Because some fundamentalists have criticized the Catholic Church by citing Ralph Woodrow’s first book, “Babylon Mystery Religion,” I share with you the following information from his new book The Babylon Connection?, in which Mr. Woodrow retracts and withdraws the book Babylon Mystery Religion from the market.

Woodrow writes:

“Early in my Christian experience, certain literature came into my hands which claimed that paganism had been blended into Christianity. While the Roman Catholic Church was generally the target, it seemed that other churches had likewise been contaminated by these customs and beliefs, for which pagan parallels could be found. “The Two Babylons” by Alexander Hislop (1807–1862), with its alarming subtitle, “The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife,” was the textbook on which much of this teaching was based.

Over the years, this book has affected the thinking of many people—people ranging all the way from those inside radical cults to the most dedicated Christians, who hunger for the moving of God and are concerned about anything that might hinder that flow.

Its basic premise is that the pagan religion of ancient Babylon has continued down to our own day, disguised as the Catholic Church, and that it is described in the book of Revelation as “Mystery, Babylon the Great”—hence the idea of TWO Babylons, one ancient and one modern. Because Hislop’s book is highly detailed, with a multitude of notes and references, I assumed, as many others did, that it rested on solid facts.

We quoted “Hislop” as an authority on paganism, just as one might have quoted “Webster” for the definitions of words.

As a young evangelist, I began to preach a sermon on the mixture of paganism with Christianity, and eventually I wrote a book based on Hislop, “Babylon Mystery Religion.” In a short time my book became very popular, went through many printings, and was translated into Korean, German, Spanish, Portuguese, and several other languages. I came to be regarded by some as an authority on this subject of pagan mixture.

Even a well-known Catholic writer, Karl Keating, noted that the best-known author on this subject was Ralph Woodrow, author of “Babylon Mystery Religion.”

Many preferred my book over “The Two Babylons” because it was easier to read and follow. At times the two books were even confused with each other. Letters praising my book arrived in a steady stream. Only now and then was there a dissenting voice. ONE WHO DID NOT AGREE was Scott Klemm, a high-school history teacher in Southern California.

Being himself a Christian, and appreciating other things I had written, he began to show me EVIDENCE THAT HISLOP WAS NOT A RELIABLE HISTORIAN.
Consequently, I realized that I needed to go back and review the work of Hislop, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out! As I did this, it became clear that Hislop’s history was frequently nothing but mythology.

Although myths may sometimes reflect events that actually happened, the arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths cannot provide a trustworthy basis for history.

Take enough tribes, enough tales, enough time; jump from one era to another, from one country to another; pick and choose similarities—why, almost anything could be “proved”!

The concern not to have anything pagan in our lives can be compared to a ship crossing a vast ocean. This concern has carried us in the right direction; but as we come to understand better what is truly pagan and what is not, a course correction is needed on our voyage.

This is not “turning back,” but a correction of course as we press on: “But the path of the just, as a shining light, goeth forwards and increaseth even to perfect day” (Prov. 4:18). Although we challenge some of Hislop’s claims in THE BABYLON CONNECTION, this was in no way intended as a personal attack upon him.

So far as we know, he was a dedicated Christian, a brother in Christ. Nor is it our aim in writing this book simply to discredit another book. Rather, it is our desire that this effort may help us to understand, may expound “the way of the Lord more diligently” (Acts 18:26), find a biblical balance, and glorify the One who said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6).”

Mr. Woodrow withdrew his book “Babylon Mystery Religion” from the market for the simple reason that he realized, in time, that he had been deceived by Mr. Hislop’s mythology.

In other words, anyone who promotes information from that book, knowing that its own author paid $$$ to take it off the market, is:

1. ignorant of Mr. Woodrow’s change of position,
2. or a liar who does not love the truth.

Get up to date, and do not bear witness to what Mr. Woodrow himself considers false—I mean, in general, all the information contained in his book “Babylon Mystery Religion.”

The Babylon Connection?

In his book “The Babylon Connection?”, on page 1 of the English edition, Mr. Woodrow says:

Suppose we could go back into the past, to the days of ancient Babylon. What kind of religion would we find being practiced there?

According to Alexander Hislop… we would find people attending Mass, eating a small round wafer, worshipping a cross, going to confession, being baptized with water for the remission of sins, burning wax candles, and bowing before a divine mother and child. We would notice that the places of worship had tower-like features, and that the priests, wearing a circular tonsure and dressed in black garments, gave the last rites to those who died, with monks and nuns in abundance. The Babylonians would be practicing essentially all the rites we know today in the Roman Catholic Church!

