Posted on 10/01/2025 7:45:28 AM PDT by Cronos
The claim that Marian devotion in Catholicism is derived from pagan goddess worship—specifically Ishtar, Diana, or Astarte—is a persistent but thoroughly discredited myth rooted in 19th-century anti-Catholic propaganda, most notably Alexander Hislop’s *The Two Babylons* (1853). This narrative, often recycled in modern social media and evangelical circles, alleges that Mary’s veneration as the Mother of God (Theotokos) or Queen of Heaven is a Christianized version of ancient pagan goddess cults. However, linguistic, historical, biblical, and cultural evidence reveals no connection. This compiled text is inspired by discussions with our fellow freepers and I hope offers a detailed, accessible refutation of a persistent, yet historically baseless, claim: that Marian devotion in Catholicism is a Christianized form of pagan goddess worship. This narrative, often raised in non-Catholic discussions, alleges that Mary’s veneration as the Mother of God (Theotokos) is derived from cults devoted to Ishtar, Diana, or Astarte. By examining linguistic, historical, and biblical evidence—and referencing respected scholars like Bart Ehrman and Jaroslav Pelikan—I aim to demonstrate how Mary’s role is uniquely Christian, rooted in Scripture and apostolic tradition, with no ties to ancient paganism. This is meant to be touching the historical statements and I'll try not to delve into religious or philosophical points. ---###--- I. The Origins of the Myth: A 19th-Century Fabrication The idea that Marian devotion stems from pagan goddesses like Ishtar (Mesopotamian), Diana (Roman), or Astarte (Canaanite/Phoenician) was popularized by Hislop’s *The Two Babylons*, which claimed Christianity adopted pagan rituals to appeal to converts. The power of Hislop's lie: Historian Ralph Woodrow, a Protestant who initially echoed Hislop, retracted this in *The Babylon Connection?* (1997), admitting: “There is no historical basis for connecting Mary to Ishtar or other goddesses; the claims are speculative and lack evidence.” Secular scholar Spencer Alexander McDaniel notes that Hislop’s work is “pseudo-history,” relying on phonetic similarities (e.g., “Easter” and “Ishtar”) and fabricated parallels, not primary sources. Secular humanist Tom Flynn, in “Holy Ishtar! Our Own False Claim Rises from the Dead” (Center for Inquiry, 2017), calls it “fake news” born of anti-Catholic bias, spread by ignorance or agenda. Bart Ehrman, a secular New Testament scholar, doesn’t directly address this myth but debunks similar claims of Christian syncretism in *The Triumph of Christianity* (2018), stating: “Early Christians distinguished their faith sharply from paganism, emphasizing monotheism and rejecting idolatrous practices” (p. 112). Ehrman notes no evidence for goddess worship influencing core doctrines like Mary’s role, which arose from biblical texts (e.g., Luke 1:28). Protestant scholar Jaroslav Pelikan, in *Mary Through the Centuries* (1996), affirms: “Mary’s veneration derives from her unique role in the Gospels, not pagan parallels, which are speculative and unsupported by ancient texts” (p. 9). The myth persists in pop culture, but historians universally reject it. ---###--- II. Linguistic Evidence: No Connection Between Mary and Pagan Goddesses The claim often hinges on linguistic fallacies, like equating Mary’s title “Queen of Heaven” with Ishtar’s or Astarte’s. Let’s break this down: - **“Queen of Heaven” Misunderstanding**: - **Pagan Context**: In Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:17–25, “Queen of Heaven” refers to a Canaanite goddess (likely Astarte), worshipped with cakes and libations—a practice condemned by God as idolatry. The Hebrew *malkat haššāmayim* (Queen of Heaven) is unrelated to Mary’s title. - **Christian Context**: Mary’s “Queen of Heaven” title comes from Revelation 12:1 (“A woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars”), fulfilled