Thus The Two Babylons occupies an odd space where it's popular enough that it should be debunked, but it isn't popular enough that the experts would feel the need to devote all the time to examining it. The most thorough full critique that I know of is Ralph Woodrow's "The Babylon Connection?" book. Woodrow actually previously wrote a book entitled "Babylon Mystery Religion" that mostly recycled Hislop's claims--however, upon doing further research he discovered how flawed Hislop's claims were, stopped publishing his older book, and then wrote and published the aforementioned "The Babylon Connection?" which serves as a refutation of his previous book, as well as The Two Babylons. However, Woodrow's critique of Hislop is not as in-depth as one would like, and he is not himself an expert on the subject (of course, neither was Hislop). For those in too big of a hurry to look at his book (but apparently not in too big of a hurry to read through this post), this post here summarizes his arguments against Hislop (and indeed offers a quote from the aforementioned Saturday Review critique).
If you are going into this expecting a lengthy, in-depth, scholarly critique of the whole book... well, this isn't going to be the cure for that, as I will be examining only one section, the portion on Easter. Why? Well, this is a subject I have previously done a reasonable amount of research in and thus feel reasonably qualified to check over. Hopefully, the takeaway from this examination will be twofold: First, to show the problems with Hislop's analysis of Easter in order to rebutt him on this point, and second, that by demonstrating the major flaws of this section of Hislop's book, show why one should be very cautious about his claims elsewhere.
I've defended Easter against the claims of it being pagan before, but it should be noted how often the claims against it trace back to Hislop. Sometimes this is done by them actually admitting as such, though some will just throw out whatever Hislop's sources were (sources I expect that person never checked themselves) without mentioning they got them from Hislop. And others, while not giving any explicit source, are clearly just regurgitating Hislop's claims.
For an example, in his treatment on Easter when he is trying to prove pagan usage of eggs, he points to a large vase found in Cyprus that was supposedly egg shaped. The idea it was egg-shaped appears to come from a painting that an artist made of it. Since Hislop was presumably unable to travel to Cyprus, and there would have presumably been no photographs available, him relying on that information is understandable. Though I would say his arguments based on that do become speculative. However, in today's world of the Internet, one can easily access photos of this vase (this will be discussed in greater depth later in this article), and it looking egg shaped appears to have been an exaggeration on the part of the painter.
But this is exactly why The Two Babylons makes such a poor source for arguments: It's quite out of date. Even if Hislop was accurately representing his sources, we know more than we did then. We have access to more information. So even if Hislop can be personally excused some of his errors, this does not mean the work itself does not contain those errors. There is certainly far less of an excuse for those who simply repeat the claims of an out-of-date 19th century work whose errors can be better verified in the present.
Indeed, for as problematic as his work is, I do have to give Hislop some points of credit. Clearly research did go into his work. He cites from many different sources, and although some of his citations are confusing, for the most part he cites fairly clearly where he's coming from, even giving a bibliography specifying which editions he is referring to. Thus it is generally possible to look up his citations. This immediately puts him ahead of so many of the "anti-Easter" crowd who will make sweeping claims without evidence like those who claim that dyeing Easter Eggs comes from an ancient tradition of child sacrifice where their blood was used to cover the eggs--with no citation ever given, naturally. And even those that do give citations generally just regurgitate whatever Hislop has to say, with perhaps adding a few extra inaccuracies about the Easter Bunny. Hislop does deserve some credit for doing actual research and showing where he did it, even if his conclusions were so highly flawed.
Unfortunately, that is as far as my praise can go on that. Those who praise The Two Babylon often talk up about all of the footnotes Hislop offers, and again it's certainly better to have them than to not have them. The problem, as we've seen with Lloyd deMause and especially Tony Bushby is that
just because someone has a lot of footnotes and has read a bunch of
things doesn't mean they are accurately representing the information or
that the information they are relying on is correct to begin with; as we shall see, Hislop's representations of what his footnotes say is less than stellar. And while Hislop usually does a reasonable enough job giving his
citations (even saying which editions he is citing from), in some cases
he is frustratingly vague, giving titles that are shortened or in some
cases seem paraphrased. For an example from this section, he
refers to a book he calls "Egyptian Antiquities" but what he is actually
referring to is "Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians." The word Antiquities is not even in the title!
* LAYARD'S Nineveh and Babylon, p. 629.
* See OLIVER & BOYD S Edinburgh Almanac, 1860.
1. There is a folk custom of celebrating “Beltane”, according to a 19th century almanac.
2. The name must refer to the Babylonian god Bel or Ba`al. (Why?)
3. This is confirmed by a piece of folk-lore where people in Scotland burn something. (If this story is true, why does it relate in any way?)
4. If Bel was here, then Astarte must be too. (Why?)
5. If the pagans of whatever period is mentioned worshipped Bel and Astarte, then Eosturmonath – the name of the spring season, given by Bede and nowhere else – must refer to Astarte. (Why?)
6. So the inhabitants of Babylon must pronounce Astarte in the same way as Britons of 19th century England pronounce Easter. (Why?)
Each claim is open to a simple objection – that the claim made is not evidenced, and that there is no special reason to believe it. Each and every step in this argument is open to the very same objection. Yet unless all of them are true, the argument collapses.
And the claims are simply ridiculous.
Why should a modern Scottish folk custom relate to Bel of Babylon? Why should a modern Scottish custom relate to the nomenclature of the Anglo-Saxons a millennium earlier?
Which people precisely are supposed to have adopted Bel – the beaker folk? The celts? The Romano-British? The picts? For there has been much movement of peoples in Britain.
The claim to know how the ancient Babylonians pronounced Astarte … where does Hislop get his information? Time travel?
But it is pointless to go on with beating this drivel to death. Hislop has no evidence, his argument is just a sequence of claims, none of them at all probable. It’s drivel and nothing else."
* The name Easter is peculiar to the British Islands.
* Socrates, the ancient ecclesiastical historian, after a lengthened account of the different ways in which Easter was observed in different countries in his time–i.e., the fifth century–sums up in these words:–"Thus much already laid down may seem a sufficient treatise to prove that the celebration of the feast of Easter began everywhere more of custom than by any commandment either of Christ or any Apostle." (Hist. Ecclesiast., lib. v. cap. 22.) Every one knows that the name "Easter," used in our translation of Acts xii. 4, refers not to any Christian festival, but to the Jewish Passover. This is one of the few places in our version where the translators show an undue bias.
But the underlined portion is incorrect. A more accurate translation, found in the "Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series" (available here) is:
"But the instances we have adduced are sufficient to show that the Easter Festival was from some remote precedent differently celebrated in every particular province."
So what in the world caused this major divergence in meaning in the translation Hislop offered compared to what Socrates actually said? Well, it took some effort to figure it out, but it seems Hislop was using an inaccurate translation. Back in the 16th century, Meredith Hanmer published a translation of Socrates' work, and it included:
"This much already layd downe may seeme a sufficient treatise for to prove that the celebration of the feaste of Easter beganne every where more of custome than by commandment either of Christ or any apostle."
A later printing of it updated the spelling to be more modern:
"Thus much already laid down may seem a sufficient Treatise for to prove that the celebration of the feast of Easter began every where more of custom than by commandment, either of Christ or any Apostle."
Except for "everywhere" being two words instead of one, this is a match for Hislop's quote. So this is clearly the source. However, it is not clear if Hislop took it directly from the translation. Hislop actually does cite Meredith Hanmer's work later in his Easter section, though not his translation of Socrates that was included in it, but rather a separate section (Hanmer's translation was of several different works by different authors, Socrates being just one). So Hislop did consult Hanmer's work, but it is not clear if he looked at the translation of Socrates. He could have, but the issue is that in Hanmer's translation, Chapters 20 and 21 are combined into just Chapter 20, meaning that what is counted as Chapter 22 in things like the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series is instead listed as Chapter 21. But Hislop very explicitly cites Chapter 22.
Therefore, it is likely that Hislop took it from someone else who was quoting the work but corrected the chapter number. We know there were people doing this prior to Hislop, because centuries before Hislop, the Anglican bishop Peter Gunning, in a work called "The Paschal or Lent fast, apostolical and perpetual" (page 267 of the 1845 reprint; the work was originally published in the 17th century), refers to how he saw the quote in anti-Lent pamphlets. Notably, it is referred to as Chapter 22. While it is possible the change to Chapter 22 was by Gunning, if the chapter count was off in the pamphlet, one would think he would have mentioned it.
