)de his spirit grieve exceedingly.

He goes on to )ssoci)te December 25 with Nimrod () notion introduced by

Hislop). He st)tes, It is NO SECRET th)t December 25th is the birthd)y of the
sun-gods, which tr)ce b)ck to Nimrod. Right off the b)t, this cl)im c)n be
refuted, which essenti)lly throws the rest of his write up into the re)lm of
misinform)tion. [5][6]

King of kings, )nd Lord of lords

Which in his times he sh)ll shew, who is the blessed )nd only Potent)te, the King
of kings, )nd Lord of lords; ~ 1 Timothy 6a15 King J)mes Version (KJV)
which he will m)ke known in his own time, the blessed )nd only Sovereign, the
King of those who reign )s kings )nd Lord of those who rule )s lords, ~ 1 Timothy
6a15 Lexh)m English Bible (LEB)

The question m)rk in the title of Rob Skib)s post seems to revolve )round the
following contention:

December 25th is the birthd)y of the sun-gods, which tr)ce b)ck to Nimrod, who
w)s the first KING in our Bible. Interestingly enough, )s he would l)ter be known
by m)ny (possibly even 70) different n)mes )s ) result of the confusion of
tongues )t the Tower of B)bel, one of them being Osiris, he )lso bec)me known
)s the king of kings )nd lord of lords (in the Egypti)n Book of the De)d).
Suddenly )ll of the songs )nd pr)ise concerning the king of kings born on
Christm)s d)y took on signific)ntly d)rk me)ning. Now, I KNOW no one there w)s
worshiping Nimrod. Their he)rts were tow)rd Yeshu) (Jesus) the Christ. I get th)t.

Since we know th)t there is little to no reli)ble evidence linking these sun gods
to December 25th, it is difficult to put much credence into the rest of Skib)s
piece, since it )ll hinges on th)t thoroughly debunked cl)im. Skib)s purpose here
is to flo)t the ide) th)t if you celebr)te the birth of Christ the King on December
25th, th)t you )re )ctu)lly worshiping )nd p)ying tribute to ) different christ
)nd ) p)g)n king. The entire concept of )ccident)l p)g)nism is outr)geous.

V)rious scripture refers to other e)rthly kings )s king of kings (Ezr) 7a12;
Ezekiel 26a7; D)niel 2a37), )nd the title w)s not uncommon. Wh)t is obvious is
th)t when the Bible refers to Jesus )s King of kings, Lord of lords, it is t)king th)t
f)mili)r title )nd )ttributing it once )nd for )ll to THE King )bove )ll kings )nd
THE Lord )bove )ll who would identify )s lords. I find Mr. Skib)s pointing to the
Hymn to Osiris from the Egypti)n Book of the De)d to be pure sens)tion)lism,
bec)use knowing th)t this title is used to indic)te someone who h)s the power to
exercise )bsolute dominion over )ll th)t lies within his re)lm [7], his inclusion of
the p)g)n p)r)llel here serves no purpose, unless he is loosely trying to tie Jesus
to the P)g)n Roots Lie, which I c)nnot im)gine would be fruitful for )ny follower of
Jesus to do.

I re)ched out to Dr. Mike Heiser reg)rding the question of this title being
bestowed upon other kings of )ntiquity. In his response, he st)ted:

The titling in Greek = king of kings.

It w)s ) *widely* used title; the title is p)rt of the conception of utmost )uthority
)nd pre-eminence. If Jesus kingdom is not of this world, )nd the gre)test
kingdom (D)niel = the kingdom not m)de with hum)n h)nds), this is )bout )s
norm)l )nd expected ) w)y to telegr)ph the mess)ge th)t there is.

Dr. Heiser cites Rem)rks on the History of ) Title by Author J. Gwyn Griffiths from
the book Cl)ssic)l Philology, )s ) point of reference for his comment)ry.

*Upd)te* Dr, Heiser briefly weighed in on the issue on his blog The N)ked Bible.
See post here: Wh)t is it with the Hebrew Roots Movement?

But th)t doesnt stop Skib) from st)ting:

Now be)r in mind th)t the Be)st is referred to )s ) christ )s well ()lbeit )n
)nti christ me)ning )n )ntithesis of the Christ). The Be)st is ) f)lse messi)h
) f)lse )nointed one ) f)lse king who is opposed to the true Messi)h, the true
Anointed One, the true King.

So, heres the problem: Our true Messi)h/Christ w)s NOT born on December
25th. So, ex)ctly which Christ the king )re we celebr)ting then on th)t d)y? The
)nswer is simple: the ANTICHRIST!