as the mother of the Messiah (v. 5: “She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations”). Her queenship is understood as an echo of the Old Testament gebirah (queen mother), a high-ranking political figure who interceded with the King on behalf of the people, such as Bathsheba with Solomon (1 Kings 2:19). This is a biblical, not pagan, office. The Greek *basilissa* (queen) in Christian usage is distinct from pagan terms like *malkat* (Canaanite) or *anassa* (Greek for Diana). - **Linguistic Disconnect**: Ishtar (*Ištar*, Akkadian) and Astarte (*‘Aštart*, Canaanite) derive from Semitic roots (*ʿtr*, star), unrelated to Latin *Maria* (from Hebrew *Miriam*, meaning debated: “bitter” or “beloved”). - **Other Terms**: “Virgin” for Mary (Mt 1:23, citing Isa 7:14: *parthenos*, virgin) is about her chastity, not Ishtar’s fertility or Diana’s huntress chastity. “Mother of God” (Theotokos, Lk 1:43: “Mother of my Lord,” *kyrios* = Yahweh) affirms Christ’s divinity, not goddess status. No linguistic overlap with pagan epithets like Ishtar’s “Lady of Heaven” or Diana’s *virgo*. - **Biblical Roots**: Mary’s titles come from Scripture: “Full of grace” (Lk 1:28, Greek *kecharitōmenē*, perfectly graced), “Blessed among women” (Lk 1:42), and “Mother of all” (Jn 19:26–27: “Behold, your mother”; Rev 12:17: “Her offspring”). These are unique, rooted in Christology, not pagan terms. ---###--- III. Character of Mary vs. Ishtar, Diana, and Astarte: No Parallels Mary’s character, as depicted in Scripture and apostolic tradition, is utterly distinct from these pagan goddesses. Let’s compare: #### Mary in Scripture and Christian Tradition - **Attributes**: Humble servant (Lk 1:48: “He has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden”), virgin (Lk 1:34: “I know not man”; Isa 7:14), intercessor (Jn 2:3–5: “They have no wine… Do whatever he tells you”), sinless by grace (Lk 1:28; CCC 491). - **Devotion**: Veneration (dulia, CCC 971), not worship (latria for God alone). Prayers like the Rosary meditate on Christ’s life (Lk 2:7; Jn 19:25), not Mary’s power. Her role points to Jesus (Jn 2:5). - **Biblical Typology**: New Eve (Gen 3:15: Enmity with serpent; Rev 12:1–17), Ark of the Covenant (Lk 1:35; Ps 132:8), Queen Mother (1 Kgs 2:19; Rev 12:1). #### Ishtar (Inanna) - **Attributes**: Autonomous deity, sexually active (sacred prostitution in Eanna temple), vengeful (Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet VI: Sends Bull of Heaven), and death/resurrection figure (*Descent to the Underworld*, Samuel Noah Kramer, *Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth*, 1983, pp. 120–145). - **Worship**: Temple rituals, prostitution, war oracles (Jean Bottéro, *Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia*, 2001, pp. 98–112). No intercession—Ishtar demands devotion for her glory. - **Contrast**: Mary is human, chaste, humble, interceding for others (Jn 2:3); Ishtar is divine, erotic, warlike. No shared traits—Mary glorifies Christ, not herself (Lk 1:46). #### Diana / Artemis Goddess of the Hunt and Chastity - **Role**: Roman/Greek goddess of the hunt, chastity, and childbirth (Ephesus’ Artemis temple, Acts 19:27–28). Independent deity, not motherly (Gwendolyn Leick, *Mesopotamia: The Invention of the City*, 2002, pp. 89–112). - **Attributes**: Virgin huntress, protector of animals, associated with moon (Homer, *Iliad* 21.470–471). Worshipped with sacrifices, festivals (no intercession). - **Contrast**: Mary’s virginity serves Christ’s Incarnation (Lk 1:34–35); Diana’s is self-focused. Mary intercedes (Jn 2:3–5); Diana doesn’t. Ephesus’ Artemis cult clashed with Christianity (Acts 19:26: Paul’s preaching threatens her temple), not merged. #### Astarte (Ashtart) - **Attributes**: Divine, sexual (temple prostitutes), warlike (Zainab Bahrani, *The Graven Image*, 2003, pp. 75–90). Offerings of cakes/libations (Jer 7:18). - **Contrast**: Mary is human, chaste, motherly, opposing