(italics mine).^81 Thus, two types of exiled diaspora emerge from the text. The
first remains visible and audible; the second is invisible and inaudible—a lost
diaspora.
The inaudibility of the Israelite diaspora first derives from its geographic
framing. Between 2 Kings and the prophets, the Israelite diaspora is reloca-
ted to an undisclosed and hidden realm. The difference between the chron-
ologies of the deportations in 2 Kings and in the prophets is striking. While
the narrative in 2 Kings mentions specific locations, the prophets tend to
be vague, general, and all-inclusive in their discussions of the location of
the Israelite exile. It is as if the prophets themselves are wondering where
their brethren have gone. Even before the Babylonian exile, the prophets Amos
and Hosea express this same sense. Amos writes of “exilebeyondDamascus”
(Amos 5 : 5 , 27 ). Hosea raises the possibility of assimilation and disappearance
in the wake of exile: “Israel isswallowed upnow among the nations” (Hosea
8 : 8 ), and “Israel will becomewanderersamong the nations” (Hosea 9 : 17 ).
Isaiah, at the end of his most famous prophecy concerning the latter days,
declares:
And... the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the
remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from
Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from
Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.
And... assemble the outcasts of Israel and gather together the
dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Isaiah 11 : 11 – 12 )The possibilities of location seem to be infinite. The tribes could be moving
ever eastward “beyond Damascus.” They could be assimilated and “swallowed
up” within other nations, wandering endlessly among them. Or they could be
scattered all over the world.
Isaiah’s depiction of the two exiles—the first of Judah and the second of the
Israelites—draws a clear distinction between them. Judah’s was geographic—
“mundane,” calling for the gathering of Judah “from Egypt, Pathros, and
Cush.” The Israelite deportees, on the other hand, are cast into a far wider,
ill-defined world.^82
Isaiah’s mimicking of Assyrian symbolism and rhetoric, such that the exile
of the Israelites emerges in his text as a divinely mandated event rather than as
the outcome of imperial politics, is crucial. The standard Assyrian formulation
listed specific powers (Sumer, Akkad); included actual place names or geo-
graphic designators (“islands of the sea”); and generally concluded with the
phrase “four quarters (or corners) of the world.” Isaiah adopts this, whole cloth:
he first lists the two powers dominant in Judah’s world (Egypt, Assyria);