Talk:Panbabylonism

Failure to gain immortality
Last sentence of this section reads: "When Adam eats from the tree he is cast out of Eden lest he also eat from the Tree of Life and gain immortality.[Genesis 3:22-23]". I suggest a look at the KJV which states: " ....lest he eat of it and live forever." – Adam and Eve already had immortality (as long as they could eat of tree of life, which they had already been freely doing). The Tree of Life was not forbidden - only the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil was forbidden. Taking away access to the tree of life was their death sentence and the beginning of their loss of immortality - see Genesis 3:22 (KJV): And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever." Also see the Books of Adam and Eve which describe how their bodies changed after they were deprived of the food from the tree of life.  valkyree 00:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs)

Big Deal
Of course the creation stories of Mesopotamia and the Bible have similarities! Eden was in Mesopotamia according to the Biblical account! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeymanderson (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Reasons for decline
According to the introduction: It is the opinion of archaeologist Peter Lancaster Brown that modern Panbabylonist arguments are pseudoscience.

But nowhere in the article is explained why Panbabylonism has been discarded as a valid view on the evolution of modern civillization.

The similarities in myths and traditions are considerable, and that the article shows in detail. However, no opposing view is offered.

Could someone please provide some information and references on what caused the decline of this interpretation? Agreement that Babylonian traditions were mixed with other cultures (Zoroastrianism among others, I guess), so it's not a single source? Discovery of prior influences to both Babylonian and Jewish culture (about which I never read anything)?

The way I see it, Panbabylonism may go a bit too far by considering everything is derived from that cultural background. But there can be little doubt that it is one of the main influences, at the very least. If that's the reason for its decline, at least the introduction should explain it.

Elideb (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above concern and added a "dubious" tag on the statement in question.

Only one source is used to try to debunk Panbabylonism and it is just the opinions of the author of a book rather than facts. Furthermore, the entire rest of this article seems to contradict this statement that Panbabylonism is pseudoscience, so either Panbabylonism is indeed pseudoscience and the rest of this article peddles pseudoscience, or the sentence calling it pseudoscience is wrong.

I don't really know whether Panbabylonism is pseudoscience or not, but the way this article is written, the article contradicts itself, first calling it pseudoscience and then explaining it as if it is true. Also, while the cited source is indeed a book on archaeology, it contains opinions that are simply those of its author and not necessarily shared by the rest of historians, archaeologists, religious scholars, etc.

There are definitely many parallels between ancient Babylonian texts that predate the Old Testament and things written in the Old Testament. Most Christians who believe the Bible is true obviously have an agenda to try and claim that it is not based on any earlier pagan sources. However, Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source and we need to follow the evidence. I know that there are many scholars who study things such as the Bible and do find parallels to earlier writings. However, I am not aware of what the consensus is among fair-minded scholars who are not simply Biblical literalist Christian apologists. We need to find more sources and more information on this subject.

The Panbabylonists did indeed pretty much die out in the early 20th century but their ideas are being revived now by some people, and it seems important for the purposes of this article to explain what, if anything, is incorrect about Panbabylonism, if indeed it is pseudoscience as one sentence in the introduction as well as categories the article is tagged with are alleging. I am not terribly familiar with Panbabylonism but from what little of it is explained in this article it seems to make sense and be correct. So either the article needs to explain what false, pseudoscientific claims are made by Panbabylonism to justify calling it pseudoscience, or drop this classification of it as pseudoscience. Since I am someone who is against pseudoscience, I am leaving the statement there for now, with the dubious tag, to allow people to come up with more sources and also edit the rest of the article in order to remove the contradictions and have the article explain what exactly about Panbabylonism is pseudoscientific.

I did find online a Reddit thread about Panbabylonism in a subreddit that professional historians frequent: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ww7cy/panbabylonism_is_the_belief_that_the_old/ However, this is not a reliable source, obviously. And there is quite a lot to read. But it could be helpful to people trying to edit this article and solve the multiple issues in this article, namely how it calls something pseudoscience based on the opinions of the author of a single book as expressed in his book, and then the rest of the article explains this theory that was previously called pseudoscience it as if it is correct.

Just to play devil's advocate, it is possible that Panbabylonism is correct and that the explanations of it later in this article after the introduction are evidence for it being correct, and maybe it is not pseudoscience at all. Now, if you are against pseudoscience, I think it is necessary to find more evidence, or at least explain better the existing evidence, for why Panbabylonism is pseudoscience, and also cite more than just one source on the subject. Also it would be helpful to cite a source who is not a follower of any of the 3 Abrahamic religions explaining why Panbabylonism is pseudoscience, since sources who are followers of those would have a vested interest in being against Panbabylonism as it undermines the credibility of their religions.

