In the bibliography of THE TWO BABYLONS, Alexander Hislop draws on a vast and diverse experience. Most of the bibliographical reference is alien to this writer, but his pneumatological and mythological subject 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 convictions perpetuated in traditional song.
On page one, author Hislop posits a serious misconception in attempts to establish Babylonian identity. 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 the Apocalypse is a symbolic substitution for Jerusalem, since the electorate of Jerusalem (or perhaps the Temple authority) was sinfully accused with the historical 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 wage 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 posited as a reflection of Babylon. Immediately, with only a few verse passages, 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 relate, but the main contributors are Saturn (Str) and a mixture 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 all too easy to understand and which somehow leads to impressions of Bible prophecy. Hislop supposes 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 to 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; that is: if the Hebrews violated their male-female relationship with God-Tribal Nations (strangely, the Sadducees’ question in Matthew 22:25 epitomizes this relationship). .
Hislop criticizes December 25 as inappropriate for 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 criterion, and during which Joseph, Mary and Jesus escaped to Egypt, this exegete cannot find any problem with December 25 (5 B.C.) as the birth date of Jesus. The controversy that describes December as an inopportune time to graze sheep, in the field, 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 wrong, but Hislop and other exegetes have not proven 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 ban’, Eva 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, just 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 enigma 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 symbolic of Babylon, Egypt, Beast, Behemoth, Harlot, Israel and the epitome of tribal heritage as interpreted in the Horns, Heads, Crowns, mountains, spirits, chariots, carpenters, winds, horses and the rest. 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 emergence in Revelation 13:11.
Page 263-265, Section IV, refers to the Image of the Beast. The ancient, mythological, and hierophantic reference points 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 tortuous 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 wounded almost to death (Jeremiah 30:14; Rev. 13:3, et al).
page 287 perpetuates THE TWO BABYLONS as ‘misnomer of Beast’; and in his own time, Hislop suggests that the time was ripening (1916) for the ‘last days’. Well, he only missed it by about 1800 years.
Page 287 describes popery as “Satan’s masterpiece.” So far, we have found little truth in Hislop’s gibberish. Page 287 shows little difference.
Ben Winter suggests: Satan was a ‘conditional attitude’ manifested in the Hebrew majority, a confrontational behavior or affliction. That is! There is/was no strenuous animation with bodily in/out capability. 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 exposition; 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 claimed to have emerged as Menes, the Egyptian king (page 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 could be entertained by the reading exercise.