Muokataan osiota sivusta The Two Babylons (kirja)

== Kritiikkiä ==

Ralph Woodrow kirjoitti nuorena evankelikaalina ja Hislopin teoksen innoittamana oman kirjansa aiheesta vuonna 1966, mutta päätyi tämän seurauksena myöhemmin itse tarkistamaan monia Hislopin esittämiä väitteitä, tullen lopulta siihen tulokseen että Hislop on aivan itse keksinyt monet Babylonian muinaisuskoa koskevat väitteensä: 

{{lainaus|Many preferred my book over The Two Babylons because it was easier to read and understand. Sometimes the two books were confused with each other, and once I even had the experience of being greeted as “Reverend Hislop”! As time went on, however, I began to hear rumblings that Hislop was not a reliable historian. I heard this from a history teacher and in letters from people who heard this perspective expressed on the Bible Answer Man radio program. Even the Worldwide Church of God began to take a second look at the subject. As a result, I realized I needed to go back through Hislop’s work, my basic source, and prayerfully check it out.

As I did this, it became clear: Hislop’s “history” was often only an arbitrary piecing together of ancient myths. He claimed Nimrod was a big, ugly, deformed black man. His wife, Semiramis, was a beautiful white woman with blond hair and blue eyes. But she was a backslider known for her immoral lifestyle, the inventor of soprano singing and the originator of priestly celibacy. He said that the Babylonians baptized in water, believing it had virtue because Nimrod and Semiramis suffered for them in water; that Noah’s son Shem killed Nimrod; that Semiramis was killed when one of her sons cut off her head, and so on. I realized that no recognized history book substantiated these and many other claims.

The subtitle for Hislop’s book is “The Papal Worship Proved to Be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.” Yet when I went to reference works such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, The Americana, The Jewish Encyclopedia, The Catholic Encyclopedia, The Worldbook Encyclopedia – carefully reading their articles on “Nimrod” and “Semiramis” — not one said anything about Nimrod and Semiramis being husband and wife. They did not even live in the same century. Nor is there any basis for Semiramis being the mother of Tammuz. I realized these ideas were all Hislop’s inventions.|Ralph Woodrow<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.equip.org/articles/the-two-babylons/ |title=The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology| author = Ralph Woodrow |format= |work= |accessdate=26.12.2022}}</ref>}}

Myös Tim O'Neill toteaa, että monesti Hislop yksinkertaisesti väittää asioita ilman minkäänlaisia lähteitä:
{{lainaus|And where Hislop was unable to come up with evidence he simply makes strings of assertions, like “Nimrod was born on December 25” or “Christmas tree baubles are Babylonian sun symbols” – none of which have the slightest substantiation. -- Hislop seems to be the ultimate point of origin for the claims that Ishtar and Eostre were the original source of Easter, thanks to the wickedness of Catholics and, of course, Satan.|Tim O'Neill<ref>{{cite web |url=https://historyforatheists.com/2017/04/easter-ishtar-eostre-and-eggs/ |title=Easter, Ishtar, Eostre and Eggs| author = Tim O'Neill |format= |work= |accessdate=26.12.2022}}</ref>}}