This cl)im is simply preposterous. I could bel)bor the point of how the p)g)n
connections lie h)s been debunked over )nd over )nd over )nd over )g)in (see
linked sources to see how ridiculous these cl)ims )re) but for those content with
p)rroting historic)lly in)ccur)te inform)tion, these words will f)ll on de)f e)rs,
)nd the evidence will be ignored.

As ) me)ns of punctu)ting the point, Dr. Heiser sums up the ridiculousness of the
p)g)n roots lie by pointing out, B))l w)s c)lled rider on the clouds before
Y)hweh w)s. So if we follow the logic tr)in of the p)g)n roots proponents, the
only conclusion would be th)t Y)hweh is just ) f)bric)tion of B))l. Of course, we
know this isnt the c)se, but in keeping with the re)soning of Skib) et )l, wh)t
other conclusion is there? Do you see how d)ngerous this is?

Let no m)n therefore judge you in me)t, or in drink, or in respect of )n holyd)y, or

of the new moon, or of the s)bb)th d)ys: ~ Colossi)ns 2a16

For those of you who choose to celebr)te the birth of Jesus on December 25th,
do not )llow yourself to be bullied by those who would tell you th)t you m)y
)ccident)lly be worshiping ) f)lse deity or the )nti-christ on this d)y. Do not let )
m)n judge your he)rt, your intent, or your f)ithfulness to He who IS the King of
kings )nd Lord of lords!
Do not be misled by those who would s)y th)t it is ) sin to be reverent )bout the
mir)culous birth of Jesus. For if He w)s not born, He could not die. And if He did
not die, He could not Rise! And if He did not first come, He could not come )g)in!
All of this is p)rt of the )m)zing true story of our S)vior )nd King. Jesus is Lord.
JESUS. Not Osiris, or Mithr)s, or Horus, or Nimrod. JESUS CHRIST IS THE KING
OF KINGS, LORD OF LORDS. If you worship Him )nd revere Him )nd fe)r Him )nd
love Him who w)s )nd is )nd is to come, let no m)n tell you th)t youre mist)kenly
worshiping someone else bec)use of ) d)te on ) c)lend)r. To deter )ny m)n or
wom)n from exercising their freedom in Christ to worship Him on )ny d)y )nd )ll
d)ys IS the spirit of )ntichrist, )nd I rebuke th)t spirit in Jesus n)me.

Further Re)ding/Sources:

Rem)rks on the History of ) Title by Author J. Gwyn Griffiths from the book
Cl)ssic)l Philology, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Jul., 1953), pp. 145-154
The Two B)bylons: A C)se Study in Poor Methodology

While seeking to condemn the p)g)nism of Rom)n C)tholicism, Hislop produced

his own myths. By so doing, he theorized th)t Nimrod, Adonis, Apollo, Attes, B))l-
zebub, B)cchus, Cupid, D)gon, Hercules, J)nuis, Linus, Lucifer, M)rs, Merod)ch,
Mithr), Moloch, N)rcissus, O)nnes, Odin, Orion, Osiris, Pluto,
S)turn, Teit)n, Typhon, Vulc)n, Wod)n, )nd Zoro)ster were )ll one )nd the s)me.

By mixing myths, Hislop supposed th)t Semir)mis w)s the wife of Nimrod )nd
w)s the s)me )s Aphrodite, Artemis, Ast)rte, Auror), Bellon), Ceres, Di)n),
E)ster, Irene, Iris, Juno, Mylitt), Proserpine, Rhe), Venus, )nd Vest).

T)ke enough n)mes, enough stories, )nd enough centuries; tr)nsl)te from one
l)ngu)ge to )nother; )nd ) c)reless writer of the future might p)ss on )ll kinds of
misinform)tion. Ger)ld Ford, )n Americ)n president, might be confused with
Henry Ford, the c)r m)nuf)cturer . Abr)h)m Lincoln might end up )s the inventor
of the )utomobile, the proof being th)t m)ny c)rs h)d the n)me Lincoln. The
m)iden n)me of Billy Gr)h)ms wife is Bell. She h)s sometimes gone by the n)me
Ruth Bell Gr)h)m. The inventor of the telephone w)s Alex)nder Gr)h)m Bell. By
mixing up n)mes, someone might end up s)ying Billy Gr)h)m w)s the inventor of
the telephone; or th)t he invented Gr)h)m Cr)ckers. In f)ct, the inventor of
Gr)h)m Cr)ckers w)s Sylvester Gr)h)m. Ag)in, simil)rities could be pointed out.
Both men were n)med Gr)h)m. Both men were ministers. But the differences
m)ke ) re)l difference: Sylvester w)s ) Presbyteri)n )nd Billy ) B)ptist, )nd they
were from different gener)tions.