With this one might initially think that, even if he made an error, Hislop doesn't necessarily deserve direct blame for this. Certainly many people rely on translations. The problem is that Hislop should have known better. A few pages later he cites Socrates' work again for a different quote from that chapter ("Those who inhabit the princely city of Rome fast together before Easter three weeks, excepting the Saturday and Lord’s-day") but this time, he handles it differently. Unlike before, where the translation was just something he apparently took from someone else, this one appears to have been his own, or at least I was personally unable to find a usage of this prior to Hislop (it is entirely possible I missed it, obviously many works were never put online and older printing can result in text being digitized wrongly so searches don't turn them up). Hislop's translation of this portion is not how Hanmer rendered it, certainly. Additionally, Hislop offers a specific page number for it, with "SOCRATES, Hist. Eccles., lib. v cap. 22, p. 234". Thanks to his bibliography, we know Hislop is citing a 1686 printing of it from Paris, which can be found here. And this page (which has it in both the original Greek and a Latin translation) is where that phrase is found.
But here is where we run into the oddity. Given the specificity of the citation, it seems that Hislop did look directly at this; that is, he had the 1686 printing and looked at page 234. But he does not seem to have done that for the previous quote from Socrates, as evidenced by the fact he cites no page number for it despite the fact it's found only two pages afterwards.
This is why I cannot excuse Hislop's error in this mistranslation, because he apparently had the original text right in front of him and did not bother to check it. I suppose it's possible that he got the page 234 citation from someone else and just copied it without checking, but of course that's a problem also that he did not verify the claim.
So Hislop's argument here relies on an inaccurate translation that he should have been able to check. Thus I cannot really excuse him much for this error. And even if he could be personally excused, the quote is still wrong and should not be repeated.
That festival agreed originally with the time of the Jewish Passover, when Christ was crucified, a period which, in the days of Tertullian, at the end of the second century, was believed to have been the 23rd of March.*
*GIESELER, vol. i. p. 55, Note. In GIESELER the time is printed " 25th of March," but the Latin quotation accompanying it shows that this is a typo graphical mistake for " 23rd."
"For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night."
"It ought to be known," said Cassianus, the monk of Marseilles, writing in the fifth century, and contrasting the primitive Church with the Church in his day, "that the observance of the forty days had no existence, so long as the perfection of that primitive Church remained inviolate."*
* Ibid. vol. ii. p. 42, Note.
"Cassianus collat.xxi. c. 30: Sciendum sane hanc observantiam quadragesimae, quamdiu ecclesiae illius primitivae perfectio inviolata permansit, penitus non fuisse. Non enim praecepti hujus necessitate nec quasi legali sanctione constricti, arctissimis jejuniorum terminis claudebantur, qui totum anni spatium aequali jejunio concludebant."
The "collat." appears to be "Collationes patrum in scetica eremo" (Conferences of the Desert Fathers). Here is what he says, in context, in the translation of Philip Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series (found here):
Lent
Such a Lent of forty days was held in spring by the Pagan Mexicans, for thus we read in Humboldt,* where he gives account of Mexican observances : " Three days after the vernal equinox .... began a solemn fast of forty days in honour of the sun."
* HUMBOLDT's Mexican Researches, vol. i p. 404.
The first problem to note is simple math. The vernal equinox is of course March 21, so three days after that is March 24. This fast, according to Humboldt, lasted until April 30. If we include March 24, that means there are 8 days of this in March, then 30 in April... which adds up to 38, short of 40.
Additionally, recall what Hislop's contention in his book is, which is that basically all of the pagan religions were descendents of the Babylonian religion and then this Babylonian religion was imported into Catholicism. But even if there was a 40-day fast, there is little reason to believe that it goes that far back. This information we have of the Mexicans' religious practices is from around the time of Christian contact, and there is little reason to believe that any specific religious ceremonies they have were being practiced even at the early observance of the 40-Christian lent (over a thousand years before), let alone so long before it that it came from Babylon (thousands of years before). There was much time for this supposed fast to emerge independently.
"This "certain time" of the absence of Osiris, has been variously specified; as if it were uncertain time in the knowledge or opinions of its reporters. The truth is, that, it has really undergone some variation from age to age, owing, as I shall explain hereafter, to the procession of the equinoxes; and has varied still more, on account of the difference of the latitudes of the various countries where the mysteries were celebrated. Having been thus variously specified without advertence to the causes, the majority of those gentlemen who have treated the subject, have chosen to allude to the time occupied in general terms. I observe, Sir, that on the authority of Theophilus, your "Inquiry" states that the Osiris of Egypt was supposed to be dead, or absent, forty days in each year, during which the people lamented his loss, as the Syrians did that of Adonis."
Among the Pagans this Lent seems to have been an indispensable preliminary to the great annual festival in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Tammuz, which was celebrated by alternate weeping and rejoicing, and which, in many countries, was considerably later than the Christian festival, being observed in Palestine and Assyria in June, therefore called the "month of Tammuz;" in Egypt, about the middle of May, and in Britain, some time in April. To conciliate the Pagans to nominal Christianity, Rome, pursuing its usual policy, took measures to get the Christian and Pagan festivals amalgamated, and, by a complicated but skilful adjustment of the calendar, it was found no difficult matter, in general, to get Paganism and Christianity now far sunk in idolatry in this as in so many other things, to shake hands.
The instrument in accomplishing this amalgamation was the abbot Dionysius the Little,* to whom also we owe it, as modern chronologers have demonstrated, that the date of the Christian era, or of the birth of Christ Himself, was moved FOUR YEARS from the true time. Whether this was done through ignorance or design may be matter of question ; but there seems to be no doubt of the fact, that the birth of the Lord Jesus was made full four years later than the truth.**
This change of the calendar in regard to Easter was at tended with momentous consequences. It brought into the Church the grossest corruption and the rankest superstition in connection with the abstinence of Lent. Let any one only read the atrocities that were commemorated during the " sacred fast " or Pagan Lent, as described by Arnobius and Clemens Alexandrinus,* and surely he must blush for the Christianity of those who, with the full know ledge of all these abominations, " went down to Egypt for help " to stir up the languid devotion of the degenerate Church, and who could find no more excellent way to " revive " it, than by borrowing from so polluted a source ; the absurdities and abominations connected with which the early Christian writers had held up to scorn.
The words of Socrates, writing on this very subject, about A.D. 450, are these : "Those who inhabit the princely city of Rome fast together before Easter three weeks, excepting the Saturday and Lord's-day."*
"Those at Rome fast three successive weeks before Easter, excepting Saturdays and Sundays. Those in Illyrica and all over Greece and Alexandria observe a fast of six weeks, which they term 'The forty days' fast.' Others commencing their fast from the seventh week before Easter, and fasting three five days only, and that at intervals, yet call that time 'The forty days' fast.' It is indeed surprising to me that thus differing in the number of days, they should both give it one common appellation; but some assign one reason for it, and others another, according to their several fancies."
But
at last, when the worship of Astarte was rising into the ascendant,
steps were taken to get the whole Chaldean Lent of six weeks, or forty days, made imperative on all within the Roman empire of the
West. The way was prepared for this by a Council held at Aurelia
in the time of Hormisdas, Bishop of Rome, about the year 519,
which decreed that Lent should be solemnly kept before Easter.*
* Dr. MEREDITH HANMER'S Chronographia, subjoined to his translation of
EUSEBIUS, p. 592. London, 1636.
This can be found here; for some reason Hislop writes Chronographia rather than Chronographie. We do indeed see a statement on the left page that "A councel held at Aurelia in the time of Hormisda decreede that Lent shold be solemnelye kept before Easter, the rogatio weeke with the ember dayes about the ascension.tom.2.coc." (note: You may notice at the link that the S's look like a lowercase f. This is how they were often written back then) Unfortunately we have the problem of the shorthand citation of "tom.2.coc" and I have no idea what it is referring to; no doubt it refers to a collection of decrees from various church councils, but which collection? However, even if the collection itself isn't known, we can look up the council. We can find the details of the council here which says, under XXV, "Id a sacerdotibus omnibus decretum est, ut ante paschae solennitatem, non quinquagesima, sed quadragesima teneatur." My Latin's not all that great but it does seem to be a statement that Lent is to be 40 days.
As a note, I've seen people go farther than Hislop (even when simply citing him), by saying Hormisdas ordered it, or that this was the first time it was called Lent, claims Hislop does not make above. But, in any event, we come to the same problem as before: Hislop is simply assuming his prior points have been proven, and they have not.
