In the bibliography of THE TWO BABYLONS, Alexander Hislop draws on vast and diverse experience. Most of the bibliographical reference is foreign to this writer, but the pneumatological and mythological subject matter of him is familiar; Similar references and conclusions can be found in Theodor H. Gaster’s Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament. Hislop wrote in the early 20th century, but his philosophical ramblings reflect many perpetuated convictions in traditional song.
On page one, the author Hislop postulates a serious misinterpretation in attempts to establish the identity of Babylon. He equates the symbology of Revelation 17:5 “…MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT,…” with the throne of the Papacy and extends the ideation to cover Revelation 14:8.
But in this critical author’s exegesis, “BABYLON THE GREAT, Mother of Harlots” cannot be Rome or the Papacy (although the Papacy was just as deceitful and degenerate as the Assyrian prototype). The accusatory Babylon of Revelation is a symbolic substitution for Jerusalem, as the electorate of Jerusalem (or perhaps the Temple authority) was sinfully accused with the historic but idolatrous Chaldean Babylon. The Biblical reference (Rev. 17:5) concerns a woman in verse 6: a woman, “…drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus…” How could one imagine The Pope to make war against the adherents of the early first century, when the Pope had not yet been invented! However, the woman did not sit on Seven Hills (mountains), but she sat on Seven Ages. These were inherited characteristics consistent with the evils postulated as a reflection of Babylon. Immediately, with only a few passages in verse, the Ages (mountains) are described as the Seven Heads of the Beast (Rev. 17:10).
Hislop derives much of his deductions from mythological tracts too numerous to list, but the main contributors are Saturn (Str) and a mix of Chaldean, Roman, Greek and Egyptian myths, as well as drawing on Biblical characters such as Cush, Nimrod. , and other quotes. From these he weaves a story that is all too easy to understand and somehow leads to impressions of Bible prophecy. Hislop assumes an affinity between mythological nominalism and Biblical principles; however, he subscribes to an omnipotent deity and joins the modernist futurisms.
How could that be? Of course, the Hebrew God had no form or image; images were prohibited in the prescribed order; therefore, if there is any credibility in the Hebrew concept of Jehovah, we cannot expect metaphysical ideation to receive the contribution of foreign images. While idolatrous images were adopted from time to time, their deviation from orthodoxy was called adultery or idolatry; ie: if the Hebrews violated their man-woman relationship with God-Tribal Nations (strangely, the Sadducees’ question in Matthew 22:25 epitomizes this relationship). .
Hislop criticizes December 25 as unbecoming the Messiah’s birthday! Ben Winter suggests: If Herod died in 4 B.C. C., after the decree to kill children who met a particular criteria, and during which Joseph, Mary, and Jesus escaped to Egypt, this exegete can find no problem with December 25 (5 B.C.) as the date of birth of Jesus. The controversy that describes December as an inopportune time to graze sheep, in the countryside, is as preposterous as any other to deny the time frame proposed by tradition. Sheep and other animals must graze in a less sophisticated society, in good weather. How else could they find sustenance? Buy hay at the feed store? December 25 may be incorrect, but Hislop and other exegetes have not proved the point.
On page 111, Hislop describes the fruit eaten by Eve as morally evil and vile. This ideation is far from being the only evidence capable of attesting to the reality of the activity. By ‘participating in the prohibition’, Eve was imbued with understanding and was able to differentiate between good and evil. Wrong again, Mr Hislop! Eve did not eat immoral fruits; there was no fruit, only a choice of disposition.
Petitio principii, Hislop names relevant principals in the introduction to Chapter VII; however, he fails to obtain the identity of the Great Red Dragon (Rev. 12) and goes to great lengths to conform the Biblical riddle with mythological parallels, even untenable Biblical characterizations, finally assigning the Dragon as the poor innocent Pope (innocent only in this instance). The Great Red Dragon is entirely a symbol of Babylon, Egypt, Beast, Behemoth, Harlot, Israel, and the epitome of tribal heritage as interpreted by Horns, Heads, Crowns, mountains, spirits, chariots, carpenters, winds, horses. and else. other assignments substituted in the symbolism of the Ten Ages.
The sea, proposed as a literal sea, page 242, was rather a sea of people (Rev. 13:1). The Beast arose as a substitute representation of the recalcitrant peoples, and the Earth produced a parallel rise in Revelation 13:11.
Page 263-265, Section IV, refers to the Image of the Beast. The ancient, mythological, and hierophantic reference directs Hislop down the same old path of Catholicism, back to Madonna (Mary). Furthermore, Hislop equates the “beast that had a sword wound and survived” with Semel, and thus by a circuitous route to the Virgin Mary. How imaginative! And what a lie! According to Ben Winter’s exegesis, this particular beast imagery represents Israel as the Fifth Hebrew Age, the Age of the Divided Kingdom; whose sequenced Kingdom was nearly smitten to death (Jeremiah 30:14; Rev. 13:3, et al).
page 287 perpetuates THE TWO BABYLONS as ‘misnomer for Beast’; and in his own time, Hislop suggests that the time was ripening (1916) for the ‘last days’. Well, he only missed it for about 1800 years.
Page 287 describes popery as “Satan’s masterpiece.” So far, we have found little veracity in Hislop’s verbiage. Page 287 shows little difference.
Ben Winter suggests: Satan was a ‘conditional attitude’ manifested in the majority Hebrew, a confrontational behavior or affliction. That is! There is/was no strenuous animation with body in and out ability. It was an attitude only and must arise in the intellect of the offending parties, as narcissistic appreciation and deleterious adoptions.
We could find 10,000 errors in Mister Hislop’s exhibition; but that is unnecessary, and we do not wish to denigrate his earnest effort. But again, we must condemn the misleading apologetics of the sources in his Appendix. Even without historical exegesis, we refute the view that Noah’s grandson is said to have emerged as Menes, the Egyptian king (p. 294).
This critical author would praise Alexander Hislop for having an unusually rich background in mythology. However, he would not recommend the book as an aid to Bible interpretation or as a contribution to soteriological instruction, although one might enjoy the reading exercise.