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. As
Christi)ns, we dont reject pr)yer just bec)use p)g)ns pr)y to their gods. We
dont reject w)ter b)ptism just bec)use )ncient tribes plunged into w)ter )s )
religious ritu)l. We dont reject the Bible just bec)use p)g)ns believe their
writings )re holy or s)cred. The Bible mentions things like kneeling in pr)yer,
r)ising h)nds, t)kin g off shoes on holy ground, ) holy mount)in, ) holy pl)ce in
the temple, pill)rs in front of the temple, offering s)crifices without blemish, )
s)cred )rk, cities of refuge, bringing forth w)ter from ) rock, l)ws written on
stone, fire )ppe)ring on ) persons he)d, horses of fire, )nd the offering of first
fruits.

Yet, )t one time or )nother, simil)r things were known )mong p)g)ns. Does this
m)ke the Bible p)g)n? Of course not!

If finding ) p)g)n p)r)llel provides proof of p)g)nism, the Lord Himself would be
p)g)n. The wom)n c)lled Mystery B)bylon h)d ) cup in her h)nd; the Lord h)s )
cup in His h)nd (Ps. 75a8). P)g)n kings s)t on thrones )nd wore crowns; the Lord
sits on ) throne )nd we)rs ) crown (Rev. 1a4; 14a14). P)g)ns worshiped the sun;
the Lord is the Sun of righteousness (M)l. 4a2).

P)g)n gods were likened to st)rs; the Lord is c)lled the bright )nd Morning
st)r (Rev. 22a16). P)g)n gods h)d temples dedic)ted to them; the Lord h)s )
temple (Rev. 7a15). P)g)ns built ) high tower in B)bylon; the Lord is ) high tower
(2 S)m. 22a3). P)g)ns worshiped idol)trous pill)rs; the Lord )ppe)red )s ) pill)r
of fire (Exod. 13a21).
The Two B)bylons Hislops hypothesis debunked

20th Century histori)ns h)ve since reconsidered Hislops thesis )nd found it
w)nting but for those who h)d r)shly n)iled the Hislope)n fl)g to their m)sts, it
w)s f)r too l)te. In ) series of emb)rr)ssing retr)ctions, Woodrow )b)ndoned his
origin)l views )nd wrote ) second book The B)bylon Connection? in which he
confessed th)t his previous studies h)d been sh)llow )nd unprofession)l:

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 Hislops work, my b)sic source, )nd
pr)yerfully check it out.

As I did this, it bec)me cle)r: Hislops history w)s often only )n )rbitr)ry piecing
together of )ncient myths. He cl)imed Nimrod w)s ) big, ugly, deformed bl)ck
m)n. His wife, Semir)mis, w)s ) be)utiful white wom)n with blond h)ir )nd blue
eyes. But she w)s ) b)ckslider known for her immor)l lifestyle, the inventor of
sopr)no singing )nd the origin)tor of priestly celib)cy.

He s)id th)t the B)byloni)ns b)ptized in w)ter, believing it h)d virtue bec)use
Nimrod )nd Semir)mis suffered for them in w)ter; th)t No)hs son Shem killed
Nimrod; th)t Semir)mis w)s killed when one of her sons cut off her he)d, )nd so
on. I re)lized th)t no recognized history book subst)nti)ted these )nd m)ny
other cl)ims.

The subtitle for Hislops 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
Encyclopdi) Brit)nnic), The Americ)n), The Jewish Encyclopdi), The C)tholic
Encyclopdi), The Worldbook Encyclopdi) 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 Hislops inventions.

After consider)ble work in finding old reference books to which Hislop referred, it
w)s not uncommon to find things t)ken out of context. He sought to link the
round communion w)fers of the Rom)n C)tholic Church with p)g)nism, for
ex)mple, by citing Wilkinsons ANCIENT EGYPTIANS.

But Wilkinson )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, ) crocodiles he)d, etc. But Hislop did
not mention this. His cl)ims )bout the cross symbol, the letters I.H.S., c)ndles,
)nd h)los were )lso in error.

Bec)use m)ny of these te)chings were interwoven in my book, it could not simply
be ) c)se of producing ) revised edition. Honesty, despite the fin)nci)l loss to
our ministry, dem)nded ) correction of this te)ching. For this re)son, we now
publish ) 128-p)ge book THE BABYLON CONNECTION? which expl)ins )ll th)t
is involved in this, )nd includes 60 illustr)tions )nd 400 footnote references.