It was with the view, no doubt, of carrying out this decree that the calendar was, a few years after, readjusted by Dionysius. This decree could not be carried out all at once. About the end of the sixth century, the first decisive attempt was made to enforce the observance of the new calendar. It was in Britain that the first attempt was made in this way;*
* GIESELER, vol. i. p. 54
Gieseler's work can again be seen here, though I have to admit I don't see exactly what Hislop is trying to refer to. Perhaps the mention of Anglo-Saxons? Regardless, this assumes the prior points as having been proven.
and here the attempt met with vigorous resistance. The difference, in point of time, betwixt the Christian Pasch, as observed in Britain by the native Christians, and the Pagan Easter enforced by Rome, at the time of its enforcement, was a whole month ;* and it was only by violence and bloodshed, at last, that the Festival of the Anglo-Saxon or Chaldean goddess came to supersede that which had been held in honour of Christ.
* CUMMIANUS, quoted by Archbishop USSHER, Sylloge, p. 34. Those who have been brought up in the observance of Christmas and Easter, and who yet abhor from their hearts all Papal and Pagan idolatry alike, may perhaps feel as if there were something " untoward " in the revelations given above in regard to the origin of these festivals. But a moment's reflection will suffice entirely to banish such a feeling. They will see, that if the account I have given be true, it is of no use to ignore it. A few of the facts stated in these pages are already known to Infidel and Socinian writers of no mean mark, both in this country and on the Continent, and these are using them in such a way as to undermine the faith of the young and uninformed in regard to the very vitals of the Christian faith. Surely, then, it must be of the last consequence, that the truth should be set forth in its own native light, even though it may somewhat run counter to preconceived opinions, especially when that truth, justly considered, tends so much at once to strengthen the rising youth against the seductions of Popery, and to confirm them in the faith once delivered to the Saints. If a heathen could say, " Socrates I love, and Plato I love, but I love truth more," surely a truly Christian mind will not display less magnanimity. Is there not much, even in the aspect of the times, that ought to prompt the earnest inquiry, if the occasion has not arisen, when efforts, and strenuous efforts, should be made to purge out of the National Establishment in the south those observances, and everything else that has flowed in upon it from Babylon's golden cup ? There are men of noble minds in the Church of Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, who have felt the power of His blood, and known the comfort of His Spirit. Let them, in their closets, and on their knees, ask the question, at their God and at their own consciences, if they ought not to bestir themselves in right earnest, and labour with all their might till such a consummation be effected. Then, indeed, would England's Church be the grand bulwark of the Reformation–then would her sons speak with her enemies in the gate–then would she appear in the face of all Christendom, " clear as the sun, fair as the moon, and terrible as an army with banners." If, however, nothing effectual shall be done to stay the plague that is spreading in her, the result must be disastrous, not only to herself, but to the whole empire.
That's one heck of a footnote that Hislop throws in! Initially, I thought that this footnote was, after "p.34" actually providing the quotation from Cummianus/Ussher (also known as Usher), but then realized it was Hislop's own editorializing. Largely this is just Hislop assuming his claims to be true, despite him not adequately proving them. I know I keep hammering this point home, but it's true! Perhaps in retrospect I should have cut out some of this because it is unnecessary to respond to, but I felt I should attempt to actually go over it.
But as for the actual Cummianus bit? Well, Hislop says in his bibliography that he refers to the 1632 Dublin printing of "Usher's Sylloge". What would seem to be referred to here is here; but on the applicable page I see nothing like what is claimed by Hislop. My Latin, unfortunately, is insufficient to provide a full translation--not helping is the difficulty in actually making out what some words say--but I feel my Latin is good enough to be able to let me know if it says anything in regards to what Hislop is saying. I see nothing of this sort, and no mention of Cummianus. So unless I am missing something here, I do not see Usher making any mention of this at all. However, Hislop's claim, even if true, does nothing to prove which timing was right and which was wrong, nor does it prove his claims of pagan origins of Lent or time of Easter, which have been rebutted already.
In regards to Hislop's lengthy footnote in which he says non-Catholics might find something "untoward" about the revelations he's claimed about Easter, there is little reason for them to find it untoward, because Hislop is just doing a ton of speculation and misusing his citations. If indeed any "Infidel and Socinian" writers are using these sorts of claims to attack Christianity, the proper answer is to point out the major errors in them (as I have here) rather than embrace those attacks against Christianity by embarking on a speculative idea about Babylon as Hislop does.
Hot Cross Buns
Such is the history of Easter. The popular observances that still attend the period of its celebration amply confirm the testimony of history as to its Babylonian character. The hot cross buns of Good Friday, and the dyed eggs of Pasch or Easter Sunday, figured in the Chaldean rites just as they do now. The "buns," known too by that identical name, were used in the worship of the queen of heaven, the goddess Easter, as early as the days of Cecrops, the founder of Athens that is, 1500 years before the Christian era. "One species of sacred bread," says Bryant,* "which used to be offered to the gods, was of great antiquity, and called Boun."
* Mythology, vol. i. p. 373.
Starting here, Hislop will attempt to point to old pagan customs and link them to modern Easter traditions. However, he makes a rather major error in doing so: He will neglect to prove that these Easter traditions go back far enough to be plausibly connected to paganism! If something developed in the 17th century or later, then one can hardly say it was some kind of pagan accommodation, as the pagans had all gone away. Even if someone argues that aspects of paganism were absorbed into the church, such aspects would have had to enter into it around the time of the earlier centuries AD, after which there would be no further absorption, as the bona fide paganism was gone. In regards to hot cross buns, more will be stated on this later, though I will state now that they appear to emerge too late to be the result of any pagan influence. But before we get to that, we'll go through Hislop's citations one by one.
You'll notice, of course, that Hislop continues his declaration that the "queen of heaven" referred to in the Bible (believed to be Ishtar) was the goddess Easter even though there is no proof whatsoever of this outside of a somewhat similar sounding name.
Setting that aside, what of his reference? Well, we can find it here. However, one may find an oddity. The source simply asserts that "The Greeks, who changed the Nu final into a sigma, expressed it in the nominative, bous; but in the accusive, more truly boun, boun." But where does he get the idea that it was originally "boun"? We see this is rendered as boun in the accusative case, but what is his reasoning for claiming this was the "original"? He never supplies any evidence for this that I can see. The more plausible conclusion would simply be that "boun" was just the accusative version of "bous" and thus his references to "boun" being the normal instance are inaccurate. This short-circuits the apparent link Hislop is trying to find between "boun" and "bun."
But even setting that aside, there is no indication that the English word "bun" is in any way derived from this "boun." I'll get a little more into that later.
Diogenes Laertius, speaking of this offering being made by Empedocles, describes the chief ingredients of which it was composed, saying, " He offered one of the sacred cakes called Boun, which was made of fine flour and honey."*
* LAERTIUS, p. 227, B.
Curiously, Hislop does not say which edition the work of Laertius he is referring to. The quote he is referring to is, however, mentioned in his preceding reference, though it translates it slightly differently than Hislop does (Bryant writes "He offered up one of the sacred liba, called a boun, which was made of fine flour and honey"); I wonder if Hislop performed his own translation or just edited what Bryant wrote.
However, is this what Laertius actually wrote? Here is an English translation that appears to contain the passage (it is from the "Life of Empedocles" section), but what is written is "But I have found in the Commentaries of Phavorinus, that Empedocles sacrificed and gave us a feast to the spectators of the games, an ox made of honey and flour, and that he had a brother named Callicratidas." A later translation is available here and it reads "I found in the Memorabilia of Favorinus a statement that Empedocles feasted the sacred envoys on a sacrificial ox made of honey and barley-meal, and that he had a brother named Callicratides."
You might notice that it says "ox" rather than "cake." Indeed, even if we swap out the word "ox" for "cake" we see a rather different statement than what was claimed; we see no mention of "liba" nor "called a boun"; it simply says "ox" ("bous").
You may be a little confused about the ox and bous thing. You see, bous is Greek for ox. Greek nouns change their spellings based on their usage in a sentence, however, and the accusative (when it is the object rather than subject) for this is "boun." So Laertius is using the word for ox, but it is in the accusative. Bryant does entreat upon this briefly in a footnote, mentioning that some have thought it meant ox, but arguing that it had to be a cake in this case. It is possible that while the normal usage of "bous" was ox, here we see it being used for a cake because the cake was ox-like; the descriptions cited by Bryant, after all, write "a kind of cake, with a representation of two horns."