According to Hislop, it all began with Nimrod and his wife Semiramis—hence the subtitle of “The Two Babylons”: The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife. But whatever information about Nimrod and Semiramis appears in the best books of history is superficial. In the Bible, Nimrod, “the stout hunter,” is mentioned four times, and his wife is never mentioned at all. Such is the inherently weak thesis that the papal worship is the worship of Nimrod and his wife.

Hislop’s method of trying to produce history out of mythology is frequently contradictory. On page 78 of “The Two Babylons” Nimrod’s wife is his daughter; on page 78 she is his sister; on page 317 she is his mother; on page 307 Bacchus, supposedly the same as Nimrod, is called “Bimater,” a man with two mothers; on page 76 an unrelated myth is introduced about Heimdall of Scandinavia, “the son of nine virgins.” How much more confusion could there be? This is not profound truth; this is nonsense!

Mr. Woodrow, though not a Catholic, has matured. I believe that, as a Christian, he feels responsible for having misled many into believing the mythological falsehoods of Mr. Hislop, on whom he relied in writing his book “Babylon Mystery Religion.”

The Woman Who Was Clothed in Purple

Woodrow writes:

“In the book of Revelation, John describes a woman who was clothed round about with purple and scarlet, and gilt with gold, and adorned with precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of the abomination and filthiness of her fornication; and on her forehead a name written: MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF THE FORNICATIONS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. Revelation 17:4-5.

According to Hislop, this symbolic woman called “Mystery Babylon” represents the Roman Catholic Church. Many of us have held this position; but if we examine the evidence point by point, it is not as solid as we supposed.

“Mystery Babylon” is described as holding a cup in her hand (Rev. 17:4). Hislop tries to link this with Semiramis, adding a drawing entitled “The Woman with the Cup of Babylon.” (Hislop, p. 5)

But this hardly agrees with his own footnote on the very same page, which, citing Pliny, speaks of “the cup of Semiramis” as weighing 1,200 pounds.

Hislop explains that this drawing was reproduced from Kitto’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature. But when we check this source, Kitto says nothing about that woman with a cup being Semiramis—the drawing merely gives an idea of the kind of clothing the Babylonians wore. (Kitto’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, article “Babylon”)

A cup in itself is not an evil symbol, for in the book of Revelation the Lord too is represented as holding a cup! (Rev. 14:10; Rev. 16:19). “For in the hand of the Lord there is a cup” (Psalms 75:8). A cup is even used as a symbol of salvation! (Psalms 116:13). In the New Testament, “cup” (chalice) is used as a verbal symbol representing the blood shed by Christ (1 Cor. 10:16). “The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?” (1 Cor. 10:16).

The so-called harlot, “Mystery Babylon,” is “clothed round about with purple and scarlet” (Rev. 17:4). Some tend immediately to connect these colors with the bright and richly decorated vestments worn by the Pope and by others within the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. But, again, these colors provide no exclusive identification.

Purple and scarlet were used in the curtains of the tabernacle (Exodus 26:1), in the veil of the Temple (2 Chronicles 3:14), and in the garments worn by the Old Testament priests (Exodus 28:6, 8, 15). Lydia, a convert to Christianity, was a seller of purple (Acts 16:14). Proverbs mentions the household of the “virtuous woman,” who was clothed in purple (Prov. 31:22). Daniel—certainly no compromiser with worldly ways—was honored and clothed in purple (Dan. 5:29).”

Note: Mr. Ralph Woodrow is not a Catholic; he is an Evangelical!

Rome, the City of the Seven Hills

Woodrow writes:

“ “Mystery Babylon” is described as sitting in the midst of seven hills (Rev. 17:9). Hislop says that “to call Rome the city of the seven hills was by its citizens held to be as descriptive of it as its own proper name,” and thus “the Church which has its seat and headquarters on the seven hills of Rome might most appropriately be called ‘Babylon.’” … Elsewhere, Hislop describes the Pope as the one who sits enthroned upon the seven hills of Rome.

But it is on the Vatican hill that the Pope has his seat, the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church—and this hill is not one of the seven hills of Rome!

This district “did not belong to ancient Rome, nor was it included within the boundaries of the city walls built by the Emperor Aurelian.” Harper’s Bible Dictionary includes a map confirming this point.

The seven hills on which Rome was built are these: the Palatine, Capitoline, Quirinal, Aventine, Caelian, Esquiline, and Viminal hills. The Vatican hill, across the Tiber to the west, is not one of the seven.

It should also be added that the term this prophecy actually uses is “seven mountains.” The seven hills would hardly qualify as mountains; all of them are of minimal elevation. The highest is the Quirinal, at only 226 feet above sea level. St. Peter’s Basilica by itself—the building alone—is nearly twice that. I can speak of its height, for I myself climbed the stairs between the inner shell and the outer covering of the dome in 1978. It is 434 feet from the floor to the cross at the top.”

