502 Csaba Balogh Instead, it appears that Isa 33 can be perfectly understood from Isa 1–33. In one way, Isa 33 has always functioned as a closure text. Isa 33,1+4 was written to bring a previous collection of ywh-prophecies in Isa 28–32 to a close in the late Assyrian period (116). At a later stage, when this collection was re-evaluated in view of the Babylonian attack on Jerusalem, Isa 33 was updated with vv. 2-3.5.7-12. This revision also expresses awareness of other Isaianic texts, especially Isa 2 and 5, but intertextuality is a rather common literary phenomenon in other ywh- texts of Isa 28-32 as well. The final revision in 33,6+13-24 tends to present this chapter in relation to Isa 1, and to make of 33,24 a kind of inclusio to 1,5-6 (117). It is possible that some passages of Isa 1 and 33,6+13-23 have common origin and that the framing of the First Isaianic collection by Isa 1 and 33 was the work of the same editor (118). III. Conclusion In contrast to the conclusion of most studies on Isa 33, this text presents far too many problems to be considered one literary unit. The textual complexities and the unevenness of this chapter can be solved neither by reckoning with isolate glosses, nor by presuming that Isa 33 follows a liturgical pattern, nor by viewing this text as a compendium of several intertexts. As in other ywh-prophecies in Isa 28–32, we have a short woe-cry at the bases of Isa 33, comprising vv. 1+4. These two verses concentra- ting on the fall of the unnamed oppressor reflect close theological and formal similarities. The basic idea of this utterance is that YHWH still (116) At this stage other anti-Israel prophecies in 28–32 were also supple- mented with anti-Assyrian material. (117) KUSTÁR, Krankheit, 96-97. The importance of relating Isa 33 with Isa 1 was especially emphasised by WASCHKE, “Jesaja 33”, 525-529. One has to disagree with him, however, that Isa 33 would also parallel Isa 1 with regard to its structure (see, e.g., the different place of 1,4-5 and 33,24), or that the references to Isa 1 would be more important for Isa 33 than other Isaianic passages (cf. 5,16 and 33,5). The relationship with Isa 1 questions other assumptions that Isa 1 would have been composed as an introduction to Isa 1–66 as a whole. (118) Whether Isa 33 also includes the work of Deutero-Isaiah, is among the possibilities, although — contrary to the suggestion of Williamson — that is hardly possible for the entire pericope. It even remains a question whether he could have been the final editor. The intricate relationship between Isa 33 and 36–39 must now be left out of discussion. See in this regard BOSSHARD-NEPUSTIL, Rezeptionen, 187-188; KUSTÁR, Krankheit, 92-96.