Day 2781 – Theology Thursday – A Critical Examination of Alexander Hislop: Why His Teachings Should Be Ignored

Welcome to Day 2781 of Wisdom-Trek, and thank you for joining me. This is Guthrie Chamberlain, Your Guide to Wisdom – Theology Thursday – A Critical Examination of Alexander Hislop: Why His Teachings Should Be Ignored Wisdom-Trek Podcast Script - Day 2781 Welcome to Wisdom-Trek with Gramps! I am Guthrie Chamberlain, and we are on Day 2781 of our Trek. The Purpose of Wisdom-Trek is to create a legacy of wisdom, to seek out discernment and insights, and to boldly grow where few have chosen to grow before. Our current series of Theology Thursday lessons is written by theologian and teacher John Daniels. I have found that his lessons are short, easy to understand, doctrinally sound, and applicable to all who desire to learn more of God’s Word. John’s lessons can be found on his website theologyinfive.com. Today’s lesson is titled A Critical Examination of Alexander Hislop: Why His Teachings Should Be Ignored. Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons has long held sway in certain evangelical and fundamentalist circles. Its central claim—that Roman Catholicism is a disguised continuation of ancient Babylonian paganism—has influenced generations of Christians suspicious of the Catholic Church. Hislop argues that practices and symbols within Catholicism were derived from ancient worship of figures like Nimrod and Semiramis. Yet as modern scholarship has consistently demonstrated, these claims collapse under scrutiny. This article examines why Hislop’s theories are deeply flawed, historically inaccurate, and ultimately harmful. The first segment is: A Foundation of Faulty Methodology. From the outset, Hislop’s work suffers from methodological failure. Rather than employing credible historical sources, linguistic analysis, or archaeological evidence, Hislop leans heavily on speculation and forced connections. He draws parallels based on little more than superficial similarity—treating visual resemblance or name echoes as definitive proof of religious continuity. A striking example is Hislop’s attempt to link the Virgin Mary with the Babylonian figure Semiramis. Rather than relying on historical context or primary sources, he builds his case on tenuous similarities and conjecture. This pattern repeats throughout the book. Hislop’s conclusions are based on circular reasoning, and his work lacks the kind of critical evaluation expected in even the most basic academic research. The second segment is: Inventing the Nimrod-Semiramis Narrative. At the core of Hislop’s argument is the narrative that Nimrod and Semiramis served as the original model for all pagan deities and that this archetype was smuggled into Christianity. According to Hislop, the Catholic portrayal of Mary and Jesus as a mother and child pair is simply a continuation of Babylonian goddess worship. This idea, however, has no basis in historical fact. There is no ancient evidence linking Nimrod, a biblical figure mentioned briefly in Genesis, to Semiramis, who appears centuries later in Assyrian and Greco-Roman sources. Semiramis is never presented as Nimrod’s wife in any ancient record. Nor is she depicted as a fertility goddess or a “Queen of Heaven” in a context that would support Hislop’s claims. Instead, she is often described as a powerful queen or military leader, not a religious figure. The pairing of Nimrod and Semiramis is entirely Hislop’s invention. Furthermore, Nimrod himself is not attested in any ancient Mesopotamian inscriptions as a god, cult figure, or object of worship. Hislop’s claim that Nimrod became the prototype for gods such as Osiris, Zeus, or...