The Cross as Babylonian Symbolism

Woodrow writes:

“The cross is a symbol of the death of Christ, used everywhere by almost all Christian denominations. But Hislop claims that the cross really came from Babylon, and that it is the symbol of Tammuz: “The same sign of the cross that Rome now worships was used in the Babylonian Mysteries….”

Because of these teachings of Hislop, some have supposed that the Babylonians worshipped a cross, wore crosses hanging from their necks, and displayed crosses in their temples—all in honor of Tammuz. This is simply not true.

In other examples, Hislop says that the cross design was found on garments before the Christian era, and that the design of the cross was used in the ancient world.

This is no surprise; so, in the same way, were crescents, circles, squares, curves, rules, lines, wavy lines, angles, triangles, and their combinations. A book of decorative designs of the ancient world confirms this point with 3,064 drawings. There is no reason to suppose that the cross design was any more prominent than the others.

Even if, at some time or place, someone actually worshipped a cross as a symbol of Tammuz, still it was not Tammuz who died on the cross for our sins. No one has ever received Tammuz as his personal Savior and experienced a changed life. “If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away, behold all things are made new” (2 Cor. 5:17).

Early in my Christian experience, when I came to realize that the design of the cross had been used in pre-Christian times, and that the cross itself (as an instrument of death) was regarded as “the accursed tree,” an emblem of torture and “shame” (Heb. 12:2), I supposed that the cross could not be a Christian symbol. But this fails to take into account that what was evil can be made beautiful through Jesus Christ.

As Hastings’ Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics has expressed it: “The fact that Jesus suffered death on the cross has turned this infamous figure into a symbol of resurrection and salvation….”

The Round Wafer (the Host)

Woodrow writes:

“Hislop also taught—and many of us “repeated” his words—that the round wafer used in some churches at Communion services had a pagan origin.

Hislop says that the round wafer, whose very roundness is so important an element in the Romish Mystery, must have some meaning—and that it is only one thing more to show, to those who have eyes to see, that the wafer itself is just another symbol of Baal, or the sun.

What is Hislop insinuating—that centuries ago some Roman Catholic priests met in secret session and agreed to make the Communion wafers round in honor of the sun-god Baal?

“The importance which Rome attaches to the roundness of the wafer, must have a reason,” says Hislop, “and that reason will be found, if we look at the altars of Egypt. ‘The thin, round cake,’ says Wilkinson, ‘occurs on all altars.’” Wilkinson did indeed make this statement; but as he enlarges upon the point, he adds that the cakes were of a variety of every kind. Many were round, oval, or triangular, and others had folded edges; they also took the shape of leaves, or the form of an animal, or of a crocodile’s head, or some fanciful figure; and it was a frequent custom to sprinkle the cakes with seeds (particularly the round and oval ones). But Hislop did not trouble himself to give us this information!

The fact that the Egyptians made these thin round cakes is no surprise. So did the Israelites: “thin round cakes were baked on the hot sand or on flat stones.” These were called loaves in the Old Testament (Exodus 29:23; Judges 8:5, etc.), translated from a Hebrew word meaning circle or round—the same word used to describe a large round coin!

Another word translated “cakes” (Gen. 18:6; Exodus 12:39, etc.) is likewise based on the meaning “round.” The fact that “loaves,” “cakes,” or “wafers” were round does not make them evil.

Cakes were prepared by the Levites and used in the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the priesthood (Exodus 29:2, 23; Lev. 8:26), in the sacrifice of peace offerings (Lev. 2:4; 7:12), and in the offering of the Nazarites (Num. 6:15, 19). Had such examples appeared in a Babylonian book, Hislop might well have cited them as paganism…

While condemning the round Communion wafers as images of the sun-god Baal, Hislop forgets to mention that the very manna given by our Lord was round! “And when it had covered the face of the earth, it appeared in the wilderness small, and as it were beaten with a pestle, like unto the hoar frost on the ground. And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another: Manhu! which signifieth: What is this! for they knew not what it was. And Moses said to them: This is the bread, which the Lord hath given you to eat” (Exodus 16:14-15). Did God give His people a symbol of the sun-god Baal?

At the Last Supper, Jesus took bread… broke it… “Take ye, and eat” (1 Cor. 11:23-29). But this constitutes no “commandment” about the shape of the bread to be used, one way or the other. If we formed doctrines out of incidental details, one could argue that women should not receive Communion, since only men were present at the Last Supper!”

Mr. Woodrow, in one of his books (Christmas Reconsidered), now retracts what he said about Christmas in “Babylon Mystery Religion.”

Author and Translator: Efraín Ortega