Few modern books have caused as much confusion about Christian history as Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons. First published in the nineteenth century, Hislop’s work claims that virtually every Christian doctrine and celebration derives from ancient Babylonian paganism. These claims continue to circulate through the internet, YouTube videos, and fringe ministries, especially when December approaches and the topic of Christmas arises.
The problem is simple and devastating. None of Hislop’s claims about Christmas stand up to scrutiny. They are not based on historical sources, linguistic evidence, or archaeological data. They are inventions, connected by imaginative leaps, circular logic, and nonexistent sources. This article demonstrates why Hislop’s claims about Christmas are fabricated and how real history exposes the flaws in his method.
Hislop’s Method: Connections Without Evidence
Hislop claimed that similarities between Christian practices and pagan practices proved direct borrowing. He assumed that if two customs happened to look alike, the Christian custom must have descended from the pagan one. He rarely cites primary sources, often misquotes secondary sources, and sometimes cites works that do not exist. Scholars across all backgrounds have demonstrated that Hislop’s method is not historical research but pattern hunting.
By Hislop’s logic, any two traditions with surface similarities become genealogically related even if their origins are separated by thousands of miles and thousands of years. This method would never be accepted in any field of serious study.
Real history requires documented continuity, primary textual evidence, and cultural context. Hislop provides none of these. His arguments about Christmas are a perfect example.
Hislop’s Claims About Christmas and Why They Are False
The December 25 Date
Hislop insisted that the date of Christmas was borrowed from pagan festivals dedicated to Tammuz, Nimrod, or the sun. He claimed that December 25 was universally a pagan birthday of sun gods and that the early church merely baptized these festivals. None of this is supported by ancient sources.
No Babylonian text connects Tammuz or Nimrod to December 25. The ancient Mesopotamian calendar did not even align with that date. The claim is based entirely on Hislop’s imagination. When we look at actual early Christian sources, we find that the date of December 25 arose from a Jewish Christian tradition that prophets died on the same date as their conception. This tradition can be documented in early Christian writings long before the Roman pagan festival of Sol Invictus adopted December 25 in the late third century. The pagan festival copied the Christian date, not the other way around.
The Christmas Tree
Hislop claimed that the Christmas tree descended from the worship of Nimrod as an evergreen that sprang up from a dead stump. There is no ancient source that connects Nimrod to an evergreen tree. This entire narrative was invented by Hislop. It is not found in Babylonian texts, Assyrian myths, or any ancient Near Eastern religious practice.
Modern Christmas trees trace back to medieval Christian Europe. The earliest evidence comes from fifteenth and sixteenth century guild plays in Germany, where the Paradise Tree was used to represent the tree in the Garden of Eden during Adam and Eve pageants performed on December 24. This practice evolved into the Christmas tree. No pagan continuity exists.
The Yule Log
Hislop claimed that the Yule log and the Christmas tree were two forms of the same Babylonian cult, supposedly honoring the death and resurrection of Nimrod. Again, this claim has no basis in historical data. The Yule log comes from Germanic and Nordic winter traditions that have no connection to Babylon. Even then, the medieval practice had nothing to do with idolatry. It was a fireside celebration during the depths of winter, not a religious act. Hislop simply invented a Babylonian link where none exists.
The Claim that Christmas Is a Babylonian Mystery Festival
Hislop’s book attempts to argue that every element of Christmas, from wreaths to gift-giving, is part of an ancient Babylonian fertility cult. These claims collapse under the weight of actual historical evidence. Gift giving on Christmas was inspired by Christian reflection on the gifts of the Magi. Wreaths and evergreens were symbols of life during winter in many cultures, but they were not connected to Babylonian deity worship. Hislop’s argument is not historical. It is a conspiracy theory built on forced parallels.
Why Scholars Reject Hislop
Every qualified historian, whether Christian, secular, or otherwise, dismisses Hislop’s work as pseudohistory. His book has never been accepted in scholarly circles because it lacks credible sources and relies on demonstrable errors. Many of his citations cannot be found in any library. Others contradict the sources he claims to quote. He also mistranslates ancient terms, misidentifies deities, and assumes that all pagan religions were the same. His method ignores time periods, geography, language families, and actual archaeology.
The early church was surrounded by paganism, yet it intentionally rejected pagan worship and often embraced practices precisely to proclaim that Christ had triumphed over all false gods. Christmas is part of that proclamation.
The Real Historical Roots of Christmas
The celebration of Christ’s birth arose from Christian reflection on the incarnation and the fulfillment of prophecy. Early Christians debated the date, but they celebrated the birth long before any alleged pagan parallels are mentioned. The church fathers record extensive theological reasoning about the incarnation, the nature of Christ, and the significance of His arrival into the world. These discussions have nothing in common with Babylonian myths. They grow from Scripture, Jewish tradition, and the early church’s worship practices.
Conclusion
Alexander Hislop created a myth of his own. He presented a grand story in which every Christian holiday is a Babylonian disguise, and he convinced many readers because the narrative feels dramatic and conspiratorial. When measured against real historical evidence, Hislop’s claims fail completely. Christmas is not a rebranded Babylonian celebration. It is a Christian feast rooted in the worship of Jesus as the incarnate Son of God. Hislop’s theories are inventions, not history, and they should be recognized as such every time they reappear in modern debates.
Discussion Questions
- How does the lack of primary sources in Hislop’s work undermine his claims about the origins of Christmas, and why does primary documentation matter when evaluating historical arguments?
- What are the dangers of assuming that surface similarities between cultural practices automatically prove a genealogical connection, and how does this assumption affect modern discussions about Christmas?
- How does the documented Christian reasoning behind the December 25 date challenge the idea that Christmas was borrowed from pagan celebrations?
- Why do conspiracy-style explanations like Hislop’s appeal to people even when the historical evidence disproves them, and how can this awareness shape better conversations about Christian traditions?
- How does recognizing the intentional rejection of paganism by the early church reshape the way we view the origins of Christian holidays and practices?
Want to Know More
- Ronald Hutton, The Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain. Oxford University Press, 1996.
Hutton is one of the strongest academic voices on European ritual history. His analysis demonstrates how Christmas customs developed in medieval Christian contexts, not Babylonian ones, and he directly addresses modern myths about pagan origins. - Joseph F. Kelly, The Origins of Christmas. Liturgical Press, 2004.
Kelly provides an accessible, well-documented study of the early Christian development of Christmas. He explains the Jewish-Christian reasoning behind the December 25 date and dismantles the claim that the holiday is a baptized pagan festival. - Ralph Woodrow, The Babylon Connection?. Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association, 1997.
Woodrow originally promoted Hislop’s ideas in Babylon Mystery Religion, then discovered that the supposed evidence collapsed under academic scrutiny. He withdrew his old book from circulation and wrote The Babylon Connection? to expose why Hislop’s claims are historically false. His work is valuable because it comes from someone who followed the evidence even when it overturned his own earlier position. - Gerry Bowler, Christmas in the Crosshairs: Two Thousand Years of Denouncing and Defending the World’s Most Celebrated Holiday. Oxford University Press, 2017.
Bowler traces the long history of attacks on Christmas, including accusations very similar to Hislop’s. His research shows how these claims have risen and fallen and why they do not stand up to real historical evidence. - Thomas J. Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year. Liturgical Press, 1991.
Talley is a standard scholarly reference on how the Christian liturgical calendar formed. His detailed work on Christmas and Epiphany shows how the church’s internal theological logic shaped the dates, not pagan borrowing.
About the Author
