The king of Israel had good reason for lo oking hopefully to an alliance with this monarch. He was
the first Pharaoh of the twenty-fifth Ethiopian dynasty. Under him Egypt, which before had been
pressed in the north by the Assyrians and in the south by the Ethiopians, and suffered from
internal dissensions, became strong, peaceful, and independent. This is not the place for details of
a reign which was not only signally beneficial to his country, but elevated in character. Seve was
too wise a monarch to be persuaded by the ambassadors, or seduced b y the "presents" which
Hoshea sent, into an active alliance with Israel against Assyria.* The attempted "conspiracy"**
became known to Shalmaneser. He turned against Hoshea, who in the meantime had ceased to pay
his tribute, seized and cast him into pris on (2 Kings 17:4).
* Unfortunately for Egypt, it did, at a later period, enter into an alliance against Assyria. The
defeat and humiliation of Egypt are referred to in Isaiah 20:1. Probably the prophecy in Isaiah 19
refers to the same subject. For the history of the Assyrian victories see Schrader (u.s., pp. 392),
who also gives (pp. 402-405) an abstract of the events of 15 out of the I7 years of the reign of
Sargon. We only add, that on the Assyrian monument Seve is designated as "Sultan," or prince,
not as "Pharaoh," king of Egypt (Schrader u.s.; p. 270).
** Some critics, however, propose to read for (...), "conspiracy," (...) , "falsehood."
The further progress of this war is only briefly summarized in the Biblical record (2 Kings 17:5,
6), which is chiefly concerned with the issue of the struggle, and its spiritual import and lessons. It
only relates that the siege of Samaria lasted three years; that at the end of them - that is, in the
ninth (or last) year of Hoshea - the city was taken; and, lastly , that "Israel" was "carried away" to
certain places which are mentioned. Happily, the Assyrian inscriptions enable us to fill up this
bare outline. From them we learn that after the siege of Samaria had continued about two years,
Shalmaneser was succeeded by Sargon, who took the city (after a siege of altogether three years)
in the first year of his reign - that is, in the year 722 B.C.*
* Alike Biblical and Assyrian chronology lead up to the year 722 or 72I B.C. as that of the taking
of Samaria.
Strictly speaking, the sacred text does not expressly attribute the capture of Samaria to
Shalmaneser himself (comp. 2 Kings 17:6; 18:10, 11),* although Sargon is not mentioned.
* It must, however, be admitted that the argument for the reading (...) "and he took it," (2 Kings
18:10) for (...) "they took it," has great weight.
And for this silence, or even the ascription of this campaign wholly to Shalmaneser, there may be
reasons, unknown to us, connected with the relation between Sargon and Shalmaneser, and the
part which the former may have taken in the military operations or the conduct of the siege.
Certain it is that Sargon was not the son of Shalmaneser, although apparently of princely descent -
perhaps the scion of a collateral branch of the royal fami ly. Nor do we know the circumstances of
his accession - possibly in consequence of a revolution, easily accounted for by dissatisfaction
with the king's failure both before Tyre and Samaria. In any case, the inscriptions distinctly inform
us that Sargon captured Samaria, led away 27,280 of its inhabitants, took fifty chariots, leaving his
subordinates to take the rest of the property found in the city, and appointing a governor, with the
same tribute as Hoshea had paid.
Similarly, the Biblical account of the deportation of Israel into exile is supplemented and
confirmed by the Assyrian records. The places to which they were carried are not indeed
enumerated in the Assyrian inscriptions, but their location can mostly be ascertained. "Halah" (or
rather "Chalah"), the first place mentioned in 2 Kings 17:6, was, judging from its conjunction with
"the river Chabor" and with "Gozan" (comp. 1 Chronicles 5:26), a district contiguous to them,
called Chalcitis, where a mound called Gla may represent the city.* There cannot be any doubt in
regard to the other localities to which the Israelites were carried. They were "placed" "on the
Chabor, the river of Gozan,** and in the cities of the Medes."