Customer Reviews

The Babylon Connection?

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

Many years ago, Ralph Woodrow made a serious mistake. In his earnest desire to root out paganism in the Body of Christ, he took extremely seriously the work of the late Alexander Hislop "The Two Babylons". Mr. Woodrow took this work so seriously that he wrote his own work "Babylon Mystery Religion". Being that Mr. Woodrow is a 20th century American, rather than a 19th century Englishman, many American readers found his work more accessible than Rev. Hislop's.

Then, something happened. Mr. Woodrow discovered, through a long process of prayer and historical research, that Rev. Hislop's book was inaccurate -- inaccurate to the point of being fraudulant. Mr. Woodrow COULD have taken the easy way out. After all, anti-Catholic books sell like hotcakes in certain sectors.

But Mr. Woodrow has the true integrity of a Christian gentleman. When he discovered -- beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that the information in his earlier work was incorrect, he withdrew that book from publication (at some personal expense) and wrote this volume to explain the whys and wherefores.

The result was predictable. Many of Mr. Woodrow's "friends" turned on him. (Just take a look at the tenor of some of the other reviews, and you'll see what I mean!) But other Christians, recognizing integrity in a man (whom they still disagree with on other issues -- like myself) choose to give credit where credit is due.

Now I am not a Roman Catholic -- and never have been. But as a trained historian, I have been shocked and saddened at much of what purports to be research directed against the Catholic Church. I'm glad to see one man willing to say "I was wrong".

God bless you, Mr. Woodrow. May you increase in faith and godly wisdom.

Marcus Garvey said a people without knowledge of their history is like a tree without roots. The same is true for people who believe FALSE histories like the ones presented in Alexander Hislop's "Two Babylons" & Ralph Woodrow's "Babylon Mystery Religion"; people who believe such false histories are like a house built on sand.

As a previous reviewer said, it takes a very honest, very humble, and very courageous man to not only admit his mistakes, but publicly refute them. This book proves Woodrow's honesty, humility, and courage. I do hope, like that earlier reviewer, that this brave effort will inspire other pseudo-historians to get on the right track.

After reading this book, readers should begin to read the actual writings of ancient Christians directly. Start with "Early Christian Writings" translated by Andrew Louth and published by Penguin (ISBN: 0140444750). Be sure to check out "On the Incarnation: The Treatise De Incarnatione Verbi Dei" by Athanasius of Alexandria (ISBN: 0913836400). Secondary literature should include "Early Christian Doctrines" by J.N.D. Kelly (ISBN: 006064334X), "The Cruelty of Heresy: An Affirmation of Christian Orthodoxy" by C. Fitzsimons Allison (ISBN: 0819215139), "Reading Scripture With the Church Fathers" by Christopher A. Hall (ISBN: 0830815007), "Learning Theology With the Church Fathers" by Christopher A. Hall (ISBN: 0830826866), and the "Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture" series.

Count the works cited in the bibliography of Mr. Woodrow's original book, "Mystery Babylon Religion". You will find over 80 different sources. Now Mr. Woodrow writes a whole book (this one) in an effort to discredit his first book and the approach he takes is to call the scholarship of only 1 (Hislop) of his 80+ sources into question. What about all the other 79+ sources? Hello? Wouldn't he have to discredit ALL of them? Isn't that an obvious point?

That one can pick up any encyclopedia, even a Catholic one and see that these practices are rooted in paganism proves that Mr. Woodrow was right the first time.

As for all you Catholic apologists that I see making comments here, is the New Catholic Encyclopedia a good enough reference for you? In the 2003 edition, vol. 3, article on "Christmas and it's Cycle" we read the following quotes:

"...the origins of the Nativity feast may be found in a series of striking parallels between the heliocentric religion of the late Roman Empire and the Christmas feast: 1) December 25 was the date of the winter soltice on the Julian calendar. As monotheism made in-roads into Roman culture, the solstice was celebrated as the birthday of the sun god: first MITHRAS, a private cult of male devotees imported from Persia, and later Sol Invictus, who was placed at the head of the pantheon of official Roman state gods by the emporer Aurelian in 274 as a symbolic representation of centralized imperial power. 2) Since the Nativity feast was instituted no earlier than 243, and no later than 336, this would have coincided with the rise of imperial solar worship."

"...Christmas represents an appropriation by Christians of the Roman feast of the birth of the Invincible Sun at the winter solstice,"

These quotes are word for word from a Catholic source, openly admitting their practice of adopting pagan practices and adding it to the religion of Christ. This is from the horse's mouth, so to speak. But where did God ever say that we are to do such a thing - to mix in paganism with what He has commanded? If you have "The Church" and their human leaders (who claim to speak on behalf of God) as your ultimate authority, then it will be no problem for you when they do such things as mixing in paganism, which God has expressly forbidden in His word, the Bible. But if your ultimate authority is God Himself and you wish to follow Him, then you will follow what the scriptures say and you will reject the assertions of usurpers who claim to speak on behalf of God and who utter contrary pronouncements. No, the Catholic Church does not have the authority to change what the word of God says. We will all be judged by those very same words of God at the judgement seat of Christ. So take heed and act accordingly.

