In this article I compared Assyrian expansion as presented in the Bible with that presented in the Assyrian sources. Then I pointed out the problems of the historical events presented in the Bible. Combining these problems with the results of source-criticism I argued that the biblical 'distortion' of the historical events was intentional. The writers probably did it to offer their interpretation of the downfall of Assyria. This presentation and organization of the events can be explained in terms of the historiography of representation. By applying this concept it is possible to explain several textual and historical problems of these chapters.
In contrast to most opinions concerning Isa 33 this pericope is far too complex to be explained as one coherent literary unit. Isa 33 has a short anti-Assyrian woe-cry at its bases (vv. 1+4), which once closed the woe-cries of Isa 28–32. Vv. 1+4 were supplemented first (around 598 or 587) by a communal lament, vv. 2-3+5+7-12, bringing the idea of the punishment of Judah and the temporised destruction of the enemy in vv. 1+4 further. Second, (shortly after 539) vv. 1-5.7-12 were expanded by a salvation prophecy, vv. 6+13-24, concerning the returnees, the restoration of Jerusalem and the monarchy.
Recent scholarship interprets Isaiah 24,14-16 in light of a “prophetic disputation pattern” genre, which sees the praise in vv. 14-15 as an assertion and the “I” statement in v. 16b as the counter-assertion, thus, correcting the assertion in vv. 14-15. This article seeks to challenge this interpretation and argue that the “I” statement in v. 16b does not need to function as a “counter-assertion” to the praise in vv. 14-15 but, rather, as introducing the proclamation of judgment for the unrighteous (v. 16c).