The Trinity according to Alexander Hislop—In His Own Words
https://bib.irr.org/trinity-according-alexander-hislop-in-his-own-words
The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology
https://www.equip.org/articles/the-two-babylons/
The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology
However, this book should be approached with caution due to its speculative methodology and lack of scholarly rigor. Hislop draws tenuous connections between ancient Babylonian paganism and Roman Catholic practices, often relying on superficial similarities rather than solid historical evidence. This approach can lead to misconceptions and distract from the clear teachings of Scripture. Seminaries emphasize the importance of sound biblical exegesis and credible historical research, warning that Hislop’s work can lead students astray by promoting unfounded theories rather than truth grounded in the Bible. Additionally, while The Two Babylons addresses the important issue of syncretism, it does so in a way that lacks the necessary scholarly foundation, making it an unreliable resource for serious theological study and discussion.
Identifying the Flawed and Speculative Methodology
Hislop’s The Two Babylons often falls into the trap of speculative minutiae, drawing tenuous connections between Catholic practices and ancient Babylonian paganism. His method involves identifying superficial similarities and then asserting causation without robust evidence. This approach can distract believers from the clear teachings of Scripture and lead them into unnecessary and unfounded controversies, which Scripture warns against (1 Timothy 1:4).
As previously discussed, The Two Babylons is riddled with logical fallacies such as post hoc ergo propter hoc, false cause, and hasty generalization. These fallacies weaken the credibility of Hislop’s arguments and illustrate the dangers of building doctrinal or historical claims on speculative connections rather than sound biblical exegesis and reliable historical evidence.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (After This, Therefore Because of This): Hislop often assumes that because two practices or symbols resemble each other, one must have caused the other. He claims that many Catholic traditions originated from Babylonian practices simply due to superficial similarities, without solid historical evidence of direct influence.
False Cause (Correlation vs. Causation): Hislop draws connections between Catholic rituals and pagan practices, suggesting causation where only correlation might exist. He fails to account for other possible explanations for these similarities, such as independent cultural developments.
Hasty Generalization: Hislop frequently makes broad claims about the Catholic Church based on selective or isolated examples. He generalizes from a few supposed parallels, ignoring the complex history and theology behind Catholic traditions.
Confirmation Bias: Hislop selectively interprets evidence that supports his thesis while ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts it. This approach skews his conclusions and undermines the credibility of his arguments.
Appeal to Tradition: Hislop appeals to the authority of early Protestant reformers and their criticisms of the Catholic Church without critically examining the validity of these critiques in the light of historical evidence.
These logical fallacies weaken Hislop’s arguments, making The Two Babylons less credible from a rigorous, truth-seeking biblical perspective.
https://www.bibletruths.org/critical-review-of-alexander-hislops-the-two-babylons/
https://bib.irr.org/trinity-according-alexander-hislop-in-his-own-words
The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology
https://www.equip.org/articles/the-two-babylons/
The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology
However, this book should be approached with caution due to its speculative methodology and lack of scholarly rigor. Hislop draws tenuous connections between ancient Babylonian paganism and Roman Catholic practices, often relying on superficial similarities rather than solid historical evidence. This approach can lead to misconceptions and distract from the clear teachings of Scripture. Seminaries emphasize the importance of sound biblical exegesis and credible historical research, warning that Hislop’s work can lead students astray by promoting unfounded theories rather than truth grounded in the Bible. Additionally, while The Two Babylons addresses the important issue of syncretism, it does so in a way that lacks the necessary scholarly foundation, making it an unreliable resource for serious theological study and discussion.
Identifying the Flawed and Speculative Methodology
Hislop’s The Two Babylons often falls into the trap of speculative minutiae, drawing tenuous connections between Catholic practices and ancient Babylonian paganism. His method involves identifying superficial similarities and then asserting causation without robust evidence. This approach can distract believers from the clear teachings of Scripture and lead them into unnecessary and unfounded controversies, which Scripture warns against (1 Timothy 1:4).
As previously discussed, The Two Babylons is riddled with logical fallacies such as post hoc ergo propter hoc, false cause, and hasty generalization. These fallacies weaken the credibility of Hislop’s arguments and illustrate the dangers of building doctrinal or historical claims on speculative connections rather than sound biblical exegesis and reliable historical evidence.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (After This, Therefore Because of This): Hislop often assumes that because two practices or symbols resemble each other, one must have caused the other. He claims that many Catholic traditions originated from Babylonian practices simply due to superficial similarities, without solid historical evidence of direct influence.
False Cause (Correlation vs. Causation): Hislop draws connections between Catholic rituals and pagan practices, suggesting causation where only correlation might exist. He fails to account for other possible explanations for these similarities, such as independent cultural developments.
Hasty Generalization: Hislop frequently makes broad claims about the Catholic Church based on selective or isolated examples. He generalizes from a few supposed parallels, ignoring the complex history and theology behind Catholic traditions.
Confirmation Bias: Hislop selectively interprets evidence that supports his thesis while ignoring or dismissing evidence that contradicts it. This approach skews his conclusions and undermines the credibility of his arguments.
Appeal to Tradition: Hislop appeals to the authority of early Protestant reformers and their criticisms of the Catholic Church without critically examining the validity of these critiques in the light of historical evidence.
These logical fallacies weaken Hislop’s arguments, making The Two Babylons less credible from a rigorous, truth-seeking biblical perspective.
https://www.bibletruths.org/critical-review-of-alexander-hislops-the-two-babylons/