But this throws further doubt on his idea that the original phrasing for bun was "boun" because if the cakes' name comes from ox, as it would appear to given the mention of two horns, it would merely mean that they named the cakes after the ox, which was named bous, not boun.
The bottom line of all of this is that there is no actual evidence provided that these cakes, assuming Bryant's information is correct, were ever called "boun" outside of when rendered in the accusative. Rather, the evidence is that because they had some kind of a resemblance to an ox, they were simply given the name for ox. It should further be rather obvious that hot cross buns do not have horns on them!
Thus, Hislop rather fails in proving any actual ancient origin of hot cross buns. If he had actual evidence for it, he wouldn't be wasting his time trying to argue that a phonetic similarity in a particular inflection of a word that normally has no relation to cakes whatsoever is somehow related to the English word bun.
The prophet Jeremiah takes notice of this kind of offering when he
says, " The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the
women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven." *
* Jeremiah vii. 18. It is from the very word here used by the prophet that the
word "bun" seems to be derived. The Hebrew word, with the points, was pronounced Khavan, which in Greek became sometimes Kapan-os (PHOTIUS, Lexeon
Sylloge, Part i. p. 130); and, at other times, Khabōn (NEANDER, in KITTO'S
Biblical Cyclopædia, vol. i. p. 237). The first shows how Khvan, pronounced as
one syllable, would pass into the Latin panis, "bread," and the second how, in
like manner, Khvōn would become Bōn or Bun. It is not to be overlooked that
our common English word Loa has passed through a similar process of formation.
In Anglo-Saxon it was Hlaf.
Hislop throughout The Two Babylon offers various etymologies that are nothing more than his own wild speculations. This is an example, where he tries to claim that khvon became bun despite a lack of actual evidence for it. This isn't entirely Hislop's fault, as he did write his book prior to some major strides in etymology being figured out--still, even for his time, his proposed etymologies tend to be high on speculation, low on evidence. With him being both out of date and speculative, one should be extremely wary on trusting any claim he makes regarding etymology; in fact, I would say that just about anything Hislop says about word etymology should be completely ignored.
But a reader would perhaps like a more in-depth explanation for this specific case, at least. Well, Hislop's etymology here is as far as I can tell not supported by anything other than his imagination. It certainly doesn't seem supported by the sources he pulls out.
Now, the Hebrew word was indeed Khavan (though its specific inflection in the passage is, as the Biblical Cyclopaedia mentions, kavannim). So let's begin with the first source. The Lexeon Sylloge that Hislop refers to is from 1822. This appears to be it. There is no Kapan-os listed here that I see. The closest is Kapanoi (Καπανοι), which is stated to be "αλφιτων ειδος". Looking into some Greek dictionaries, it appears αλφιτων means "barley groats" and ειδος means "shape." It seems that the Lexeon Sylloge may be the only source in which this word is attested to. The Liddle-Scott Jones only lists Photius (author of the Lexeon Sylloge) as an example of the usage of this word and repeats the definition given.
My Greek knowledge is extremely basic, if even that, but looking into it it seems that Kapanoi would be the plural form of Kapanos, which is where Hislop is getting his terminology from. But then Hislop engages in thoroughly unsupported speculation to claim that Panis comes from Kapanos which comes from Khavan. He offers no proof for it; to him, the mere fact they look kind of similar is enough.
But the Panis part is less important than the claim of Khvon becoming Bon/Bun. Again Hislop's claimed etymology is extremely high on speculation and rather low on evidence. Now, as we see here, the Biblical Cyclopaedia says that the buns in Greek were called χαβωνες, or khabōnes (modern transliteration would normally render the "kh" as "ch" but for consistency I will use "kh" in this section). This appears to be the plural, so Hislop goes with what I presume is the singular, khabōn. From this, Hislop just assumes we get the word "bun" without providing any explanation as to what happened to the preceding kha. Incidentally, Hislop breezes by the fact that the Cyclopaedia writes that the cakes in question "were by them [the Greeks] made in the shape of a sickle in reference to the new moon" which is not exactly what hot cross buns look like.
Hislop's argument for etymology thus amounts to "well, they look kind of similar". This cannot be considered a persuasive etymology, particularly when one considers the fact that Hebrew is a Semitic language, a different language family altogether than Indo-European (which Greek, Latin, and English belong to).
So what is the actual etymology of bun? Or more specifically, the etymology of the sweet kind, as there are other meanings of "bun" that have different etymologies? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it's not known for sure. Someone might try to use that to argue that Hislop's proposal could be correct, but the problems with his etymology have already been discussed--namely, the fact he just makes assertions without any backing. Further, the fact the etymology is stated as unknown means that actual etymologists do not consider Hislop's assertions credible, or else they would have listed that as the origin. But more importantly, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, bun only seems to have entered the English language with this definition in the 14th century--this is simply far too late for Hislop's thesis to work. And certainly, it is extremely unlikely that a Greek word would have somehow made it all the way to England without leaving any traces in the various countries in between.
But things get even worse for Hislop. If we look at the examples the OED offers us, we
don't see it spelled as bun initially. We see bunne (1371 and 1440),
bonne (1475), and bunny (1506). The first example that gives the
spelling of 'bun' is in 1572, after which 'bun' became the standard spelling. Now obviously the OED doesn't list every instance, but the clear fact is that we see a notably different spelling at first. So to work,
the word 'boun' or khabōn had to somehow make it to England
from Greece without leaving traces in any of the languages in between, then get changed to bonne along the
way, and then get changed back to bun much later. This demonstrates the nonsense of Hislop's etymology, and that's not even counting the fact that even if began as "bun" this happens too late for his arguments to work.
So not only does Hislop's etymology not hold up under scrutiny, it also appears to fail the historical test because its entry into English is simply too late. But there's another thing that is too late that further demolishes his claims, as I'll discuss next.
The hot cross buns are not now offered, but eaten, on the festival of
Astarte; but this leaves no doubt as to whence they have been
derived.
It actually leaves considerable room for doubt. I've been pointing out flaws in Hislop's narratives, but we need to discuss what utterly demolishes his entire claim: Hot cross buns are of relatively recent invention.
It's telling that, while Hislop was content to go through the history of Lent (a flawed history on his part, but he still did cite actual sources), he never does any of this for hot cross buns. He simply tosses out some pagan usage of cakes and claims it's just like hot cross buns. But when did hot cross buns come about? You won't find any indications of Christians using them at Easter back in the time of paganism... or, if there is such an indication, neither Hislop nor anyone else seems capable of providing it. One legend is apparently that they go back to the 14th century at St. Albans Abbey, but not only is that too late, the first source claiming this appears to come from the 19th century (see this article under "Claim #5" which discusses the St. Albans Abbey claim and also discusses the claims about hot cross buns more generally). As far as I can tell, and this seems backed up by this article, hot cross buns were first referred to in the 18th century! That's well after any kind of pagan supplication would have occurred. To be fair, that seems to be referring to the first usage of the phrase "hot cross bun" though see the first article linked in this paragraph for more information about how even the idea of hot cross buns comes too late for Hislop's idea to be plausible. Those who claim hot cross buns came from paganism should be the ones to demonstrate that Christian usage can be dated back far enough for any of this to be plausible. But they, just like Hislop, have never to my knowledge done so.
This is a major failing of Hislop, and we'll also see it in his discussion on Easter eggs. He'll happily claim pagan usage of these things, but will fail completely to demonstrate that Christians adopted Easter eggs anytime close to when pagans were actually using them. Speaking of which...
Easter Eggs
Hislop goes on for a while (several pages, in fact) trying to point to various pagan usages of eggs. One wonders if he would object to Christian prayer on the grounds that these pagans presumably prayed as well.
Before getting into the specifics, I shall deal with the general question of Easter eggs. There are two primary times I have seen offered for when Easter eggs first emerged. One is to claim that it goes back to the early Christians; however, no one ever cites any kind of primary source for this, I've noticed. The other, and apparently better supported, explanation is that they started around the 10/11th century as something to do with the eggs during Lent. Eggs were forbidden during Lent at that time, but hens still lay them, so people seem to have taken up painting them so they'd have something to do with them. This article (which I will admit I discovered via this link) states:"Indeed, Adolph Franz, the learned historian in ecclesiastical blessings of the Middle Ages, says that he has never discovered, in the sacramentaries or rituals anterior to the 10th Century, any special form for blessing the eggs."
