In the bibliography of THE TWO BABYLONIES, Alexander Hislop uses an immense and diverse experience. Most of the bibliographic references are foreign to this writer, but his pneumatological and mythological theme 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 routine.
On page one, the author Hislop posits a grave misinterpretation in attempts to establish the identity of Babylon. He equates the symbology of Revelation 17: 5 “… MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, …” with the seat of the papacy and extends the ideation to cover Revelation 14: 8.
But in the exegesis of this critical author, “BABYLON THE GREAT, mother of harlots” cannot be Rome or the papacy (although the papacy was as deceptive and degenerate as the Assyrian prototype). The Babylonian accusatory Apocalypse is a symbolic substitution for Jerusalem, as Jerusalem’s constituency (or perhaps the Temple authority) was charged as synonymous with the historic but idolatrous Chaldean Babylon. The biblical reference (Revelation 17: 5) refers to a woman in verse 6: a woman, “… drunk with the blood of the saints and 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 the Seven Hills (mountains), but sat on the Seven Ages. These were inherited traits befitting the evils posed as a reflection of Babylon. Immediately, with only a few passages in verse, the Ages (mountains) are represented as Seven Heads of the Beast (Revelation 17:10).
Hislop derives many of his deductions from mythological extensions too numerous to relate, but the main contributors are Saturn (Str) and a mixture of Chaldean, Roman, Greek, and Egyptian myths, in addition to drawing on biblical characters such as Cush, Nimrod, and other nominations. . From them, he weaves a story that is too easily seen and that somehow leads to impressions of biblical prophecy. Hislop assumes an affinity between mythological nominalism and biblical principles; however, he subscribes to an omnipotent deity and joins the rank of modernist futurism.
How could it be like this? Of course, the Hebrew God had no form or images; images were prohibited in the prescribed order; therefore, if there is any credibility in the Hebrew concept of Jehovah, we cannot expect the metaphysical ideation to receive a contribution from foreign images. Although idolatrous images were adopted from time to time, their departure from orthodoxy was termed adultery or idolatry; that is: if the Hebrews violated their male-female relationship with God-Tribal Nations (strangely, the Sadducean question in Matthew 22:25 personifies this relationship). The interpretation of the Seven Dead Brothers and One Dead Wife have been misassigned for 2000 years. .
Hislop criticizes December 25 as inappropriate for the Messiah’s birthday! Ben Winter suggests: If Herod died in 4 BC. C., after the decree to kill children who met a particular criterion, and during which, Joseph, Mary and Jesus escaped to Egypt, this exegete can not find any problem with December 25 (5 BC) as the date of birth of Jesus. The controversy that describes December as an inopportune time to graze sheep, in the field, is as absurd as any to refute the time frame proposed by tradition. Sheep and other animals must be herded in a less sophisticated society, when the weather is good. How else could they find sustenance? Buy hay at the feed store? December 25 may be wrong, but Hislop and other exegetes have not proved it.
On page 111, Hislop describes the fruit Eve ate as morally bad and vile. This ideation is very far from the only evidence capable of giving testimony to the reality of the activity. By ‘participating in the prohibition’, Eva was permeated with understanding and was able to differentiate between good and evil. You are wrong again, Mr. Hislop! Eva did not eat immoral fruits; there was no fruit, just a choice of disposition.
Petitio principii, Hislop appoints the relevant directors in the introduction to Chapter VII; However, does he fail to obtain the identity of the Great Red Dragon (Revelation 12) and go too far to conform the biblical enigma with mythological parallels, even with unsustainable biblical characterizations, and finally assign the Dragon as a poor innocent Pope (innocent only in this case? example). The Great Red Dragon is completely symbolic of Babylon, Egypt, Beast, Behemoth, Harlot, Israel and the epitome of tribal heritage as interpreted by the Horns, Heads, Crowns, mountains, spirits, chariots, carpenters, winds, horses and others. . 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 emerged as a surrogate representation of recalcitrant peoples, and the Earth produced a parallel emergence in Revelation 13:11.
Pages 263-265, Section IV, refer to The Image of the Beast. Ancient, mythological, and hierophantic references lead Hislop down the same old path of Catholicism, back to Madonna (Mary). Furthermore, Hislop equates the “beast that was wounded by a sword and lived” with Semel, and thus by a tortuous route to the Virgin Mary. How imaginative! And how false! According to Ben Winter’s exegesis, this particular Image of the Beast represents Israel as the Fifth Hebrew Age, the Age of the Divided Kingdom; whose sequenced Kingdom was wounded almost to death (Jer. 30:14; Rev. 13: 3, et al).
Page 287 perpetuates THE TWO BABYLONIES as ‘Beast’s misnomer’; and in his own time, Hislop suggested that the time was becoming ripe (1916) for the “last days.” Well, he only lost it about 1800 years.
Page 287 describes the papacy 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 Hebrew majority, adversarial behavior or affliction. That’s! There is no extenuating animation with bodily in and out capability. It was just an attitude and was to arise in the offenders’ intellect, 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 your earnest endeavor. But, again, we must condemn the apologetics of misleading sources in its Appendix. Even without historical exegesis, we disprove the view that Noah’s grandson arose as Menes, the Egyptian king (page 294).
This review author would commend Alexander Hislop for having an unusually rich background in mythology. However, I would not recommend the book as an aid to the interpretation of the Bible or as a contribution to soteriological instruction, although one could be entertained by the reading exercise.