2 Kings 17:6

6. The king of Assyria took Samaria From the context we most naturally infer that this Assyrian king was no other than Shalmaneser, mentioned in 2 Kings 17:3, but the Assyrian inscriptions show that it was Shalmaneser’s successor, whose name, Sargon, occurs in Isaiah 20:1. This fact by no means conflicts with our historian, who simply calls the conqueror, the king of Assyria. Compare chap. 2 Kings 18:10. In a long inscription discovered in the palace of Khorsabad, and commonly called the “Acts of Sargon,” occurs the following: “I besieged, took, and occupied the city of Samaria, and carried into captivity twenty-seven thousand two hundred and eighty of its inhabitants. I changed the former government of the country and placed over it lieutenants of my own… And Sebeh, ruler of Egypt, came to Raphia [a city near the seacoast southwest of Gaza] to fight against me; they met me and I routed them; Sebeh fled.” This last statement gives support to the conjecture that it was some interference from the king of Egypt that enabled Samaria to hold out so long against the Assyrian armies. Compare note on 2 Kings 17:4. Sargon seems, therefore, to have been a usurper who gained possession of the throne of Assyria during Shalmaneser’s prolonged absence at the siege of Samaria. “In the East,” says Rawlinson, “it is always dangerous for the reigning prince to be long away from his metropolis. In the king’s absence all languishes: the course of justice is suspended; public works are stopped; workmen are discharged; wages fall; and the people, anxious for better times, are ready to welcome any pretender who will come forward and declare the throne vacant, and claim to be its proper occupant. If Shalmaneser continued to direct in person the siege of Samaria three years, we cannot be surprised that the patience of the Ninevites was exhausted, and that in the third year they accepted the rule of the usurper who boldly proclaimed himself king.” So the siege of Samaria was commenced and long carried on by Shalmaneser, but was completed by Sargon, who subsequently warred against Hamath and Egypt, as his inscription claims. But the Hebrew historian does not concern himself with this dynastic revolution, as it in no way changed the attitude of Assyria towards Israel.

Halah The exact locality of Halah is not settled, and whether it were a city or a district is doubtful. The most probable supposition is, that it was a district lying on or near the river of Gozan, and probably near its source.

Habor is usually identified with the modern Khabur, which rises in Mount Masius, and flows in a nearly southerly direction, and empties into the Euphrates at the site of the ancient Carchemish. According to Benjamin of Tudela there were large communities of Israelites as late as the twelfth century living on the banks of this river. Many think this river identical with the Chebar of Ezekiel. Ezekiel 1:1. Others, however, identify the Habor with a river of similar name which empties into the Tigris some seventy miles above Nineveh. In this verse the river of Gozan seems to be in apposition with Habor, and J.L. Porter suggests that Habor is the name of the district watered by the lower Khabur, while the upper part of the same river, flowing through the province of Gozan, is called the river of Gozan. In 1 Chronicles 5:26, the river of Gozan is distinguished from Habor, which would be natural enough if different names were applied to different portions of the same river. Ptolemy mentions a province on the southern declivities of Mount Masius called Gausanitis, and it was probably identical with the ancient Gozan. At the time of Sargon all this region must have belonged to the Assyrian empire.

Cities of the Medes So all the captives were not placed along the Habor, but some transported into the more distant Media. One of the Median cities, to which exiles were taken, appears from Tob 1:14 , to have been Rages. It is interesting to note that in his long inscription, already mentioned, Sargon claims to have subjected Media to his sway. “Sargon seems to have been the first Assyrian monarch who conquered Media; and he expressly relates that, in order to complete its subjection, he founded there a number of cities, which he planted with colonists from other portions of his dominion.” RAWLINSON, Hist. Eviden., p. 119. It seems to have been a favourite policy of his to colonize newly-conquered districts by placing in them people from a distance, and forming a mixed population which would not be so likely to plan revolt or treason. Comp. 2 Kings 17:24.