Surely if Easter Eggs went back long before, we would find references to them. Yet according to this, none were found. I admit this article is a bit old, but to anyone who claims an earlier origin, I challenge you with this: Point to a primary source that refers to them being extent back in a time when pagan syncretization could have occurred. The 10th/11th century is far too late for there to be any pagan influence because paganism was gone in Europe at that point. Actually, even if the early Christian time period was true, that would still work against Hislop's thesis as his claim is that Christianity got corrupted after that early period by the Roman Catholic Church, and thus such early usage would still go against him.
So Hislop's digression is irrelevant even if everything he says is correct. But is what he has to say about pagan usage of eggs correct? I hesitate to get too far into the specifics of Hislop's arguments, as I fear that spending a lot of time on the specifics may obscure the larger problem of his argument I have already discussed. Still, it may be of use to people to demonstrate Hislop's problems, so I will go through some portions of it.
To give a bit of a summary response, Hislop attempts to point to various pagan usages of eggs to try to prove pagan origin of Easter eggs. Beyond the above considerations, however, he has some notable problems. The big one is that by and large, it is him just pointing out references to eggs among pagans (some of them not even used in a religious sense at all), but the way they actually used eggs varies wildly. For Druids, it was merely a status symbol to have a serpent egg, but there does not appear to have been a religious significance to it. He points to how some religions believed the Earth hatched from an egg, but this is drastically different from Easter eggs or the aformentioned Druids. He attempts to argue that eggs were hung up in temples, but one of his sources admits to it being a speculation and the other one only refers to one specific temple where it was done (that is, not a thing people were doing in general). And this is again drastically different from the previous examples. He also attempts to try to say a particular vase was egg-shaped, but as we will see, the vase was not egg-shaped and this was simply Hislop following someone else's error in believing it was. But again notice not only that these have nothing to do with each other other than involving eggs in some fashion, none of them have any real similarity to the practice of Easter eggs. The only thing he can do that comes close is him taking the testimony of a missionary that they paint eggs in China, but Hislop neither demonstrates an actual connection between that and Easter eggs nor that this Chinese practice was religious in nature. With these generalities done, we'll examine the particulars.
The origin of Pasch eggs is just as clear. The ancient
Druids bore an egg, as the sacred emblem of their order.*
* DAVIES's Druids, p. 208.
The work here is "The Mythology and Rites of the British Druids" by Edward Davies. The quote in question is "From the contemplation of thie symbol of foreign superstition, we naturally turn to the celebrated Ovum Anguinum, or serpent's egg, of the Celtic priesthood, as described by Pliny. This was, by way of eminence, regarded as Insigne Druidis, the Insigne, or distinguishing mark of a Druid." So first we should notice this is a serpent's egg, not just any old egg as is the case with Easter eggs (though they seem to almost always be chicken eggs). Rather frustratingly, it does not tell us where Pliny make this remark. Thankfully, with our modern searching technology, I was able to find that it appears to be a reference to Chapter 12 of Book 29 of Volume 5. However, I do not see where this says that this was a "sacred emblem" of Druids or a distinguishing mark. It indicates it is considered important, but not as a religious matter; rather, it was a status symbol to have the egg.
Thus this ultimately provides no real support for Hislop's thesis. The druids were pagan and did use eggs, but not (at least according to Pliny) in any religious way. And the type of eggs were different. If pagan usage of something disqualifies it, irrespective of religious use or even if their use of it is different, then the fact pagans used writing means one must reject the written-down Bible.
In the Dionysiaca, or mysteries of Bacchus, as celebrated in Athens, one part of the nocturnal ceremony consisted in the consecration of an egg.*
*Ibid, p. 207
Davies writes "Hence in the Dionusiaca, and in other mysteries, one part of the nocturnal ceremony consisted in the consecration of an egg. By this, we are informed by Porphyry, was signified the world." While he cites Porphyry for an egg signifying the world, he does not cite a source for the consecration of an egg in the Dionusiaca/Dionysiaca, unless that is also covered by the Porphyry citation. The problem is, again he does not tell us where Porphyry said this. The best I have found in my searches is a mention at https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/porphyry_on_images_02_text.htm, where he is quoted as saying:
"The Demiurge, whom the Egyptians call Cneph, is of human form, but with a skin of dark blue, holding a girdle and a sceptre, and crowned with a royal wing on his head, because reason is hard to discover, and wrapt up in secret, and not conspicuous, and because it is life-giving, and because it is a king, and because it has an intelligent motion: wherefore the characteristic wing is put upon his head. This god, they say, puts forth from his mouth an egg, from which is born a god who is called by themselves Phtha, but by the Greeks Hephaestus; and the egg they interpret as the world. To this god the sheep is consecrated, because the ancients used to drink milk."
But this says nothing about the Dionysiaca. Until such time as an actual citation is offered, I cannot give this much credence. Certainly, we are not left with much confidence given Davies' previous citation of Pliny.
The Hindoo fables celebrate their mundane egg as of a golden colour.*
*Col. KENNEDY, p. 223
For a little context, the "mundane egg" is a term for the world egg, which refers to how in some non-Christian religions there was an idea that the world hatched from an egg. Hislop, of course, tries to use this to prove a connection to Easter eggs. But we run into the problems noted above. First is the problem of chronology, of Easter eggs developing too late to be plausibly taken from paganism. In the case of Hinduism someone may point out that Hinduism was still around at that time; but it was very far from the Catholic areas so any influence makes little sense. The second problem, again observed above, is that just because there was an egg in a religious story does not mean that eggs themselves were important as a symbol of any kind.
Now, Hislop doesn't give the title here, but if you look at the source list at the start, he gives the full citation as "Kennedy's Ancient and Hindoo Mythology" published in London in 1831. Rather oddly, Hislop renders the title wrong; it is Ancient and Hindu Mythology. Actually, more fully, it is "Researches into the Nature and Affinity of Ancient and Hindu Mythology." While there were different spellings for Hindu at the time, hence Hislop's usage of "Hindoo" in his work, you would think he would actually use the spelling in the title of the work that was published that he was citing.
In any event, it does mention about how the egg the world hatched from was golden, true. But, again, this means nothing in regards to Easter Eggs; all Hislop has is a mention of an egg, but not that they were in any way similar to Easter Eggs.
The people of Japan make their sacred egg to have been brazen.*
*COLEMAN, p. 340.
The more full citation is "Coleman's Hindoo Mythology" published in London in 1832. However, like the above example, the actual title says Hindu... and for that matter, Hislop again gets the title wrong. It is actually "The Mythology of the Hindus." Beyond that, see above. A simple mention of an egg in some pagan story does not mean eggs, let alone painting them, were in any way an important symbol to them.
In China, at this hour, dyed or painted eggs are used on sacred festivals, even as in this country.*
*My authority for the above statement is the Rev. James Johnston, of Glasgow, formerly missionary at Amoy, in China.
This one, at least, refers to colored eggs for festivals, so the description is similar to Easter Eggs. However, the present day doesn't matter; the question is, does this go back to the time before Christians used them? Hislop does not cite evidence for this. Even if it does, is there any evidence of it being the reason for Christian adoption of it? Remember, this was over in China; the idea that they were taking it because pagans did it in order to accommodate them makes little sense when one considers that that wasn't where the Christians who were using the Easter Eggs were. Of course, Hislop's contention is not that they took it from China, but that this all goes back to some old Babylonian religion and we see traces of it in these other pagan religions... but notice how Hislop does not offer any actual evidence that eggs were in any particular way important to the Babylonians either. So far he's only been able to point to one case that's at all analogous to Easter eggs, which still does not solve the obvious problem that Easter eggs come too late for the idea of it coming to Catholicism from the ancient Babylonian religion (or any pagan religion, really) to work.
Beyond that, still see above.
In ancient times eggs were used in the religious rites of the Egyptians and the Greeks, and were hung up for mystic purposes in their temples.*
* WILKINSON, vol. iii. p. 20, and PAUSANIAS, lib. iii., Laconica, cap. 16.
Let's see what Wilkinson says, found here.
"Others, as the fox, jackal, wolf, hysena, and leopard, were chased as an amusement, for the sake of their skins, or as enemies of the farm-yard; and the ostrich held out a great temptation to the hunter from the value of its plumes. These were in great request among the Egyptians for ornamental purposes; a religious veneration for them, as the symbol of truth, enhanced their value; and the members of the court on grand occasions failed not to deck themselves with the feathers of the ostrich. The labour endured during the chase of this swift-footed bird was amply repaid ; even its eggs were required for some ornamental or religious use, and these, with the plumes, formed part of the tribute imposed by the Egyptians on the conquered countries where it abounded. The purposes to which the eggs were applied are unknown ; but we may infer, from a religious prejudice in their favour among the Christians of Egypt, that some superstition was connected with them, and that they were suspended in the temples of the ancient Egyptians, as they still are in the churches of the Copts."Note what he says. He says "the purposes to which the eggs were applied are unknown" and offers the speculation that they were suspended in the temples, with the reason for that speculation being Coptic Christians do so today. This is, as Wilkinson notes, an inferrence on his part. That is, a speculation. Hislop took a speculation of Wilkinson and then asserted it as fact. Furthermore, this was about ostrich eggs. There is no real parallel between this and Easter egg practices.