Satan (Gen 3:15). Her prayers (e.g., Rosary) focus on Christ’s life, not pagan rites (Lk 2:7; Jn 19:25). Astarte’s idolatry is condemned; Mary’s honor fulfills Scripture (Lk 1:48). McDaniel emphasizes: “Mary is a mortal woman chosen by God to bear Jesus; goddesses like Ishtar are divine, self-serving… No ancient sources suggest Christians copied paganism” (*Tales of Times Forgotten*, 2020). Protestant scholar Tim Perry (*Mary for Evangelicals*, 2006) agrees: “Mary’s role is rooted in Luke’s Gospel, not pagan mythology” (p. 45). Crucially, Mary’s role is entirely Christocentric. Her existence and unique sanctity are defined by her participation in the Incarnation of God, making her a means to salvation, not an end in herself. ---###--- IV. Early Christian Evidence: No Pagan Influence - **Ignatius of Antioch (c. 110 AD)**: “Mary of the Virgin… gave birth to God” (*Ephesians* 18:2). - **Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD)**: Mary as New Eve, not goddess (*Dialogue with Trypho* 100). - **Irenaeus (c. 180 AD)**: Mary’s obedience undoes Eve’s sin (*Against Heresies* 3.22.4). - **Sub tuum praesidium (c. 250 AD)**: “Under your mercy we take refuge, O Mother of God”—intercession, not worship. No early Christian mentions Ishtar/Diana/Astarte; Mary’s devotion is Christocentric (Lk 1:46: “My soul magnifies the Lord”). ---###--- V. Why It’s Compelling: Mary’s Story Points to Jesus For non-historians, think of Mary as a humble Jewish girl chosen by God to be Jesus’ mother (Lk 1:30: “You have found favor with God”). Her “yes” (Lk 1:38) made salvation possible (Gal 4:4). Her prayers at Cana (Jn 2:3–5) show a mother’s care, always saying, “Do whatever he tells you.” Ishtar/Diana/Astarte were goddesses demanding worship; Mary is a servant pointing to Christ. Imagine accusing your mom of being a goddess because you honor her—it’s absurd! The Bible exalts Mary (Lk 1:48: “All generations will call me blessed”), and we love her for bringing us Jesus. ---###--- VI. Secular Historian, and Protestant References and Scholarly Consensus. - **Bart Ehrman**: *The Triumph of Christianity* (2018, Simon & Schuster), p. 112: No evidence of pagan goddess influence on early Christian doctrines like Mary’s role https://www.bartehrman.com - **Tom Flynn**: “Holy Ishtar!” (Center for Inquiry, 2017): Debunks pagan links as anti-Catholic myth. [https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/holy-ishtar-our-own-false-claim-rises-from-the-dead/] - **Jaroslav Pelikan (Protestant)**: *Mary Through the Centuries* (1996, Yale University Press), p. 9: Mary’s veneration is biblical, not pagan. - **Tim Perry (Protestant)**: *Mary for Evangelicals* (2006, IVP Academic), p. 45: Mary’s role from Gospels, not mythology. Books: ---###--- Conclusion: A Biblical, Not Pagan, Devotion. The Ishtar/Diana/Astarte myth is a lie with no historical or linguistic basis—Mary’s devotion is from Scripture (Lk 1:28, 42, 48; Jn 2:3–5; Rev 12:1), affirmed by early Christians and shared across traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, some Protestants). The alleged pagan roots of Marian devotion are an enduring case of pseudo-history, definitively rejected by mainstream scholars, historians, and theologians across the spectrum. The evidence demonstrates that Mary’s veneration is a tradition rooted in the Old Testament Queen Mother typology and the New Testament Christological narratives (Luke 1, Revelation 12). Rather than a syncretic adoption of goddess worship, Marian devotion stands as a uniquely Christian expression of honor for the humble woman chosen by God to bear the Savior (Galatians 4:4). Her Magnificat (Luke 1:46–55) remains the final word: a song that glorifies God alone, not herself. In Christ,
Hislop’s work was powerfully appealing during a period of intense religious rivalry and anti-Catholic sentiment, providing a seemingly scholarly basis to link the Catholic Church directly to ancient idolatry.
Diana (*Dianae*, Latin) links to *deus* (divine), not Mary’s name or role. McDaniel notes: “Phonetic similarity is not evidence; it’s a coincidence exploited by Hislop” (*Tales of Times Forgotten*, 2020).
- **Role**: Mother of Jesus, the Incarnate God (Lk 1:43: “Mother of my Lord”; Gal 4:4: “Born of a woman”). Her fiat (Lk 1:38: “Let it be to me according to your word”) enables salvation (Irenaeus, *Against Heresies* 3.22.4: New Eve).
- **Role**: Sumerian/Akkadian goddess of love, fertility, war, and political power (Uruk, Babylon, 3500–539 BCE). Patron of kings and cities (Thorkild Jacobsen, *The Treasures of Darkness*, 1976, pp. 135–147).
- **Role**: Canaanite/Phoenician goddess of fertility, love, war (Jer 44:17–25, condemned as idolatry). Linked to Baal worship (Judg 2:13).
Early Christians distinguished their faith from paganism, emphasizing Mary’s biblical role:
Cronos
Anti-Catholic bigots incoming in three..two..one..
I tried to keep this purely on the historical aspect of this. And to show that any linkage to Ishtar etc are just historical nonsense without even needing to get into Doctrinal questions.
Catholicism, the one true faith.
Oh, let them come. I’m fed up of people firing up this half remembered bit “what about Ishtar” that they heard about somewhere and never bothered to check. I put together all the detailed proof from secular historians who look at any attempts to compare the two as sheer nonsense
There doesn’t have to be a connection for a figure to fulfill a similar human recognition of principle. Virgin goddesses, figures embodying the maternal or representing purity, have shown up in the religious symbology of every human culture,
Much of Christian worship has pagan roots, Protestant as well as Catholic. Halloween and Valentines day are on pagan holidays and tied to All Saints Day and Valentines Day. The Easter Bunny, Easter Eggs, Christmas trees, and wreaths are all pagan and don’t have much connection to Christianity. The word “Easter” is the name of a pagan Goddess. The Catholic stations of the cross, by contrast, is totally Christian. Protestantism and the persecution of “witches” removed some pagan influences.
I agree this is how Mary should be treated, but being a Catholic in the desert SW of the USA where most Catholics are from Mexico, it is not the case.
They brought their own pagan practices with them, and they definately worship Mary, no matter what the priest tells them.
If you have a priest from Mexico, he joins them (along with telling them that white people are evil).
It’s a legitimate heresy that has infected part of the Church and plays directly into the slanders about the Chirch doctrine you correctly discuss.
*Church
Thank you for a civil response. And yes, this idea of hey, perhaps it’s just he archetype of a mother figure is also a common trope.
While archetypes like virgin or maternal figures appear in many cultures (e.g., Athena or Isis), Mary’s role isn’t a “similar recognition of principle” but a unique historical and biblical reality: Theotokos (God-bearer, Lk 1:43: “Mother of my Lord”), full of grace (Lk 1:28), and intercessor (Jn 2:3–5).
This isn’t cultural echo, it is divine revelation (2 Tim 3:16–17). A shared archetype does not establish a historical lineage or syncretistic borrowing:
1. Doctrinal Origin: Marian devotion arose not from a vague, universal need for a ‘virgin mother,’ but from the specific, non-negotiable Christian doctrine of the Incarnation (that Jesus is both fully human and fully God). Mary’s title, Mother of God (Theotokos), was affirmed at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD specifically to safeguard Christ’s divinity, not to compete with local goddesses.
2. Character: As I said, Mary’s identity is defined by her humility, obedience, and mortality (Luke 1:48: ‘low estate of his handmaiden’). This stands in sharp contrast to the divine, autonomous, and often erotic/warlike nature of goddesses like Ishtar and Astarte.
3. The ‘New Eve’ Typology: Mary’s role is rooted in the biblical typology of the New Eve (Irenaeus, c. 180 AD), not in pagan mythology. She is defined by her relationship to Christ, always pointing to him (’Do whatever he tells you’—John 2:5), which is antithetical to the self-glorification of a goddess cult.
A simple recognition of a maternal figure is a natural human tendency, but the substance and source of Marian devotion are demonstrably and uniquely Christological and biblical, not pagan.
Oooh you are going to kick yourself.
Easter is the word only in English. In evry other language except German it is called a variation of Passover / Pasque / Pasqua.
You do realise there are other languages besides English, right? Or do you think that Jesus spoke to His disciples in KJV English?
Oooh you are going to kick yourself.
The idea that Easter is from a pagan sprite (a demo goddess of alleged Saxon origin) is attested by ONLY. ONE. SOURCE, the monk Bedez writing 300 years AFTER paganism had die out, wrote that he thought it was derived from Eostre, which is actually the proto Germanic word for eastern or springtime. There is NO other source which even mentions this "goddess". Not a single pagan source though we got tons of references to Tiw, Woden etc.
The rest of your post is equally historical balderdash
Please do read and see that what you think is an attack against the Church is just your abysmal ignorance
Oooh you are going to kick yourself.
The Easter bunny is actually a very recent addition to Easter folklore. it originated among Lutherans in Germany in the late seventeenth century. The earliest mention of the Easter bunny comes from De Ovis Paschalibus by Georg Franck von Franckenau in 1682, which refers to the “Osterhase,” or “Easter hare,” who, according to German folklore, was said to hide Easter eggs for children to find.
Now go and kick yourself for all your false beliefs.
Or be constructive and go fir mass to your local Catholic church
The Wedding at Cana is my go to arguement whenever the subject of my devotion to Mary comes up.
When Mary approached Jesus with the problem of the host being out of wine he, replied "What is this to me, woman, my time has not yet come"
He was not yet ready to reveal himself as the savior.
But, his mother insisted that he help this man, a friend in need.
And God, yielded to the wishes of his mother because he honored her and loved her as a son loves his mother.
Mary interceded with her son to get the help a friend needed.
I, a Christian go to Mary with my sincere needs and ask for help in gaining the help I need from my savior.
Only a fool would believe that I am praying to Ishtar, Diana, or Astarte
I see it differently. I believe religions develop as human consciousness of spiritual principles evolves. The old becomes useless to our needs, and we require a new ‘dispensation’. (In a sense, this could be likened to the way we explain the ‘birds and bees’ to a 5 year old, as opposed to how we would explain it to a young teen.)
Truth never changes; but our ability to see and understand it evolves.
I’ve only got a minute so this might be too generic. My impression (full disclosure: LCMS) is that there is a deeply-held desire for there to be a fertility-cult-based divine couple, particularly in agricultural cultures, everyone from Baal and Ashtoreth in ancient Canaan to Susa-no-O and Amaterasu in Japan, and numerous similar couples.
That has never been the specific teaching of Christianity, but (again, my impression) is that there is a tendency among Catholic laity to perhaps go overboard in Marian devotion, similar to the way Ephesians thought about Artemis or ancient Israelites thought about Ashtoreth with their fertility poles etc.
The Orthodox emphasis on Mary as the Theotokos seems to me to hit the fine line between not venerating Mary and raising Mary to a co-mediatrix level (as in “Mary, Queen of the Universe” in Orlando) that she does not deserve. This is very close to what Luther himself taught about Mary, though most Lutherans today (and I mean real Lutherans, not ELCA heretics) might as well be Baptist in their non-veneration of the mother of Christ.
I hope that is sufficiently non-combative :-)
I suspect those “pagan roots” are the result of man’s innate desire to interact with his Creator, so that, throughout human history, cultures often came close to the correct spiritual direction.
But, eventually, our blessed God sent his Son to show us the true way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.