The main purpose of this book is to show that The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop lacks some historical credibility. To me he does not conclusively prove that Hislop's thesis was false, but rather that Hislop stretched the evidence at times. I can agree after reading Woodrow's book that Hislop overstated his argument which does hurt his credibility. This book does not prove that Hislop was wrong in his main thesis, just that Hislop does not always have solid historical backing for everything he has said. There is a wide array of evidence from authoritative historical quotations to pictoral documentation that Hislop's main thesis is correct--that medieval Christianity derived much of its rite, ceremony, tradition, etc. from paganism. Woodrow unfortunately ignores this mass of documentation to find fault with Hislop's minor points. Woodrow's book is interesting and worth reading for another perspective, but fails to prove that paganism with its Babylonian source did not highly influence medieval Christianty down to our time.

When Ralph Woodrow published Babylon Mystery Religion in 1966, it instantly became a mainstay within the fundamentalist subculture in America. Based upon the Alexander Hislop's 19th century polemical treatise The Two Babylons, the book updated Hislop's nonsensical thesis that the historic beliefs and practices of the Church were inherited from pagan Babylonian worship under Nimrod. Although both books had the Catholic Church as their primary target, many of their assertions applied to other churches as well. It seemed to matter little to either Webber or his audience that Hislop's work had no basis in fact and was never taken seriously by any student of Church history.

As is commonly the case with fundamentalists, the truth did not get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. Weaving an absurd tale reminiscent of other types of conspiratorial drivel, Woodrow (like Hislop before him) combined incredibly bad scholarship, paranoid delusions, and pure bigotry in an unseemly concoction lacking even a rudimentary understanding of historical developments within the Church. This is where one would expect it to end - another entry in the "antichrist of the month" sweepstakes spoon fed to those who do have neither the knowledge nor the discernment to see past the smokescreen of their insulated belief system.

What few on either side of the debate counted on was the personal integrity of Ralph Woodrow. It turns out Woodrow simply trusted Hislop's account without checking the sources himself. This is often a problem with crackpot ideas - while those who know better don't waste their time answering such nonsense, others without the proper background to judge the claims are fooled and often write new books based on these erroneous secondary sources. Such was the case with Woodrow until, in a dialogue with a critic of his original book, he unexpectedly agreed to investigate the veracity of Hislop's sources. When he did, he was shocked by what he found - Woodrow's worldview evaporated before his eyes as he discovered Hislop had fabricated his evidence. Woodrow quickly withdrew his book from publication and subsequently released this book as a refutation of Hislop's (and his own) work.

The Babylon Connection? is a devastating critique of Hislop and his many imitators. Almost from the first page, the shoddy scholarship, blatant dishonesty, and personal prejudices of Alexander Hislop become quite evident. By the end of the first chapter, none except those suffering from the "black helicopters over America" paranoia could possibly view Hislop as anything but a crackpot and a fraud. Woodrow presses on, however, and in painstaking detail demonstrates the complete lack of scholarly integrity exhibited by Hislop in his book. As one who was formerly believed Hislop to be a credible source, Woodrow understands the mindset of this subculture and he systematically destroys their delusions. When it is over, there is nothing of Hislop's rhetorical edifice left standing.

There are a few weaknesses in the book. For one thing, while Woodrow refutes the thesis of pagan origins, he never bothers to uncover the connection of the early Church to the disputed beliefs and practices. He still operates in the Christianity of modern America and not the first century Middle East. The vista is still that of a narrow Evangelicalism - but without the bigotry and paranoia. While this is a considerable move forward, there are still obvious weaknesses in his view of Christian origins. The other issue is that he seemingly lets Hislop and others like him off the hook by still recognizing him as an otherwise orthodox Christian. Perhaps this is an appeal to unity, but there is little hope for any reconciliation with those who remain Hislop's supporters. While the eternal destiny of Alexander Hislop (or anyone else) must be left to God, we must take pause at claiming as a brother someone who fruits included slandering the Church of history, holding the beliefs and practices of the early Church to be of Satan, engaging in religious bigotry and overt racism (documented by Woodrow himself), and bringing greater division within the body of Christ. There is also the fact that Hislop's book has fostered in many Christians a delusional view of the world and an entry into sects that are damaging both spiritually and psychologically.