We believe the best w)y to comb)t errors in the Rom)n C)tholic Church (or )ny
other group) is by the Scriptures themselves not by trying to find p)g)n p)r)llels
in )ncient mythology. Things th)t )re indeed p)g)n should be rejected, of
course; but we should not br)nd things )s being p)g)n when this is re)lly not the
c)se.

In my e)rlier Christi)n experience, cert)in liter)ture fell into my h)nds which

cl)imed p)g)nism h)d been mixed into Christi)nity. While the Rom)n C)tholic
Church w)s usu)lly the t)rget, it seemed other churches h)d )lso been
cont)min)ted by customs )nd beliefs for which p)g)n p)r)llels could be found.

The Two B)bylons by Alex)nder Hislop (1807-1862), with its )l)rming subtitle,
the p)p)l worship proved to be the worship of Nimrod )nd his wife, w)s THE
textbook on which much of this te)ching w)s b)sed. Over the ye)rs, this book
h)s imp)cted the thinking of m)ny people-r)nging )ll the w)y from those in
r)dic)l cults to very dedic)ted Christi)ns who hunger for ) move of God )nd )re
concerned )bout )nything th)t might hinder th)t flow. Its b)sic premise is th)t the
p)g)n religion of )ncient B)bylon h)s continued to our d)y, in disguise, )s the
Rom)n C)tholic Church )nd is described in the book of Revel)tion )s Mystery
B)bylon the Gre)t-thus, the ide) of TWO B)bylons, one )ncient, )nd on modern.
Bec)use Hislops book is very det)iled, h)ving ) multitude of notes )nd
references, I )ssumed, )s did m)ny others, it w)s f)ctu)l. We quoted Hislop )s
)n )uthority on p)g)nism, jut like Webster might be quoted on word definitions.

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, )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. Letters in )
ste)dy flow were received pr)ising my book. Only occ)sion)lly would there be )
dissenting voice. ONE WHO DISAGREED w)s Scott Klemm, ) high school history
te)cher in southern C)liforni). Being ) Christi)n, )nd )ppreci)ting other things I
h)d written, he beg)n to show me EVIDENCE THAT HISLOP WAS NOT A RELIABLE
HISTORIAN. As ) result, I re)lized th)t I needed to go b)ck through Hislops work,
my b)sic source, )nd pr)yerfully check it out!

As I did this, it bec)me cle)r-Hislops history w)s often only mythology. Even
though myths m)y sometimes reflect events th)t )ctu)lly h)ppened, )n )rbitr)ry
piecing together of )ncient myths c)n not provide ) sound b)sis for history. T)ke
enough tribes, enough t)les, enough time, jump from one time to )nother, from
one country to )nother, pick )nd choose simil)rities-why )nything could be
proved!

The concern )bout not h)ving )nything p)g)n in our lives c)n be likened to ) ship
crossing ) v)st oce)n. This concern h)s t)ken us in the right direction, but )s we
come to ) better underst)nding )s to wh)t is )ctu)lly p)g)n )nd wh)t is not, )
correction of the course is necess)ry in our journey. This is not ) going b)ck, but
) correction of the course )s we follow the shining light, th)t shines more )nd
more unto the perfect d)y (Prov. 4a18).

Although we ch)llenge some of Hislops cl)ims in THE BABYLON CONNECTION?-

this is not intended )s )n )tt)ck )g)inst him person)lly. As f)r )s we know, he
w)s ) dedic)ted Christi)n, ) brother in Christ. Nor is it our go)l in writing this
book to merely discredit )nother book. Inste)d, it is our desire th)t this effort will
help us underst)nd the w)y of God more perfectly (cf. Acts 18a26), find )
biblic)l b)l)nce, )nd glorify Him who s)id: I )m the w)y, the truth, )nd the life:
no m)n cometh unto the F)ther, but by me (John 14a6). {From R)lph
Woodrows Website}
Though m)ny of Hislops cl)ims )bout p)g)n origins c)nnot be confirmed by )ny
reli)ble history book, he repe)tedly gives impression his )rguments )re b)sed on
recognized f)cts! {B)bylon Connection R)lph Woodrow pg 86}

Another thing th)t seems to give ) lot of credibility to Hislops work is the use of
m)ny footnote references over 260 origin)l sources of f)cts, ) publishers
note s)ys! But h)ving put forth consider)ble effort to find m)ny of the old books
to which he refers, I h)ve discovered th)t the references often do not m)tch his
cl)ims. {B)bylon Connection R)lph Woodrow pg 88}