As for the Pausanias citation, unfortunately the edition Hislop cites seems to be from 1696, which is not available online. Still, I found what seems to be what is referred to. It is stated (concerning a particular temple) that "An egg is here hung by ribbons from the roof: they say it is the famous egg which Leda is reported to have given birth to." And that's it. Searching turns up no other mentions of eggs in the work, and although it's possible the text was digitized incorrectly at some points so it didn't pick it up, it still indicates that this was a practice of only one that one particular temple. There is thus no indication this was done anywhere other than this one specific temple in Sparta, let alone that it was widespread.
Hislop's evidence is thus a speculation and something limited to a specific temple, neither of which even parallel the usage of Easter eggs.
From Egypt these sacred eggs can be distinctly traced to the banks
of the Euphrates. The classic poets are full of the fable of the
mystic egg of the Babylonians ; and thus its tale is told by Hyginus,
the Egyptian, the learned keeper of the Palatine library at Rome, in
the time of Augustus, who was skilled in all the wisdom of his native
country : "An egg of wondrous size is said to have fallen from
heaven into the river Euphrates. The fishes rolled it to the bank,
where the doves having settled upon it, and hatched it, out came
Venus, who afterwards was called the Syrian Goddess"*—that is,
Astarte.
*Hyginus, Fabulæ, pp. 148, 149.
Before going on, I want to note what it says Hyginus said. Hyginus is relatively simple in his description. But others have gone on to make additional claims (without any citation, of course), such as saying that this happened on the Sunday after the spring equinox, or that there was an egg-laying rabbit involved somehow. Such claims are not found in Hyginus and appear completely made up, given no one ever cites any proof of it. If someone tries to go farther than the Hyginus quote and offers no citation, it is a sign they are making things up (or more likely, simply copying what someone else said without checking into it). Hislop, to his slight credit, did not do such a thing, but I want to note how some go even farther than The Two Babylons and how absurd their claims are.
That said, even if not as absurd, Hislop's argument here has problems. Now, from what I can tell, the reference checks out, though it should be noted that even by Hislop's admission here, the "Syrian Goddess" is Astarte, not Ishtar; while there was some overlap between the two deities, it does not mean this egg story was one of them.
However, we run into some problems here beyond the chronology problem noted earlier. First, I am not even sure how widespread this version necessarily was; other tellings of the story of Venus's origin ascribe different things to her, such as emerging from sea foam. Indeed, from what I can tell (and I could be wrong on this point), Hyginus is the only source for this claim, indicating that this may not have been well-known.
Further, this is simply a mention of an egg in a myth. It does not demonstrate that eggs were of particular importance to followers of Astarte any more than Christians consider gardens to be particularly important because of the Garden of Eden. Remember, the claim often advanced based on this is that Christians used Easter Eggs because it was to appease pagans, but the egg does not seem to be of particular importance. And if the attempt is to claim that pagan usage of eggs shows a commonality, one must easily note that the way the eggs are used in either the fables or in real life vary wildly and indicate there is no common origin to them; more likely, people just had eggs (which are found basically everywhere) and incorporated them into their stories or lives. The simple mention of an egg in this story is a far cry from anything related to Easter Eggs.
Hislop goes on in regards to this point:
Hence the egg became one of the symbols of Astarte or Easter; and accordingly, in Cyprus, one of the chosen seats of the worship of Venus, or Astarte, the egg of wondrous size was represented on a grand scale. (See Fig. 32)*
*From LANDSEER's Sabean Researches, p. 80. London 1823.
Notice what Hislop says here. The egg became a symbol of "Astarte or Easter." It is not clear whether he is using Easter to refer to the celebration or if he's trying to claim Astarte is also a goddess named Easter; the former does not make sense for the reasons given, while the latter is in error.
But was an egg, as Hislop claims, actually a symbol of Astarte? All he has done so far is mention that there was a story of Astarte coming out of an egg, but that proves absolutely nothing about it becoming a symbol of Astarte any more than rivers being a symbol of Christianity just because Jesus was baptized in one. So that is a dud.
But what of his new attempt at proof, where he says "in Cyprus, one of the chosen seats of the worship of Venus, or Astarte, the egg of wondrous size was represented on a grand scale." First, this was a place of worship of Aphrodite, not Venus. It is true that Aphrodite was simply the Greek version of Venus but it's still something to note. Further, while Aphrodite was associated with Astarte, they weren't one and the same and thus it is wrong for Hislop to simply assert that a place that had a temple of Aphrodite (actually Venus) was also devoted to Astarte. Now, I am aware that Hislop attempts to argue elsewhere in the work about how many of the pagan gods were actually the same, generally based on spurious connections, which may be the source of his claim that Venus was Astarte. However, if we set all this aside and suppose that this "egg of wondrous size" was somehow linked to Astarte, we run into a bigger problem.
And what is that problem? Well, for this claim, Hislop includes a picture he claims is the "Mystic Egg of Astarte". Here is the picture of the egg from his book (page 109, Figure 32):
He does not say where the picture came from; Landseer's work, which he cites, does not seem to include the picture, at least not on the page cited. Here is page 80. Landseer writes "... there still remains in the island of Cyprus, an antique vase of an egg-like form, and of the extraordinary dimensions of thirty feet in circumfrence! on which the bull of the zodiac is sculpured in good style." Between this and the illustration provided in The Two Babylons, which looks egg-shaped, Hislop tries to claim that this showed the egg was a symbol of Astarte.
The first problem is that Hislop's own source, Landseer, notes on page 82 "...as the Greeks obtained their knowledge of the goddess Venus herself, from this her highly favoured island of Kupris, it appears to be far within the pale of possibility, that the sculptured egg, or vase, of which a representation is before us, may have remained from those ancient times; and may have been used in the celebration of those Cyprian mysteries with which fable has delighted to busy herself." (emphases added) Hislop's own source only says it "may have" been used for deity worship. And Landseer also says he hasn't actually seen it personally.
What Landseer presumably did see, and which Hislop's illustration seems to have been based on, is this painting by Luigi Mayer (taken from here):
While this picture does look egg-shaped, I would say it does so less than the version Hislop reproduces.
But with all of this considered, I am now going to show you photos--not merely a picture, but photos--of the vase in question. We know it's the same because not only is it from the same place, it has the identifying feature of the bull that Landseer describes ("The reader will observe, that the Bull of our Cyprian vase is sculptured in high relief and is tastefully placed in a semicircular niche, which is hollowed out and over-arched for its reception, in that part of the vase, where in smaller vessels of the same kind, would be placed the ear or handle") and is also seen in the picture that Hislop presents.
Actually, there were two such vases. One remains on Cyprus at the Amathus site and the other has been transferred to France where it is on display in the Louvre (this transfer occurred after the publication of The Two Babylons). Pictures of them can be found at this link (scroll down to "At the top of the hill, there were two giant vases decorating the entrance of the temple of Aphrodite at the Acropolis" and you will see the pictures of the vases, one at the original site and one at the Louvre) but I will reproduce two of them here (the page has other pictures of it from other angles later on):
The first is the one still left in Cyprus, whereas the second is the one that was taken to the Louvre. Indeed, one can see it on the Louvre website here (the URL no longer works due to a reorganization of the website, and I do not know where one can view it now; however, you can nevertheless see it on the linked archived page). Now, do those look egg-shaped to you? They certainly do not look that way to me. They look like large but otherwise ordinary vases. Keeping in mind what the vases actually look like, take a look at the picture Hislop provides in his book. As we can see, the picture Hislop reproduces makes it look far more egg shaped than it actually is. I do not think someone who were to look at the vases without knowing anything previously about them would have considered them egg shaped.
As noted, I am not sure where the specific image Hislop presents in his book came from. Obviously it's a reproduction of the in-color painting above (which apparently was what Landseer was looking at), presumably because back in the 19th century it was beyond the ability of printers to print a painting like that. But was this black-and-white reproduction something made specifically for The Two Babylons or was it something that someone else did and Hislop simply copied it?