--Yetisyny (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of this article is badly written and WP:OR - look at the sources cited. it needs a rewrite from reliable, secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is badly written and most of the article contradicts the introduction. Since it has multiple issues, I will try and list them using a template and hopefully you will agree with me on what the issues are, I see that you reverted my last edit, but I understand where you are coming from, you think Panbabylonism is pseudoscience, I don't know much about it but just see that this article has problems. I'll put the Multiple Issues template on the article since you and I both agree it has multiple issues. --Yetisyny (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Problems with this article
To quote Jytdog in the previous section, "Most of this article is badly written and WP:OR - look at the sources cited. it needs a rewrite from reliable, secondary sources." And that is someone who just reverted one of my edits on this article, but I agree with them on that and I think they will agree with me listing it as having multiple issues. This article also contradicts itself (first calling Panbabylonism pseudoscience in the introduction, and then having the rest of the article explain things from the perspective of someone who thinks Panbabylonism is correct). Promoting a pseudoscientific theory also violates WP:AD and WP:POV. This article is in need of having major parts of it rewritten.

This section is for discussion of the problems with this article, how it contains original research, is inaccurate, and fails to have a neutral point of view, at least in its current state, so that the article can be improved and no longer have these issues. Please do not remove the templates for those issues with the article until these issues are resolved... they are contained within a multiple issues template to make it take up less space at the top. Hopefully these issues will be resolved as soon as possible by people who are good at editing articles, and then after the article is rewritten to be much better, those templates can be removed. I would caution, however, against deleting content from the article; it would be very easy to simply delete all the text that is at issue (namely the majority of the article which explains Panbabylonism from the perspective of a Panbabylonist), but the goal is not to remove information about Panbabylonism but to improve it to be an encyclopedic article that accurately, verifiably, and in a neutral (with regard to opinion, not fact) manner explains what Panbabylonism is. This means, the majority of the article has to be rewritten to explain Panbabylonism from a NON-Panbabylonist perspective, i.e., instead of merely stating what Panbabylonism states, explain that something is what Panbabylonists believe to be the case, and also give the other point of view too, namely the case against Panbabylonism, since after all it is considered pseudoscience, but the case for it being pseudoscience is not made in this article and that is a major problem. --Yetisyny (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Panbabylonism or ... ?
This page was making a poorly substantiated claim in the introduction that panbabylonism has died out and was referring to it as pseudoscience, only for the article to then give apt reasoning.

Very familiar stories, as covered in the main page, show the similarities between the Abrahamic religions and myths that were popular in the fertile crescent and Babylon. It's quite odd to claim it has died out and not suggest what has replaced it.

Today, the same points are frequently brought up in discussions about the authenticity and origin of the religions that are made by panbabylonism, despite the term itself not being used. This tells me it is a popular belief as to the origins, perhaps even the leading explanation among non-religious people.

I've cleaned up the controversial claims made in the introduction and suggest adding a note on Canaanite religions that may have also had influence on their creation. -- Factfinder2242 (talk | contribs) 04:26, June 24, 2017‎ (UTC)


 * All you did was mess with the lead. The body remains a complete work of pseudoscientific OR.  We really should stubify this and leave only the lead, until we can rebuild it from actual reliable sources. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * this will do for now. Are there any objections to clearing out the body, all of which violates the content policies and guidelines? Jytdog (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Finally got around to looking at this. It would be nice to have an article about Panbabylonism, but this isn't one. So yes, clear out the body, stub it and we can rebuild it with sources actually discussing the subject.. Doug Weller  talk 18:16, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * A few sources (sorry, at least one is in the article already).     There are a lot of usable sources out there, there's no excuse for an article that seems to be mainly OR.  Doug Weller  talk 18:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

assumed true among secular scholars?
the article states "... regarded the Hebrew Bible and Judaism to be directly derived from Mesopotamian (Babylonian) mythology" Isn't that objectively true? 81.167.60.142 (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, certainly, and not just secular scholars (but excluding insane US evangelicals), but the problem is that Babylonian means many different things over the course of several millennia. (The same way that China has "remained China" over millennia despite ethnically and linguistically diverse peoples taking turns at the helm.) We start with the Sumerians, not a semitic people. Their decline is followed by the hegemony of the Akkadians, a semitic people, but one that looks to and emulates/incorporates Sumerian culture (in the way that Latin and Ancient Greek philosophy left a long-lasting imprint on our western culture, and more recently in the way that so many Europeans seek to imitate US customs like proms and Halloween - and you can see immediately how "derived directly" is just not a useful phrase in such matters!), this fusion representing the earliest Babylonian culture. Later rulers hailing from different cultures then legitimise their rule as proclaiming themselves to be the rightful continuation of "Babylon."


 * "Babylon" simply comes to denote the Bronze-age superpower located west of the Zagros mountains.


 * There is also a political/religious consideration. OT scholars all do know that Judaism, in its inception, is a mishmash of the Egyptian Book of the Death (in its many incarnations) and Babylonian sources (in the wide sense of the word). But that fact can be used to regard the Jewish faith as a Johnny-come-lately cheap imitation. The foul stench of Nazism sticks to panbabylonism, rightly or wrongly. No wonder that it is not salonfähig these days, and you would not want to hang with folks that espouse it openly (speaking as a Jew here by the way, I would hate to be stamped a Nazi apologist).