Despite these faults, Woodrow must be praised for his honesty in withdrawing a financially successful book from publication. Given the many "end times" writers who edit and reissue their works after failed predictions, such a display of personal integrity is indeed rare. Woodrow also has faced severe criticism from fundamentalists and many have claimed that Rome "got to him" (such utter paranoia is perfectly representative of their loose grip on reality). Woodrow has undoubtedly suffered by disavowing his previous work - but with The Babylon Connection? he can hold his head high as one who put God before mammon.

It takes a very honest, very humble man to not only admit his mistakes, but publicly refute them. We can only hope that this brave effort will inspire other pseudo-historians to get on the right track.Comparable, in many ways, to McGoldrick's _Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History_.

This book isn't as good as it should be, but it will do. I give him five stars, partly for content, but mostly for the guts to refute his own earlier book. He was willing to take financial loss for the sake of doing what was right. However, I also give this five stars for sticking a bur in the saddle of all those people who love Hislop's book (who ignorantly assert that Woodrow has given in to the Catholic Church, been deceived, or some such - utterly neglecting his criticism of it in the last chapter).

Content quality of the book only rates three stars, for not going as far in dismantling Hislop as one could. It is long on critique of Hislop's argumentation, but more could be done. It is also long on critique of Hislop's history. Again, more could be done. His analysis of Hislop's overreaching in equating one pagan deity with a long litany of others is completely valid. But he neglects that neighboring cultures would sometimes adopt aspects of a particular deity to one of their own. This was also true between conquerors and the conquered. That said, it may be true that two different cultures have gods of fertility; yet this does not make them the same diety. It merely means that in each culture there is a god who has that substance under his control and patronage. The god Frey is not the same as the goddess Aphrodite, though they share some similar responsibilities.

Woodrow does a fair job showing the problem Hislop's reasoning leads to when applied to Christianity. He could well have taken this argument much further regarding New Testament Christianity. He could have done even more with respect to Old Testament Judaism, if only he'd been more aware of Canaanite religion. [What? Our God uses the same titles as a pagan god for Himself? Yes. And He uses a temple, animal, grain, and wine sacrifices, washings, anointing, a lunar calendar, harvest celebrations, etc., even though the pagans already use these? Yes.] He also fails to show how much of what Protestants condemn in Catholicism is deeply connected to Jewish culture; or what Luther and Calvin still held in common with Catholics, which Zwinglian and Anabaptist off-shoots reject. But his objective remains to refute the Hislop's pile of hooey, not to defend Catholicism. Overall, his criticisms of Hislop could be much, much more devastating.

Woodrow's critique of Catholicism is just one chapter, and (as a reviewing Catholic pointed out) lacks some depth in understanding on particular issues. However, it still puts on the table some of the concerns Protestants have about Catholicism.

Those who think Woodrow missed the point that the Catholic Church did all these conversions of pagan practices over to Christianity miss the point of Woodrow's book. That said, they also seem to have missed at least the first four centuries of Christian history, from the writings of the early fathers, to the prayers written in the Catacombs. Hot button issues like the persecution of Protestants also have nothing to do with the point of this book. However, we should remember that Protestants did their own share of persecution (and theft) against Catholics in countries that became Protestant - not to mention persecuting each other. [Side note: There is no "scarlet thread" of martyred non-Catholic Christians through the centuries, no Protestants-but-for-the-name being persecuted by the Catholic Church. There were just heretics and wackos, until the Reformation. Even the Waldenses do not pass muster as "Bible believing Protestants."]

This book could indeed have been a lot more meaty. But it suffices for the day.

Give this to Woodrow: He is the only Christian author I have ever seen who was honest enough to admit he was wrong, pull is own best-selling book, and write a brief refutation of it. He did this knowing that it would mean the subsequent loss of his great popularity, as well as paid speaking engagements, and mountains of cash in future sales and sequels (like modern end-times gurus churn out in grotesque quantities). That, brothers and sisters, is a Christian man of character and honor.

If you have a choice between Hislop's and this one, buy this one. It may not grip you fantazmagorical insights of the vast Catholic conspiracy, but it will give you truth.

It's not often an author has the courage to publish a catalogue of how he was hoodwinked by pseudo-scholarship and bunkum history, yet Ralph Woodrow has done just this in "Bablyon Connection?" That he has done so in the hot-house of anti-catholic polemic is even more remarkable. This short reflection pours cold water on many outrageous and blasphemous "religion of Babylon" claims against the church founded by Christ.

Not that Woodrow has swum the Tiber, mind you -- he still doesn't understand Catholic devotions to the mother of Jesus (which are utterly Christo-centric) and is critical of prayers like the rosary (p116). He claims, for example, that the Bible doesn't say Mary if "full of grace" (as in the Ave) but that this refers to Jesus (Jn 1:14). Perhaps his English translation of Lk 1:28 is less faithful to the Greek, which read 'chaire, kecharitomenai, ho Kurios meta sou' -- to which the catholic version of the angelic salutation is faithful.