Wherever Hislop got this from, the bottom line is that the idea of this being shaped like an egg comes from a painting that makes it look much more like an egg than the actual vase was. In his list of illustrations, Hislop labels the illustration of this vase to be "Mystic Egg of Astarte." However, the actual vase does not look like an egg. And it was not even an Astarte temple, but one of Aphrodite. Thus I believe we can safely consider this claim of Hislop debunked.One can't put all the blame on Hislop for this, as he presumably had no means to head all the way to Cyprus to double check. Still, even considering that limitation, he did engage in some unwarranted speculations, like assuming it had religious significance. But even if we clear Hislop of all personal blame here, this cannot be given for those in the present who continue to parrot Hislop's claim about the egg on Cyprus. The proof of the "Mystic Egg of Astarte" rested on erroneous information; with us able to look at it in a photo, it can be disregarded.
Thus, Hislop's claim of an egg being represented by this vase is simply incorrect. Nor has he even proven that it had any religious significance rather than just being there for something like holding water.
After that, Hislop embarks on a claim about how pagan usage of eggs came from the story of Noah's ark via an argument so eccentric I am not even sure how to properly approach it.
The occult meaning of this mystic egg of Astarte, in one of its aspects (for it had a twofold significance), had reference to the ark* during the time of the flood, in which the whole human race were shut up, as the chick is enclosed in the egg before it is hatched. If any be inclined to ask, how could it ever enter the minds of men to employ such an extraordinary symbol for such a purpose, the answer is, first, The sacred egg of Paganism, as already indicated (p. 108), is well known as the “mundane egg,” that is, the egg in which the world was shut up. Now the world has two distinct meanings it means either the material earth, or the inhabitants of the earth. The latter meaning of the term is seen in Gen. xi. 1, “The whole earth was of one language and of one speech,” where the meaning is that the whole people of the world were so. If then the world is seen shut up in an egg, and floating on the waters, it may not be difficult to believe, however the idea of the egg may have come, that the egg thus floating on the wide universal sea might be Noahs family that contained the whole world in its bosom. Then the application of the word egg to the ark comes thus : The Hebrew name for an egg is Baitz, or in the feminine (for there are both genders), Baitza. This, in Chaldee and Phenician, becomes Baith or Baitha,** which in these languages is also the usual way in which the name of a house is pronounced.*** The egg floating on the waters that contained the world, was the house floating on the waters of the deluge, with the elements of the new world in its bosom. The coming of the egg from heaven evidently refers to the preparation of the ark by express appointment of God ; and the same thing seems clearly implied in the Egyptian story of the mundane egg which was said to have come out of the mouth of the great god.**** The doves resting on the egg need no explanation. This, then, was the meaning of the mystic egg in one aspect. As, however, everything that was good or beneficial to mankind was represented in the Chaldean mysteries, as in some way connected with the Babylonian goddess, so the greatest blessing to the human race, which the ark contained in its bosom, was held to be Astarte, who was the great civiliser and benefactor of the world. Though the deified queen, whom Astarte represented, had no actual existence till some centuries after the flood, yet through the doctrine of metempsychosis, which was firmly established in Babylon, it was easy for her worshippers to be made to believe that, in a previous incarnation, she had lived in the Antediluvian world, and passed in safety through the waters of the flood.
* BRYANT, vol. iii. p. 161.
** In the later Chaldee, the name of an egg is commonly Baiaa, or Baietha in the emphatic form; but Baith is also formed exactly according to rule from Baitz, just as Kaitz, “summer,” in Chaldee, becomes Kaith, and many other words.
*** The common word “Beth,” “house,” in the Bible without the points, is “Baith,” as may be seen in the name of Bethel, as given in Genesis xxxv. 1, of the Greek Septuagint, where it is “Baith-el”
**** BUNSEN, vol. i. p. 377
What can one say to something so bizarre? This is just a ton of speculation on his part.
Let us still attempt to review his argument, at least as well as I can make it out. His claim is that the whole idea of the world hatching from an egg in some pagan myths is connected to Noah's ark. Noah's ark had the "world" shut up in it because everyone who survived the flood was in it (in the sense of the "world" meaning Earth's inhabitants). Further, the word for "house" sounds similar to "egg" in the languages he mentions ("Chaldee" is how he refers to Aramaic/Syriac). So, apparently, the idea is that pagans took the story of Noah's ark on the water, thought of the ark as a house, then switched it to an egg because they sounded similar, and also swapped out "world" in the sense of people into the "world" in the sense of the Earth and everything on it. Therefore, Noah and his family on the ark got turned into the world coming out of an egg.
This bizarre idea is simply speculation set upon speculation set upon speculation. Actual evidence is notably lacking. Rather ironically, this form of finding a few vague parallels and assuming a connection is exactly what some critics of Christianity attempt to do when claiming Christianity itself comes from paganism.
Even if this astoundingly speculative claim was somehow true, that the idea of the world hatching from an egg was some kind of distortion of Noah's ark, how does it actually benefit Hislop's argument about pagan origins of Easter Eggs? Again, at most it simply shows that there was a mention of eggs in some pagan myths, but not that they were used in any way similar to Easter Eggs, that it made eggs have any particular importance, or that it has any connection to Easter Eggs at all.
After he goes through that, he claims:
Now the Romish Church adopted this mystic egg of Astarte, and consecrated it as a symbol of Christ's resurrection. A form of
prayer was even appointed to be used in connection with it, Pope
Paul V. teaching his superstitious votaries thus to pray at Easter :
" Bless, Lord, we beseech thee, this thy creature of eggs, that it
may become a wholesome sustenance unto thy servants, eating it in
remembrance of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c.*
*Scottish Guardian, April, 1844.
Unfortunately, I am not able to check up on this citation. There is an archive of this newspaper available here but it does not include the 1844 year. Of course, Hislop omits the rather important question of what day of the month it was published (there were multiple publications each month as seen in that link), making it even harder to discover where this is. It appears that the National Library of Scotland may have all of the issues, but it is not currently feasible for me to go all the way to Scotland just to look at that. Even trying to put in some kind of outerlibrary loan for a photocopy is not particularly useful, as I do not know the actual date, only the month.
I did try searching online to see if I could find verification of this. Several sites repeated this claim, with a few claiming a specific year of 1610, but sources were simply not provided (some did unhelpfully cite the Scottish Guardian of April 1844, no doubt simply copying from Hislop without doing independent verification). Only one new source was offered that I could find ("Donahoe's Magazine" volume 5 page 558), which can be seen here. It gives a slightly different quote of "Bless, O Lord! we beseech thee, this thy creature of eggs, that it may become a wholesome sustenance to thy faithful servants, eating it in thankfulness to thee on account of the resurrection of the Lord." This does increase the probability it's legit, as the different wording suggests it was an alternate translation of the same material (or a mild editing) and this was from a Catholic newspaper. But this is still not a direct citation.
Finally, however, I did find a page that said it was in the "Roman Ritual" so I searched for that. As found here, it has:
"Lord, let the grace of your blessing + come upon these eggs, that they be healthful food for your faithful who eat them in thanksgiving for the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you forever and ever."
This looks like it's it. But through this I was able to find the original here. The Latin reads:
"Subueniat, quaesumus Dominae, tuae benedictionis + gratia huic ovorum creature, ut cibus salubris fiat fidelibus tuis, in tuam gratiarum actione sumentibus, ob resurrectionem Domini nostri Iesu Christi, qui tecum viuit & regnat in saecula saeculorum."
(I cannot make out the word between "qui" and "viuit" for certain. From context and the translation I expect it is "tecum" which is what I have used)
So, okay, it does seem there is a prayer for blessing eggs. But does this actually matter? Not really. As the Easter Egg has not been proven to be of pagan origin, a prayer concerning it means nothing. I guess someone could complain and say that the Bible refers to breaking bread in memory of Jesus rather than eating eggs (as I actually did see someone else complain), but it hardly forbids the ability to also do other things in remembrance as well. Beyond that, again evidence has not been given to show that Easter eggs go back far enough to have been of any pagan origin.
So to try to summarize the section on Easter Eggs, Hislop fails in his attempts because not only do his references to pagan usages of eggs have essentially nothing in common with Easter Eggs (the only one similar is his invocation of China, which is unlikely to have had any influence and also offers little support for his claim of this being done in Babylon), even various examples he chooses are taken out of context or are inaccurate. And perhaps most importantly of all, Easter Eggs only became a practice too late for his thesis to work at all. Perhaps I could have just skipped over all of this with that last note, but I wanted to be thorough.