 * And discrediting the origins of OT as cheap imitation and gypsy mishmash, the NT and Christianity might be painted with the same broad brush (and of course Jews view the NT and Christianity in exactly that light - but that's a fight for another day). So no wonder Jezuits have been up in arms against panbabylonism.


 * (Speaking of Old Egypt, its origins are of course distinct from the Mesopotamian ones, but the cultures hooked up to form a continuum at some point, and this continuum is also labelled "Babylonian" - a protean term indeed. For a modern analog, think of how "Western civilisation" nowadays subsumes Europe, America, Australia/NZ and at a stretch places like Singapore and Japan. There were other similarly early foci of very advanced civilisation, e.g. Indus valley and Minoan.)


 * The upshot of it all is that most of us are educated with barely a mention of the Sumerian/Akkadian origins of our civilisation, and the debt we owe the people of Ur. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:E8B6:3DF4:2E23:B43E (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Poor explanation of it being hyperdiffusionism and pseudoarchaeological
Like previous readers I was confused by this connection, in addition to the line "The claims of the school were largely discredited by astronomical and chronological arguments of Franz Xaver Kugler". I looked at the referenced "A Mathematician's Journeys: Otto Neugebauer and Modern Transformations of Ancient Science. Springer. pp. 285-286" and honestly it didn't make it much clearer with the explanation mostly being covered by a single paragraph "they were demolished by the chronological arguments of Kugler, served with biting sarcasm, in his paper “Auf den Trümmern des Panbabylonismus” [On the Ruins of Panbabylonism] (1909) and in his monograph Im Bannkreis Babels [Under the Spell of Babylon] (1910). "

Further googling gave me this askhistorians post https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ww7cy/panbabylonism_is_the_belief_that_the_old/d6bqr09/ and I found this hit upon the crux of my confusion:

"Panbabylonism, the belief that essentially all mythology derive from Babylonian mythology. It's not just that there's influence (that, as /u/honeybadgerelite says is consensus among secular scholars--indeed, people point to the Ugaritic Baal Cycle these days more than Babylonian mythology proper, but both influences are there), but the now-obscure belief that essentially all mythology, including the Bible, is Babylonian mythology diffused (though there's also a corrupt "Caananite" substrate)"

This page currently doesn't make clear that it is viewed as pseudoarchaeological because it holds that all culture, religion and science is of Babylonian origin.

Luckily while trying to translate some of the German sources I realised the German wiki page might hold some answers https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panbabylonismus a far better written article, giving clear explanation and details (I had to translate it to English). I found the following part helped me to understand the linked source I read:

"Franz Xaver Kugler developed into the most outspoken critic of Pan-Babylonism . As a Jesuit, Kugler's motivation and rationale was based on the Christian religion . He endeavored to reconcile theological doctrines and scientific astronomy. [14] In 1910, in his book Im Bannkreis Babels , he contrasted “pan-Babylonian constructions with religious-historical facts” in order to refute Winckler and Jeremiah"

That linked source shows Kugler as having been quite abrasive and causing upset "I will resolutely go my way, without letting myself be disturbed by the unbridled outbursts of Pater Kugler"

The final part of the German wiki page:

"Today Pan-Babylonism carries the stigma of scientific dubiousness. [20] The work of the Pan-Babylonians to correlate intellectual Mesopotamian culture with the outside world was not only discontinued but largely forgotten. Even in the wake of recent factual reports on the Babel-Bible controversy, their main tenets have been ridiculed, effectively rejected, or turned on their head in recent decades. Nevertheless, the Finnish Assyriologist Simo Parpola came2001 came to the conclusion that the Pan-Babylonians fulfilled the requirements of interdisciplinary competence, good critical judgment and sound methodology as requirements of cross-cultural studies far better than most of their critics. The central claim of the Pan-Babylonians, that Mesopotamian ideas, knowledge and systems of thought were widespread in the ancient world from earliest times, has now become a well-established fact and can now be well documented. [21]"

I think does a good job of saying that the pseudoscience aspect of trying to link all parts of culture and science to Babylonism has died out and been forgotten but that the underlying integration of religious and cultural is commonly accepted.

92.7.255.121 (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The last para of the German page reads, translated:
 * Today Pan-Babylonism carries the stigma of scientific dubiousness.  The work of the Pan-Babylonians to correlate intellectual Mesopotamian culture with the outside world was not only discontinued but largely forgotten. Even in the wake of recent factual reports on the Babel-Bible controversy, their main tenets have been ridiculed, effectively rejected, or turned on their head in recent decades. Nevertheless, the Finnish Assyriologist Simo Parpola came2001 came to the conclusion that the Pan-Babylonians fulfilled the requirements of interdisciplinary competence, good critical judgment and sound methodology as requirements of cross-cultural studies far better than most of their critics. The central claim of the Pan-Babylonians, that Mesopotamian ideas, knowledge and systems of thought were widespread in the ancient world from earliest times, has now become a well-established fact and can now be well documented.
 * Doug Weller talk 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)