All said, this is a worthwhile booklet to get, if only to see just how astonishingly bizarre (and groundless) the inventions of people like Hislop, Woodrow (in his earlier work), Freke and numerous others are. Bravo!

. . .especially publically, and especially when such an admission costs money.

"Babylon Mystery Religion" is an Americanized, 20th century work based largely on the much more difficult "The Two Babylons" by Rev. Alexander Hislop. The basic thrust of the book is that the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church are based on the pagan religion practiced by Nimrod and ancient Babylon.

Upon being challenged by a friend familiar with ancient history, Woodrow went back, searched for facts, checked references, and came to the conclusion that Rev. Hislop's book -- and therefore his own earlier work -- was just plain unsupportable.

Mr. Woodrow's reaction was twofold. He withdrew his earlier book from publication and he wrote a rather in-depth retraction, pointing out exactly where he had done wrong in his earlier writings.

Like Augustine, in his "Retractions", Woodrow has come to realize that certain opinions held in his younger days needed to be corrected. Like Augustine, he corrected them. While one may still not agree with all of Mr. Woodrow's positions (this reviewer certainly does not) one must give him high marks for integrity.

I have been so blessed and so informed by brother Woodrow's work. What a refreshing breath of cool air in the madness of Evangelical extremism.

I had been woken up to the dangers of all this hype and hysteria and the many inconsistencies, half-truths (I assume unintentional), misinformation, assumptions and just down right lies by the work of one David Bercot (There had been others before that, but Bercot solidified these things in my mind) in a message entitled "How to Be a Thinking Christian", which is available at Scroll Publishing. So I was not shocked by the info in this book. I was already painfully aware of the fact that since the 70's many big name Evangelicals had been saying that the rapture was definitely going to take place within in the next five years, and that the Anti-Christ is definitely already alive on the earth somewhere. This had all culminated in the Y2K scare, and again, many big name prophecy "experts" including Chuck Missler were saying that Christ was going to return in the year 2000. What's the connection? Simply this: That lots of bits of information tossed together with some bad Biblical exposition can lead to some very bad conclusions. This has been the case with Hislop's "The Two Babylons"

So many Christians I know have bought into the total fabrications of "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop, and I was one of them even though I had never read the book. The information in Hislop's book has been doing the rounds probably for over 100 years or more, and it is so sad that those who claim to be truth seekers (Evangelicals) are the ones who by into the biggest most obvious forgeries. These types of things are usually some historical truths laced with lies and assumptions. it is my firm conviction that the KJV Onlyist fits right into this camp. They see some evidence here, make a few assumptions there and hey presto!

What should I say about the book? It probably has been said in the other reviews. All I can say is if you have read Hislop's book or if you have been spoon fed his information through your pastor or your favourite ministry then you MUST read this book. But please, read it with an open mind. Be ready to have your foundation shaken. If it is solid rock then it cannot be moved. If it is sand then you are blessed that you found out and move off it!

What Woodrow has understood (and I also) is that facts must be allowed to speak for themselves. The essence of the entire message presented in this book is for me found in this sentence from the book:

"Hislop builds on some vague similarity, forming conclusions that are not verified by the source material he cites" P.93 This is found to be the case over and over. Hence the question mark at the end of the title. Woodrow is asking in essence "where is the connection?@ There are some vague similarities, but you need more than that to win the case.

The conclusion is obvious for anyone looking. The "evidence" that Hislop provides in "The Two Babylons" would not, I believe, stand up in a court of law. It would be laughed out of the courtroom.

I do have a few issues with Woodrow's conclusions though. And this is where the, I think, his detractors have their biggest case against him. I do agree with his basic premise, an example of which could be given as thus:

If it was discovered that an ancient tribe of cannibals used to brush there teeth in worship to their evil deity, that does not mean that brushing your teeth is therefore equal to idolatry.

I think anyone would agree with this. It is also ludicrous to claim that people are committing idolatry who put a tree in their house and decorate it at Christmas time. However, we are not talking about something simple like brushing our teeth. We're talking about how we are to worship the Lord. Is what we are doing part of our worship and has God ordained it?

The Lord says in Deuteronomy 12:32 ""Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." So we should only worship the Lord in the way that He prescribes, yet the very word Elohim used as a name of God is used by pagans. The name Logos used in John's Gospel was of pagan origin, so let's not be so quick as to throw it all out. Let us be careful to worship the Lord in the way He has told us to. The main issue then, and I think Woodrow misses this is not whether something can be found to be pagan or not, but whether or not it is pleasing to God. And you cannot find anywhere in the Bible or the first 300 hundred years of Christianity the celebration of Christmas. It is not so important whether pagans used trees in their celebrations. God could have utilized them, but whether God has authorized their use or not. I feel like I'm rabbling here, but I hope I'm making sense.