Oranges
Prior to this I went through just about every remark of Hislop, even when it was redundant, but here I will skip through most of it. This is because even if Hislop's claims about pomegranates being an important symbol of Astarte is true, it doesn't mean much of anything in regards to Easter (further, he gets off on some unnecessary tangents that really have nothing to do with the topic of Easter). After trying to argue that pomegranates were an important pagan symbol, he puts forward the following:
As Rome cherishes the same feelings as Paganism did, so it has adopted also the very same symbols, so far as it has the opportunity. In this country, and most of the countries of Europe, no pomegranates grow; and yet, even here, the superstition of the Rimmon must, as far as possible, be kept up. Instead of the pomegranate, therefore, the orange is employed; and so the Papists of Scotland join oranges with their eggs at Easter; and so also, when Bishop Gillis of Edinburgh went through the vain-glorious ceremony of washing the feet of twelve ragged Irishmen a few years ago at Easter, he concluded by presenting each of them with two eggs and an orange.
I expect many a reader would be confused by this, as they've most likely never heard of oranges being particularly associated with Easter. Indeed, one will notice that when people repeat Hislop's claims, they rarely bring up what he says about oranges. As Easter has little to do with origins, there is no need to go line by line through the multiple pages Hislop devotes to trying to discover a pagan connection to orange.
All Hislop offers as evidence that oranges were important in Easter is his statement "the Papists of Scotland join oranges with their eggs at Easter; and so also, when Bishop Gillis of Edinburgh went through the vain-glorious ceremony of washing the feet of twelve ragged Irishmen a few years ago at Easter, he concluded by presenting each of them with two eggs and and orange." Certainly a specific case of giving people oranges does not prove it is of importance in general.
As far as I can determine, oranges do not seem to be a notable thing in Easter in Scotland now, but perhaps it was of greater importance in Hislop's time, assuming he wasn't just exaggerating about the orange importance. It does appear that in Norway in the present, oranges have some
association with Easter, as mentioned here (note, however, this says that this tradition is only about a century old; if so, Hislop could not have it in mind). But this does not seem to be the case in most of the rest
of the world; indeed, that very article says that "Norway, report state food officials, tops international statistics for consumption of oranges at Eastertime." This means its orange consumption tops countries with a much higher population, meaning those countries would not have much of any orange consumption during Easter. Moreover, the state church of Norway became Protestant in the mid-16th
century, and Catholicism is a minority in the country, so this does not
link back to Catholicism anyway.
So this orange claim, at least in the present, is a bust. It applies largely only to Norway, and in Norway it apparently is a relatively recent innovation and therefore hard to trace back to some ancient pagan practice.
But we run into further problems. Let us suppose that oranges were a major symbol of Easter in Hislop's day. As noted, Hislop is apparently unable to offer evidence of a direct pagan connection for oranges (the most he does is wildly speculate that the golden apples in the Eleventh Labor of Hercules were really oranges), and thus instead resorts to trying to argue for pagan usage of pomegranates and declares that to try to keep this going, oranges were used instead. But here we run into yet another problem. Much like how he failed completely at making even an attempt at proving that Easter Eggs or hot cross buns actually go back far enough that they could have been influenced by paganism, he similarly offers no evidence that usage of oranges in Europe went back far enough that it oculd have been some kind of pagan holdover. Indeed, from what I can tell, the sweet orange was only introduced to Europe in the 15th or 16th century (see https://hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/orange.html). If true, Hislop's claim here is completely shut down.
Thus Hislop simply fails in his argument on oranges; they aren't a real symbol of Easter to begin with and they don't appear to have even been known to Europe until too late for his thesis to work. His prior arguments may have been highly speculative, but at least he normally attempted some grounding; this bit on the oranges does not even have that, and all involves something that is not a symbol for Easter in most of the world.
This concludes his discussion on Easter. I know I speed speed through the final pages, but there wasn't much need to do more.
As noted at the start, Hislop appears to omit any mention of the Easter Bunny or Easter Rabbit despite that being such a common charge of being something pagan that the Catholic Church introduced... which is especially silly when one considers the fact it was actually Protestants who started the concept of the Easter Bunny (Encyclopedia Britannica's current online article on Easter: "The custom of associating a rabbit or bunny with Easter arose in
Protestant areas in Europe in the 17th century but did not become common
until the 19th century." Emphasis added). While it is possible that Hislop left it out due to being aware that Protestants were the ones who came up with it, I expect the reason for it not being mentioned is that it was probably largely unknown at that time where he lived. Which of course puts even more of a kabosh on the Easter Bunny being of some kind of pagan origin, as its adoption in the English world was so late that Hislop didn't even mention it.
CONCLUSION
So for a quick summary, here's an answer to the arguments made of Hislop.
1) Hislop claims that Easter "bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead" due to it sounding like Astarte or Ishtar. But this applies only to English, and is not the case in most other languages. Oddly, Hislop mentions that it is "unique to the British Isles", but then ignores how it destroys his argument.
2) To try to show a pagan origin for Lent, Hislop tries to point to cases of 40-day fasting periods among pagans. However, his arguments fail:
a) Hislop points to the Yezidis. However, all sources for their 40-day fasting period come long, long after the institution of a 40-day Lent, indicating that most likely they took the idea from the Christian Lent.
b) Hislop claims that pagan Mexicans had a 40-day fasting period around the time of the Spring equinox. His source does back him up on this, but it is vague about where the information comes from. I have attempted to look at the original sources regarding the religious ceremonies of the Mexicans and have been unable to find it.
c) In a stunning case of misrepresentation, Hislop points Wilkinson's "Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians" as showing proof of a 40-day Egyptian Lent, but the source actually says they had fasts of "7-42 days or longer" and gives no indication that this was a repeated annual event.
d) Continuing on that vein, Hislop cites a source for a claim that there was a 40-day period devoted to Osiris. If one tracks his source's source and its source's source, one discovers that the original document appears to make no mention of this fact.
d) To try to prove the Greeks had a 40-day fasting period, Hislop takes two completely different sources describing different things (one a 40-day mourning period, the other fasting of unclear length) and just assumes they relate to the same thing. It should be noted that later scholarship indicates the fasting period in question was actually of 9 days.
3) Hislop's attempt to prove a pagan origin for hot cross buns fails because hot cross buns developed far too late for any pagan influence to be plausible, and even setting that aside, it further relies on him engaging in astoundingly speculative etymologies that all end up ignoring the fact that the word "bun" does not even enter the English language until Middle English, far too late for his claims to work.
4) Hislop's arguments of pagan usage of eggs falls flat in proving pagan influence on Easter Eggs because, as with hot cross buns, Easter Eggs come too late to be plausibly ascribed to pagan influence. However, there are additional issues with some of the examples he provides:
a) Hislop attempts to claim that eggs were particularly important to the Druid religion, but if you trace his sources back to the original, it merely says that having a snake egg was prized among the Gallic people, but gives no indication there was religious significance to it.
b) Hislop shows an "egg of Astarte" that supposedly demonstrates that Astarte had an egg as her symbol. The problem is that if you take the time to look up a photo of the actual "egg" (it's actually a vase), you will see that it really doesn't look particularly like an egg, and that the illustration Hislop shows is made to look more like an egg than it actually is. Whether this was the fault of Hislop or another I do not know, but the actual thing looks substantially less like an egg than Hislop claims.
5) Hislop tries to find some pagan origin for oranges in Easter, which is odd given that oranges are not really a symbol of Easter (and appear to have come to Europe around the 16th century!). This portion of the Two Babylons's section on Easter tends to be the least referenced, perhaps because people would generally scratch their heads in confusion as to what oranges have to do with Easter.
Hislop's claims against Easter have been repeated ad nauseam online and offline. But for the above reasons, they fail considerably in proving his point. They rely on massive speculation on his part, misrepresenting his sources, his sources being incorrect, and/or assuming that various modern Easter celebrations can be traced back far enough for his thesis despite the evidence that they came much later.
I know, unfortunately, I only went through the Easter portion of his book, which is a relatively small portion. But it's the section that people re-use the most. And Hislop has a very dense writing style; look how long it took to go through those pages. So it would take far too long for me to go through everything else in his work, though again see information at the start for some critiques that go through the book more generally. But given this portion of the book is so poor, it is hard to take the rest seriously.
Maybe this blog post was just talking to a wall; I'm aware that many of those who parrot Hislop's claims will be undeterred even with all of this evidence of his errors. But, hopefully there are some who will read this and take it seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment