Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz the truth 

The Myths behind the myth ( Short version part 1)
Image result for nimrod semiramis tammuz

You can watch my quick 5 minute video explaining this study (basics) youtube video here

Are you ready? …..Do you have your concentration hat on? This study is not an easy one to understand. However, stay with it. I do believe after you have read this study you will have a much better understanding regarding the origins of the story.

Please consider supporting my work

Most people will be aware of the claims made regarding Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz. These 3 characters being the start of pagan sun god worship throughout the world. There are, in fact, actually a few different stories about the “pagan trinity” as they are sometimes called. The most popular version of the story is that Nimrod and Semiramis were king and queen of Babylon. They ruled the people and turned them against the true God YHWH. However, Nimrod eventually died. Semiramis, in a desperate attempt to hold onto her thrown, derived a plan that would ultimately lead to not only retaining the throne but would elevate her to the status of a goddess.

Semiramis claimed, that after Nimrod had died, he ascended to the sun and became the sun god himself. She then told the people that her son, Tammuz, was the reincarnation of the sun god, Nimrod, and that she had been impregnated by the rays of the sun. Tammuz was conceived before Nimrod died or as some versions state,  she conceiving through an extra marital source.  She would later marry her son, Tammuz, who was, in fact,  Nimrod reincarnated.  This is why some versions of the story have Nimrod marrying his own mother. In some versions of this tale, Tammuz is later killed by a wild boar. In other versions, he is cut up into numerous pieces and his body parts spread throughout the world. This cutting up into pieces and the body parts being spread over the world is, however, more often asserted as to how Nimrod met his death. Semiramis, is then depicted as going around and collecting his parts in an attempt to reassemble her husband and bring him back to life. She is said to have found all his body parts, apart from his male organ.  This then prompts her to build an obelisk which then becomes a phallic symbol. Some versions of the story have Semiramis commanding 40 days of mourning for Tammuz.  Some even state that a wild pig should be killed and eaten after the 40 days as a remembrance to Tammuz. After this, God came down and confused the languages at the tower of Babel, as outlined in the Biblical texts found in Genesis 11, when, due to the evilness of this religion, they tried to build a tower so tall it would reach into heaven with Nimrod having said he was angry at God.

The religion went “underground” and became a hidden religion. Known only to a select number. This religion has since remained and has integrated itself into every major culture and religion of the earth. Each religion’s central characters can be traced back to Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz. They became the gods of Egypt, Greece and Rome and now are worshipped by the Catholic Church in the form of the father, son and MARY the mother. Semiramis has been worshiped under the names Ishtar, Astarte, Rhea and Isis to name just a few, while Nimrod has been Ninus, Osiris and Baal. Tammuz has also been known as Horus and Adonis . All 3 have had many more names accredited to them.

It’s quite a story isn’t it? Or rather a mixture of stories.
But is the story are the stories,  actually true?


The truth

This story of Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz in any form, regardless of the details or variation, is found nowhere in the Bible. So it simply cannot be stated that the story is a biblical one. Semiramis is not stated as being Nimrods wife, they are are not described as the King and Queen of Babylon and never described as having a son. In fact, Semiramis is NEVER mentioned in the biblical texts, not even once. Tammuz though, is spoken of, just once, in relation to the women weeping for him, which will be looked at and explained later on in this writing. He is, however, not stated as being the son of Nimrod or Semiramis.


Nimrod himself, appears just 4 times in the Bible.

Nimrod was the great grandson of Noah. His father was Ham’s son Cush. Twice we are given the information that cush was his Father.
3 times we are told that he was a mighty warrior and or he began to be mighty and once we are told that Assyria was known as the land of Nimrod.

Genesis 10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth.

Genesis10:9 He was a mighty hunter before the Lord: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the Lord.

Further to Genesis 10: 8 and 9 we have Genesis 10:10 and 11 where we are told that he had a kingdom

Genesis 10:10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.

1 chronicles 1:10 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be mighty upon the earth.

Micah 5:6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.


That’s it. That’s all the information that the Bible actually gives us about Nimrod.

No mention of his wife, no mention of his children if he had any at all.

The Bible never states that Nimrod built the tower of Babel and it never mentions how or indeed when he died. All of which seem, by its silence on the matter, to be irrelevant to the biblical narrative.

Surely a story as relevant as this, so important, if it were true, would have at least some biblical support, at least a verse attesting to the fact, but it doesn’t. There is nothing in the Bible that would even hint at the narrative, let alone give us this story. So this story regarding Nimrod and his wife is not, in fact, a biblical story.

This fact alone, should, at least cast doubt over its veracity. We must discern what we consider authoritative. 
The biblical silence on the matter and so, in actuality, the lack of biblical support for the theory, and so negating the theory, is actually categorically supported by history itself. It must also be acknowledged that there is not one single piece of written historical evidence from anyone from antiquity that directly links Nimrod and Semiramis together…in ANY way. There is nothing in the Apocrypha writings that can be used to link them together. There is no mention of them in ANY Hebraic/Jewish writings, including the Talmud. Not even Josephus the famous Jewish historian mentions Semiramis being Nimrods wife. While it may be surprising to those that have heard this story, there is no mention of them having a son called Tammuz or having any children for that matter which shouldn’t be a total surprise seeing in fact there is NO mention whatsoever of Nimrod and Semiramis together by ANYONE, ANYWHERE until the 1850’s…..AD. Yes that’s right the 1850’s AD. Less than 175 years ago when Alexander Hislop made this claim in his infamous book the 2 Babylons.

Alexander Hislop’s theory

Alexander Hislop stated:

“The trinity got its start in Ancient Babylon with Nimrod – Tammuz – and Semiramis. Semiramis demanded worship for both her husband and her son as well as herself. She claimed that her son, was both the father and the son. Yes, he was “god the father” and “god the son” – The first divine incomprehensible trinity.” – The Two Babylons; Alexander Hislop, page 51

Anytime it is said, written or placed into a meme, yes we all know those notoriously truthful Facebook memes that the poster believes is actually counted as evidence for the claim within the meme but proves absolutely nothing, that Semiramis was the wife of Nimrod, the source of the information in that claim will undoubtedly be direct from or based on the information and claims made inside the pages of this book.

The claims in this book are the basis on which the claims made by most people who state Nimrods wife was Semiramis. Even if the person making the claim does not know it themselves.

Many of those said people have done little to no personal research at all into the claim. They simply take the claims as if they were true. It sounds good, it looks good, it must be good. Now, i’m certainly not saying that this is the case for everyone, there are many highly studied people who still believe this. I have certainly come across many in my time both studied and unstudied, hey I even used to use this myself. Of course it was true. The video on Youtube said so. They even gave the “evidence”, which so turns out to be the information provided in the 2 Babylons book……and round in a circle we go.

Most of the claims made by Alexander Hislop catch the attention. They draw upon the emotions. They feel like they are revelational, eye opening, revealed long lost hidden secrets that the devil wants so desperately to conceal from humanity, theologically sound and historically supported arguments. They are most likely, although I cannot say for certain intentionally so. Now, I am almost as certain, almost is the correct word, that Hislop believed what he wrote. I believe that he was passionate and meant no harm by his deception, I highly doubt he was aware of the fact he was wrong. He may very well have thought that the way in which he connected the dots was correct. He may well have believed he had uncovered this mystery. But no matter of the extent of his convictions or the nature of his intent, wrong he was and wrong he remains.

So the question must be asked, a question that is vitally important to the understanding of this theory.  If nobody before Alexander Hislop had ever written about Nimrod , Semiramis and Tammuz together how did he come up with the theory in the first place?

The answer to this question is indeed much simpler than the way in which Alexander Hislop went about drawing his conclusion. Through assumption, comparative theology, the use of incorrect and inaccurate historical information, association, misrepresentation and a whole heap of amalgamating together numerous and unrelated ancient myths and stories based on similarities ,cherry picking pieces of information while simply ignoring others or imposing any one or any combination of the aforementioned. Alexander Hislop “creates” this story himself a story that is never told or known by anyone before him.A story unheard or untold in the ancient world. A story that has since been embellished, conflated and confused by those that have retold it. It is now applied to virtually every deity that has “existed”.

As already stated there is no historical written evidence of Semiramis and Nimrod being married but that little fact did not derail Hislop or his theory.

Seeing that Semiramis is not attested to in the Bible alongside Nimrod, the first thing that Hislop needed to do, was “prove” that Semiramis lived at the same time as Nimrod. Placing Semiramis in the same time period as Nimrod was vital to the theory.

In the 2 Babylons book, Hislop uses Marcellinus, Justinus and the chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea as proof that Semiramis lived at the same time as Abraham

He stated:

* AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS compared with JUSTINUS, Historia and EUSEBIUS’ Chronicle. Eusebius says that Ninus and Semiramis reigned in the time of Abraham.”

Hislop further states:

“ For the age of Shem see Genesis 11:10, 11. According to this, Shem lived 502 years after the flood, that is, according to the Hebrew chronology, till BC 1846. The age of Ninus, the husband of Semiramis, as stated in a former note, according to Eusebius, synchronised with that of Abraham, who was born BC 1996. It was only about nine years, however, before the end of the reign of Ninus, that the birth of Abraham is said to have taken place. (SYNCELLUS) Consequently, on this view, the reign of Ninus must have terminated, according to the usual chronology, about BC 1987. Clinton, who is of high authority in chronology, places the reign of Ninus somewhat earlier. In his Fasti Hellenici he makes his age to have been BC 2182. Layard (in his Nineveh and its Remains) subscribes to this opinion. Semiramis is said to have survived her husband forty-two years. (SYNCELL) Whatever view, therefore, be adopted in regard to the age of Ninus, whether that of Eusebius, or that at which Clinton and Layard have arrived, it is evident that Shem long survived both Ninus and his wife. Of course, this argument proceeds on the supposition of the correctness of the Hebrew chronology. “

Syncellus we must note, himself drew upon the works of Eusebius and Justinus. 
The king list of Eusebius in his Chronicle has Semiramis succeeding her husband Ninus who lived at the time of Abraham. Therefore Hislop concludes Semiramis lived at the time of Abraham.

While this kings list places Semiramis at the time of Abraham and so therefore as it is also claimed that Nimrod was alive at the time of Abraham, this also places Semiramis at the time of Nimrod it still does not actually connect Nimrod and Semiramis together. It merely demonstrates that Semiramis lived at the same time as Nimrod. But her husband was called Ninus, she according to even Eusebius was not the wife of Nimrod.

Hislop however overcomes this “slight” problem in his reasoning by then claiming that Nimrod can be linked to Ninus and in fact Nimrod was none other than Ninus or maybe better put Ninus was Nimrod. (linking seemingly unrelated people, gods or things together plays a major part of Hislop’s theory)

Hislop claims that Ninus is clearly Identified with Nimrod.

He then uses some things that are attributed to Ninus such as being warlike and a hunter.
These attributes are linked to Nimrod through similarities.

Hislop using evidence (Eusebius) to clearly identify Ninus as an ancient king of Assyria.

So both Nimrod and Ninus being the most ancient King of Assyria.

While this all might seem like it does what it is supposed that it does, and prove that Nimrod was none other than Ninus and Semiramis was married to Ninus who was Nimrod and so therefore also proves Semiramis was indeed married to Nimrod, there are some major and irreconcilable flaws in the evidence used to prove it.

First Hislop rather than seeing an error in one of, or both of, the understandings of who the most ancient of Assyrian kings may be as surely having conflating accounts would incline a person to deduce, Hislop concludes that one must in fact simply be the other. This doesn’t make the conclusion incorrect but it would require more than just similarities to actually prove that they were one and the same person.

More importantly it is almost certain that Ninus didn’t actually exist and neither did Semiramis.

The Assyrian king list of Eusebius, which Hislop used in order to place Semiramis at the time of Nimrod, is factually incorrect.

At the time when Hislop penned his book, Assyrian and Babylonian studies was in its infancy. During the 18th Century many cuneiform tablets were found in sites throughout Mesopotamia. 
It wasn’t until the late 18th century that the markings on these tablets came to be known as actual writings. So began the arduous task of decipherment. In 1778 Carsten Niebuhr a Danish mathematician published accurate copies of three trilingual inscriptions from the ruins at Persepolis. It was found by Niebuhr that the writings went left to right each of the three inscriptions contained three different types of cuneiform writing. These he called class 1, 2 and 3. 
Class I was determined to be alphabetic and consisting of 44 characters, and was written in Old Persian. It was first deciphered by Georg Friedrich Grotefend and Henry Creswicke Rawlinson between 1802 and 1848.[8]
The second inscription, Class II, proved more difficult to translate. In 1850, Edward Hincks published a paper showing that the Class II was not alphabetical, but was in fact both syllabic and ideographic, which led to its translation between 1850 and 1859. The language was at first called Babylonian and/or Assyrian, but has now come to be known as Akkadian.
From 1850 onwards, there was a growing suspicion that the Semite inhabitants of Babylon and Assyria were not the inventors of cuneiform system of writing, and that they had instead borrowed it from some other language and culture. In 1850, Edward Hincks published a paper suggesting that cuneiform was instead invented by some non-Semitic people who had preceded the Semites in Babylon. In 1853, Rawlinson came to similar conclusions, and the Class III inscriptions were recognized as being written in this more Ancient language, a language which was then called “Akkadian” or “Scythian” but which is now known to be Sumerian. This was the first indication to modern scholarship that this older culture and people, the Sumerians, existed at all. 
The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character, by Samule Noah Kramer
Sir Austen H Layard retrieved from the ruins of Nineveh cuneiform tablets during the 1840’s and 50’s. Sir Henry Rawlinson started deciphering the previously unknown information contained on these tablets. These works were published under the permission of Sir Henry Rawlinson between 1870 and 1884. Previously unknown history was literally being uncovered as Hislop wrote and subsequently brought to light. History which even Hislop himself was unaware of.

Prior to the discovery of the Assyrian king lists on the cuneiform tablets, scholars only had access to the full kings list of Eusebius and a list found in the the Excerpta Latina Barbari.

However with the discovery of the cuneiform tablets it showed that what was previously believed may not be as accurate as what was once believed. Unlike the cuneiform tablets the kings list attested to by Eusebius is not factual.

This new information shed new light upon the true history of the Assyrians. Bringing with it the revelation that previously believed history was actually not history at all.

Neither Ninus nor Semiramis are attested to by any of the kings lists which the Assyrians themselves compiled. They are not mentioned in any cuneiform literature or any Mesopotamian writings. Semiramis and Ninus emerge as monarchs of Assyria only in Greek versions of Assyrian history and never in the history of the Assyrians themselves It was for many centuries that most of the information regarding Mesopotamia came from these classical Greek writers. But today modern Assyriologists have much more to go on and a completely different picture of the Assyrians and Mesopotamia as a whole has emerged.

Ctesias of Cnidus

Many historians up until the discovery of the cuneiform tablets had followed the works of Ctesias of Cnidus for Assyrian history. Ctesias was thought to have been the best available source. The discovery of the Cuneiform tablets however showed that Ctesias writings on which both Eusebius and Justin indirectly drew upon was nothing more than fables. Ultimately invalidating both.
The work of Justin were an epitome of Trogus Pompeius (cited by Hislop) whoes own works were based upon the works of Ctesias. Eusebius own works were summaries of Greek writers who drew upon Ctesias.

Ctesias of Cnidus was both a Physician and Historian. He was a Greek who lived mainly in the 5th century BC. He wrote many works. His history of the Assyrians is found in books 1-6 of his Persika called the Assyriaka which were written in opposition to Herodotus.

However the works of Ctesias of Cnidus no longer remain in full today, they are found only in citations and epitomies of other writers such as Diodorus Siculus, Pompeius Trogus who are both cited as sources for his information by Hislop in his book and also Nicolaus, who all published writings between 36 BC and 9 AD and all of which based their chapters on Assyrian history from the writings of Ctesias in his Persika.

The writings of Ctesias are not entirely factual in fact most of what Ctesias wrote cannot be claimed as historically true . He has even been called “one of the lying historians,” J. R. Morgan (Univ. of Wales)

As perfectly shown by his Inclusion of Ninus and Semiramis . Maybe on this occasion we could give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was simply mistaken. However that cannot be said about much of his claims, that we will later see, that are nothing more than fantastical.
Deciphering fact from fiction is indeed very complicated due to the complete entanglement that has occurred between the 2 in many ancient writings that are still being confused by historians and theologists today, those historians and theologians who still rely on historians who did not or could not not differentiate between these 2 ideas anyway. Yet separating fact from fiction is of fundamental importance in order to obtain true history. If you use these historians literally and as factually accurate, who themselves conflated fact and fiction together and then use those works as a pure historically accurate source then you will inevitably and unavoidably draw upon a conclusion yourself that itself is in fact not historically accurate. You end up with nothing more than false history.

In his assertion that Semiramis is Nimrod’s wife Hislop even goes against those who deciphered the cuneiform tablets.
Hislop stated “Sir H. Rawlinson having found evidence at Nineveh of the existence of a Semiramis about six or seven centuries before the Christian era, seems inclined to regard her as the only Semiramis that ever existed. But this is subversive of all history. The fact that there was a Semiramis in the primeval ages of the world is beyond all doubt…” 
Hislops assertion that “the fact that there was a Semiramis in the primeval ages of the world, is beyond all doubt.” 
Its subversive of all history and beyond all doubt…and the clear evidence that attests to this and would leave us beyond all doubt is …yes that’s right the kings list of Eusebius and the cited writings of Ctesias.
Subversive of all history and beyond all doubt. I’m sure many modern Assyriologists would not be able to claim this so emphatically. Especially since the evidence available today would seem to negate the claim.

The history of the Assyrians as told by Ctesias and portrayed by Didious begins by detailing the reign of the Assyrian king named Ninus. Ninus first conquered Babylonia then Armenia and Media. He built his empire through the means of conquest. However his attempts at taking over Bactria were foiled at Bactra the capital of Bactria. He was unable to take it. Ninus then returned to the west where he founded a new city which he named after himself, Nineveh. Ninus returned again to Bactria to complete what he had started. With the help of Semiramis the wife of one of his men, Onnes,who having watched the ongoing battles noticed a weak spot in the defence of the opposing army and then advised Ninus on how to overcome them. Ninus using this information would eventually capture Bactra. He then took Semiramis as his own wife. She would give birth to their son Ninyas and shortly after this Ninus died. Semiramis became Queen of Assyria.

Ninus, according to Ctesias and other Greek historians writing in the Hellenistic period and later who relied on Ctesias as a source, was credited as being the founder of Nineveh, having named the city after himself. Of course if Nnus is really Nimrod then the city would not have been named after Ninus but Nimrod.  Ninus, though,  may simply have been one of the many names Nimrod has apparently been known by.

There is no historical evidence for the claim beyond the writings of the Greek historians.

The Bible does not say that neither Nimrod nor Ninus built Nineveh. The bible actually says that Asshur was the builder of Nineveh

Genesis 10:11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah,

Asshur was the 2nd son of shem , Asshur is also the name of a people (the assyrians)

Therefore Nimrod being associated with Ninus based on this fact fails.

Hislop tried desperately to explain this verse and make it seem as if it was in fact talking about Nimrod rather than Asshur

“ I am persuaded that the whole perplexity that commentators have hitherto felt in considering this passage, has arisen from supposing that there is a proper name in the passage, where in reality no proper name exists. Asshur is the passive participle of a verb, which, in its Chaldee sense, signifies “to make strong,” and, consequently, signifies “being strengthened,” or “made strong.” Read thus, the whole passage is natural and easy”

Literally changing both the verse and its meaning to fit his claims.

(v 10), “And the beginning of his (Nimrod’s) kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh.” A beginning naturally implies something to succeed, and here we find it (v 11): “Out of that land he went forth, being made strong, or when he had been made strong (Ashur), and builded Nineveh.”

Hislop even states that having changed the meaning of the verse it now exactly agrees with the historical statement.

Now, this exactly agrees with the statement in the ancient history of Justin: “Ninus strengthened the greatness of his acquired dominion by continued possession. Having subdued, therefore, his neighbours, when, by an accession of forces, being still further strengthened, he went forth against other tribes, and every new victory paved the way for another, he subdued all the peoples of the East.” Thus, then, Nimrod, or Ninus, was the builder of Nineveh; and the origin of the name of that city, as “the habitation of Ninus,” is accounted for, * and light is thereby, at the same time, cast on the fact, that the name of the chief part of the ruins of Nineveh is Nimroud at this day.

So there we have it, if the Bible disagrees with history simply change the meaning of the Bible to fit history. To be honest that would be bad enough. However its made even worse by the fact Hislop was trying to make the Bible fit a demonstrably erroneous history in the first place.

The story of Semiramis comes to us primarily from Diodorus Siculus who is cited by Hislop in the Book. Diodorus account again is based upon the writings of Ctesias.

Diodorus wrote.

4 1 Since after the founding of this city Ninus made a campaign against Bactriana, where he married Semiramis,5 the most renowned of all women of whom we have any record, it is necessary first of all to tell how she rose from a lowly fortune to such fame.”

In the proceding writing of Diodorus he tells the story of Semiramis how she was found as a baby after her mother had abandoned her. She had been kept safe and warm by doves.

She was adopted by Simmas and he looked after her as his own naming her Semiramis.
When she was come of age she married Onnes, an officer of the kings cout. They had 2 children Hyapates and Hydaspes.

King Ninus after finishing the city that bore his name, Ninevah, undertook a campaign against the Bactrians. Ninus easily overtook the cities of these people but was unable to take the city of Bactra. Onnes sent for his wife who having observed the battles gave Ninus a plan of attack.  This plan finally led to the King taking hold of the city. Ninus becoming infatuated with Semiramis asked Onnes to allow him to marry her. After Onnes refused Ninus commanded him to do so with threats of pulling out the eyes of Onnes. Onnes then hung himself with a rope. And so Semiramis became queen. Ninus and Semiramis had a son called Ninyas who would eventually rule after Semiramis. Ninus died not long after the birth of Ninyas and so Semiramis ruled alone as queen. Succeeding her husband for 42 years.

She,wanting to accomplish greater things than her predecessor and wishing to establish her fame went about building a city in Babylonia.

A long description of the building of the city itself is given. In the city Semiramis is said to have erected statues of Greek gods including Zeus and Rhea.

Semiramis is also credited with building other cities along the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.
It is then stated that she built the stone obelisk to herself.

Then it is said that Semiramis set out to build her empire. First heading towards the Medes. She visited many countries before returning to Bactra.

Before she then set off in a war against India having heard of their great wealth. To which much detail is given regarding this war in which she eventually lost.

After this, as had already been predicted, her son conspired against her to take the throne. Allowing him to do so she ordered that he should be obeyed. It is then said that she became a dove and flew away. This being why the Assyrians worship the dove and in doing so deifying Semiramis.

Diodorus wrote

“3 Such, then, is the account that Ctesias of Cnidus has given about Semiramis; but Athenaeus 47 and certain other historians say that she was a comely courtesan and because of her beauty was loved by the king of the Assyrians. 4 Now at first she was accorded only a moderate acceptance in the palace, but later, when p419 she had been proclaimed a lawful wife, she persuaded the king to yield the royal prerogatives to her for a period of five days.48 5 And Semiramis, upon receiving the sceptre and the regal garb, on the first day held high festival and gave a magnificent banquet, at which she persuaded the commanders of the military forces and all the greatest dignitaries to co‑operate with her; and on the second day, while the people and the most notable citizens were paying her their respects as queen, she arrested her husband and put him in prison; and since she was by nature a woman of great designs and bold as well, she seized the throne and remaining queen until old age accomplished many great things. Such, then, are the conflicting accounts which may be found in the historians regarding the career of Semiramis. 
Whereas Ninus is the founder of Nineveh, she is said to have founded the even greater city of Babylon. 4”

Semiramis never existed and the stories that surround her are nothing more than myths and the incorporation of actual historical events that have been changed or elaborated upon.

However, she may have had at least some basis on a real historical figure. The real “Semiramis” the person on which she is most likely based was actually Sammu-Ramat who ruled as queen from 811-806 BC after the death of her husband King Shamshi-Adad V ( 823-811B.C) She was queen in of the Assyrian Empire as regent until her son King Adad-nirari III took rule. All of which are attested to by the kings list of the Assyrians

The rule of Sammu-rammat is debated and is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.

Whatever she did during her reign she seems to have been powerful or revered enough to have been seen as equal to her male counterparts and had an obelisk inscribed and placed in prominence in the city of Ashur with the inscription.

Stele of Sammuramat, queen of Shamshi-Adad, King of the Universe, King of Assyria, Mother of Adad Nirari, King of the Universe, King of Assyria, Daughter-in-Law of Shalmaneser, King of the Four Regions of the World.

Semiramis would appear to be the Greek name given to Sammu-Ramat. It is then this Semiramis that has then morphed into the goddess known today.

Herodotus was the first Greek writer to mention Semiramis

He stated Semiramis lived five generations before Nitocris.

It would seem that history and myth have converged together and the Greek hellenistic writers have created a goddess out of a queen. Myths and legends of goddesses have been integrated into her story which is very different than that of the actual Sammuramat.

Eusebius references the Babylonian writer Berossus, complaining that the Greeks attributed to Semiramis great building projects she had no hand in, while Polyaenus references inscriptions of hers testifying to her exploits and the construction of “impregnable walls” of her cities.

While Josephus attests to the historical figure of Semiramis he states that Berossus, (c. Apion I., 20), opposes the view of Greek writers who make Semiramis the founder of Babylon

Ctesias claimed She is also credited with the Behistun monument which was actually constructed by Darius I to celebrate his numerous conquests.
Authored by Darius the Great sometime between his coronation as king of the Persian Empire in the summer of 522 BC and his death in autumn of 486 BC,

Semiramis is the amalgamation of fact and fiction. The fictional work of Greek hellenistic writers who combined reality with myth creating nothing more than a “Frankenstein’s Monster” of a character, a goddess named Semiramis.

Even here though in all these myths and stories we still do not get the version given by Hislop.

Even the Greek writers in their stories did not include anything regarding sun worship, a reincarnated son or the marriage of a mother and son.

So where did Hislop get these ideas from?

This is where the myths of the Egyptians are drawn in and linked with Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz.

As we know Hislop claims that all pagan religions have a commonality that derives from Nimrod and Semiramis. It cannot go without mention that the “child” part of Hislops theory is very noticeably lacking in the various writings of the Greek historians that Hislop uses.

Again this in no way deterred Hislop. His theory continued.

And so we come to the story of Osiris, Isis and Horus that are apparently just the retelling of the story of Nimrod ,Semiramis and Tammuz. And it is within the Egyptian myth that we come across the story that is now most commonly attributed to that of Nimrod , his wife and child. We are introduced to the concept of and the significance of the son through this myth.

Hislop acknowledges that scripture is silent on the death of Nimrod. 
“How Nimrod died, Scripture is entirely silent.”

Hislop then dismisses the “fable” of Nimrod’s death that is given by tradition.

There was an ancient tradition that he came to a violent end. The circumstances of that end, however, as antiquity represents them, are clouded with fable. It is said that tempests of wind sent by God against the Tower of Babel overthrew it, and that Nimrod perished in its ruins. This could not be true, for we have sufficient evidence that the Tower of Babel stood long after Nimrod’s day. Then, in regard to the death of Ninus, profane history speaks darkly and mysteriously, although one account tells of his having met with a violent death similar to that of Pentheus, Lycurgus, * and Orpheus, who were said to have been torn in pieces. ** “

However, it does not deter him from giving us the explanation of how Nimrod died.

Here Alexander Hislop uses comparative mythology to claim that seeing Osiris is simply the retelling of the story of Nimrod and that Osiris is Nimrod, by knowing how Osiris died we can inturn know how Nimrod died.

The identity of Nimrod, however, and the Egyptian Osiris, having been established, we have thereby light as to Nimrod’s death. Osiris met with a violent death, and that violent death of Osiris was the central theme of the whole idolatry of Egypt. If Osiris was Nimrod, as we have seen, that violent death which the Egyptians so pathetically deplored in their annual festivals was just the death of Nimrod. The accounts in regard to the death of the god worshipped in the several mysteries of the different countries are all to the same effect. A statement of Plato seems to show, that in his day the Egyptian Osiris was regarded as identical with Tammuz; * and Tammuz is well known to have been the same as Adonis, the famous HUNTSMAN, for whose death Venus is fabled to have made such bitter lamentations. * See WILKINSON’S Egyptians. The statement of Plato amounts to this, that the famous Thoth was a counsellor of Thamus, king of Egypt. Now Thoth is universally known as the “counsellor” of Osiris. Hence it may be concluded that Thamus and Osiris are the same. “
2 Babylons page 51

So based on Plato’s statement that Thoth was both a counsellor for Osiris and also for Thamus …THE KING OF EGYPT…then Osiris and Thamus are the same…hold it here. This literally makes no sense at all, talk about clutching at straws. There are literally thousands of counsellors today each being counsellor to more than one person that doesn’t make each person the same person that’s just a ridiculous conclusion. Furthermore Tammuz was not a king of Egypt and the connection between Thamus, Tammuz and Osiris is illogical and just doesn’t hold up.

Alexander Hislop used an Egyptian myth that was associated with Osiris, Isis and Horus and because as he claimed they are Egyptian versions of the earlier gods he proceeded to input those beliefs back into history even though this story is not told of anywhere by anyone that included Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz. The story isn’t that of the one told in relation to Ninus and Semiramis by the Greek writers. If every pagan religion is simply the retelling of the same story then the story should in essence stay the same or at least be similar. The story of Osiris is nothing like that of Ninus. If the death of Osiris should be taken as the death of Nimrod then the death of Ninus should be the same if Ninus was Nimrod. Itt would seem that Hislop simply chooses which parts of a story and from which version of the story to take and make up the “correct” story.

Although it is very clear through Egyptian texts that the Egyptians had gods called Osiris, Isis and Horus, there are actually many different versions of the Isis, Osiris and Horus mythological story. 
Parts of the story are shown in many different Egyptian texts. No Egyptian source gives a full account of the myth and these myths vary in detail dependent on the source and dates used.

Hislop cites and calls upon the Plutarch for support regarding the myths of Osiris,Isis and Horus

However, Plutarch in his writings De Iside et Osiride 
described the various and plentiful different versions of the myths both of the Egyptians and the Greeks relating to the story that revolves around these 3 characters. We must first know that this story had changed continuously throughout the many Egyptian dynasties evolving itself over the centuries as Plutarch was fully aware. 
It is interesting to note though that rather early on in his work, Plutarch makes the point that the Egyptians did not take these stories as being that of fact rather they were actually just stories that were allegorically constructed and symbolic. (Something that he repeated throughout his writing on this subject.

One version has Horus being born before Osiris was killed. 
Another myth has Isis and Osiris producing Apollo before they had even left their mothers(Rhea) womb. 
Plutarch then explains that this is simply allegorical.
Again Plutarch explained that the myths of the Egyptians were never to be interpreted as fact
Simply over time the stories had changed. And the once non gods had become gods

Plutarch explains that those who do not hold those views regarding the divinity of Isis have better judgement.

He further explained that Isis and Osiris had translated their virtues

Isis then according to Plutarch had not always been seen as one of the main gods and in later traditions had this bestowed upon her.

Yet again Plutarch repeated that we should not believe the myths as they are simply stories with attributes.

Plutarch even warned that following these myths as truth destroys faith

Even if Osiris was indeed the the Egyptian Nimrod the myths and stories relating to Osiris cannot without proof automatically be inferred that the same myth was believed regarding Nimrod. Neither can we simply take just one version of the story when various myths and stories were believed. 
Indeed we know for a fact, using Hislop’s own reasoning that we cannot do this. The very story that Hislop uses to start all this off, that of Ninus and Semiramis acts as evidence against this as nowhere in the Greek writings relating to Ninus and Semiramis is this version recorded about them. Therefore we cannot take one version and overlay it onto each other version or we would then have to dismiss versions that do not follow the story with which Hislop has derived.

But ‘we have more evidence. Hislop also claims that Semiramis is also known by the name Ishtar. Ishtar being yet another name and another retelling of Semiramis. It is therefore no surprise that the story told about Ishtar by many people today mirrors that of Semiramis. If they are the same person just worshipped by different people under different names then this would be expected.

However nowhere in ancient Akkadian writings is Ishtar ever described as having a husband who dies and then her claiming he became the sun god. She is never described as having stated that he son was the reincarnation of that husband. Tammuz is described as being a former lover of Ishtar in the epic of Gilgamesh. The story of Ishtar as told by the Akkadians does not resemble that of the story of Osiris,Isis and Horus. Yet it is still claimed by people today that the story does relate to her.

this is simply taking one cultures myths and inputting it back into history and applying it to another cultures myths even though nobody ever wrote this story about Ishtar.

Who exactly was Ishtar? Ishtar was an Akkadian goddess that PRECEDED the kingdom of Babylon. She was later a goddess of Babylon also however she was incorporated into babylonian culture she didn’t originate there. Ishtar was a goddess of many different things including love and war.

And it is actually in the writings about Ishtar that we are introduced to Tammuz. Who Hislop claimed was Horus the son of Osiris and Isis and so the son of Semiramis and Nimrod.

In the Epic of Gilgamesh Ishtar is referenced as the goddess of love. And called a lady of love and war. Tammuz is simply referred to as a lover of Ishtar’s youth. There is no mention of her being married to him or having a son.

Ishtar tries to seduce Gilgamesh and asks to be his bride. However Gilgamesh rejects her advances reminding her of her past and her former lover of her youth Tammuz. Gilgamesh states that she had decreed weeping for Tammuz. She demands that the bull of heaven be given unto her and threatens to goto the underworld and cause mayhem if her demands are not met. The bull is given and released. Gilgamesh kills the bull under the instructions of his friend Enkidu. Enkidu is punished and basically sentenced to death for this.

We are also told about Ishtar in an Akkadian poem called Ishtar’s descent into the underworld.

The story goes.

Ishtar has her mind set on the underworld. When she reaches the gates of the underworld she asks the gatekeeper to let her in. She threatens to breakdown the gates if she is refused entry and even threatens to raise the dead. The gatekeeper says he will go and speak to Ereskiga the queen who is also Ishtar’s sister. Ereskiga wonders why Ishtar has set her sights on her. She tells the gatekeeper to allow Ishtar in.She must go through the 7 gates. Each gate removing her items of clothing. Once through the gates Ishtar sat above her sister Ereskiga. Erekiga set 60 diseases against Ishtar. After Ishtar’s descent into the underworld sexual activity on earth ceased. Ea conceives apla and creates Asusu- namir (a male cultic prostitute) He is sent into the underworld. Ereskiga curses him. Ishtar is then reinstated with all the things that were removed.

Hislop links Semiramis to Ishtar by way of easter through the goddess Astarte who was another supposed version of Semiramis.

“that from Astarte, whose name in Nineveh was Ishtar,”

Hislop does this and then uses it to attack the festival of Easter

Then look at Easter. What means the term Easter itself? It is not a Christian name. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people Nineveh, was evidently identical with that now in common use in this country. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar.

However as already shown we now know that the language of the Akkadians was not Chaldean but Sumerian and so this assertion by Hislop although may well have been the understanding at his time of writing has since been shown to have been false

Professor Bruce writes. “We now know that the original language of Babylonian religion, far from being what Hislop and his contemporaries called ‘Chaldee’ (which was really Aramaic), was not a Semitic language at all, not even the Semitic tongue now called Akkadian…but Sumerian, a language with no certain affinity to any other known language.” Sumerian, not Chaldee, was the language of primeval Babylon. Hence Hislop’s “etymological inventiveness which traced words…to ‘Chaldee’ roots,” is irrelevant in establishing linguistic links to Nimrod’s Babylon and Assyria. They are pseudo-science not science. “Hislop’s argument stands in need of radical revision,” Dr. Bruce concludes. It comes as no surprise then that modern Assyriology does not cite Hislop’s Two Babylons; it is a discredited source. “

Another false statement regarding the name Easter is that it comes from a Germanic goddess Ēostre or Ostara who again is simply another version of Ishtar and so another version of Semiramis although this actually isn’t a claim made by Hislop. 
This Comes from a writing The Reckoning of Time, from an 8th Century Monk named Bede.
Bede states that during Ēosturmōnaþ, pagan Anglo-Saxons had held feasts in Ēostre’s honor, but that this tradition had died out by his time, replaced by the Christian Paschal month, a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus.
However Bede is the only source of such a goddess. This simply has no factual historical basis. There is no mention of this goddess in Norse writings. She simply doesn’t exist outside the writings of Bede or anyone who has since used Bede as a source as to her existence.

I certainly am not advocating Easter itself (see my writing is Easter Christian?) but the assertions regarding Ishtar are simply false.

Easter does not derive its name from Ishtar and neither does it come from Ēostre. 
Osten is the German word for east. Easter derives its name from the Germanic Ēosturmōnaþ was the equivalent of April.
Ēostre or Ostara, simply means east or month of the sun from the east.

Moreover Ishtar is actually the Akkadian name for the older Sumerian goddess Inanna

We know this because the poem is actually a replica of an older Sumerian Poem called Inanna’s descent into the netherworld/underworld.
The Sumerian poem of Inanna is much longer and more detailed than the Akkadians Ishtar version.

‘Inanna’s Descent to the Netherworld dated to somewhere between 3500 bc-1900 bc

It has 415 lines.

The story goes as follows.

Inanna wishes to travel to the underworld because she has set her sight on the divine powers of the underworld

She gives instructions to her servant E-ana in relation to what she must do when Inanna is in the underworld.

When Inanna arrives in the underworld she tells the chief doorman it is because the husband of her eldest sister has died.

Another of Inannas sisters, Erec-ki-gala is the queen of the underworld.

Inanna had taken the 7 divine powers.

Erec-ki-gala gave instructions that the 7 gates of the underworld would be locked and Inanna must go through each shedding one divine power at each gate.

By the time she reaches her sister she is totally naked. She then sits on her sisters throne. For this she is judged by the Anuna,the 7 judges. She is turned into a corpse and hung on a hook.

E-ana follows her instructiona at this point and eventually goes to Nanna. Nanna is angry at Inannas craving for the divine powers

However Father Enki explains how to bring Ianna back

Inanna was caught before she ascended by the Anuna and was instructed to provide a substitute

After the demons ask to take a series of people in her place and being told no by Inanna they come to Damuzi, innanas husband. He has not been mourning for her so she allows them to take him in her place

Damuzi cries out to his brother in law Utu for help

Utu hears Damuzi and helps him

Inanna weeps for her husband

Inanna’s Sister allowed Damuzi to be released from the underworld for half of the year and in his place his sister would spend the other half of the year in the underworld.

So Inanna is synonymous with Ishtar and Dumuzi becomes Tammuz.

The older stories of Ishtar and Tammuz and Inanna and Dumuzi do not include the details given regarding Osiris, Isis and Horus.

Tammuz who was Damuzi is ripped out of the story of Ishtar and then simply forced into the Egyptian myth and becomes Horus the son.

But how did Hislop from these writings where Tammuz was never the son conclude that Tammuz was the son of Nimrod and Semiramis. Again simply through association and a whole heap of assumption.

Damuzzi was a shepherd god and associated with vegetation. Osiris was also a vegetation god, as Horus was believed to be Osiris Damuzi who we know was Tammuz was linked to Horus by way of Osiris and so Tammuz became the equivalent of Horus.. (all very complicated indeed).

The stories relating to these god/goddesses were allegorical to represent and explain the rainy season and the dry hot summer season.

As we see in the story Damuzi was to spend 6 months of the year in the underworld. It was “believed” that it was the tears shed by the vegetation god that brought the rains and so during the wetter months the god was in the heavens however during the hotter summer months when the rain stopped this was when the vegetation god was in the underworld.

Inanna ordered that the people weep for Damuzi .The people would symbolically weep for Damuzi as in weep “for” instead of him.

We see this in the Bible the weeping for Tammuz.

Ezekiel 8-14 Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD’S house which wastoward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.

This weeping unlike the claimed 40 days lasted anywhere from 40 hours to 6 weeks. The act showed that the people had accepted other “gods” and were performing rituals that the pagans did.

It was also believed until the deciphering off the cuneiforms that Dummuzi was a dying and resurrecting god. However we now know that he never actually dies he is simply taken to the underworld for half the year and he never actually resurrects he is simply released from the underworld.

The whole story of Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz is simply made up. Hislop takes bits from different myths and stories and mashes them together, sometimes like in the case of Tammuz it is done to fill a gap in his own theory, to form the story that is told today which is of Hislop’s own creation.

It is not historical, it is not Biblical, it is not accurate and it is not correct. No matter how many people believe or retell this story it will remain the concoction of Alexander Hislop and nothing more. Anyone that uses it has not actually studied History. They may have studied the sources cited by Hislop to support his theory but modern knowledge proves this false.

If you like this study …..

Join our Patreon membership here

You can buy the two Babylons book here  (this is an affiliate link however there is no extra cost to you. 

You can buy my book here