KAR 023 + 025

1The restoration follows Mayer 1976: 469. tr.en: [Foremost of the gods], honored [na]me,

2Mayer 1976: 469 reasonably suggests reading [NU B]A[L?-ni] in the gap. There is a trace of a sign in the middle of the line, but not enough to identify it. He also wanders if . . . Z]I-ḪA should be emended to zi-kir!, which seems quite reasonable, especially in light of the next line's phrasing.

3See Mayer for the lexical equivalence of {d}NAM and ištartu (1976: 472).

4See Lenzi 2011: 330 (note to line 13) for various options for understanding the obscure ma-ši-šu-ti.

5The restorations follow Mayer 1976: 470. The stroking of the nose may be prostration (so Foster 2005: 697; Van Buylaere 2010a; Lenzi 2011: 336, and others); in any case, it is a gesture of submission of some kind (Seux 1976: 302; see CAD L/12).

6U₄-MEŠ# may be read u₄-me. The restoration follows Mayers suggestion (1976: 470).

7A₂#.TUKU#?-MU#? follows Mayer 1976: 471, whose collation is more accurate than Ebeling's copy in KAR 25.

8I prefer Mayers restoration (1976: 471) over Ebeling's šumu, "name" (1953: 10). The gap before GI.NA is large enough to accommodate the length of IBILA.

9My restoration assumes this line is essentially repeating line 5 above (restored). For a different restoration, see Ebeling 1953: 12.

10My restoration assumes this line is repeating line 18 above, which is the only ritual action and petition in the entire prayer. There may be a trace of the BAT in the abraded part of the line.

11The restoration follows Ebeling 1953: 12.

12The last sign is on the tablet, though not entirely in Ebeling's copy.

13The line is idented, continuing line 35.

14KA UN-MEŠ are nearly broken off the tablet now. Compare Ebeling's copy.

15This is KAR 23 i 1ˊ. See Ebeling's collations of this line in 1919: 325.

16The line is indented, continuing line 45.

17Ebeling's collation (1919: 325) suggests the TI should in fact be read AD!, as in his copy. What I can see from my photographs suggests some irregularity in the initial horizontal wedge(s). If the sign is an AD, it is irregular as well as incorrect.

18The line is indented, continuing line 57.

19The restoration follows Ebeling 1953: 12.

20There is room on the tablet for the preposition at the head of the line. Compare Ebeling 1953: 12, line 22.

21The restoration follows Ebeling 1953: 12 tentatively, which he bases on the broken line in BMS 28: 9 (now, AOAT 34 61: 27). However, there may not be enough room for three signs on the tablet before the broken U₂. See also line 63.

22The restorations here and in the next several lines follow Ebeling 1953: 12.

23See line 61 above for the restoration.

24Ebeling 1953: 12 suggests restoring [A ta-ni]-iḫ-ti, "[water of paci]fication," here.

25For a parallel to lines 66-69, see Ebeling 1953: 10, lines 14-16, 18. The restorations suggested below follow this closely, though the word order in each phrase is inverted (adjectives precede nouns).

26The restoration here and in the next few lines follows Ebeling 1953: 12, based on the parallel cited above.

27The restorations follow Ebeling 1953: 12.

28I follow Ebeling 1953: 12 much more tentatively in this line. If the restoration is correct, the RA is malformed. It looks more like an E or a broken IA.

29This is the first line of KAR 25 ii 1ˊ. The tablet no longer has GAL, TI₃, or LUD, which are in Ebeling's copy. (The LUL was already gone at the time.) The corner of the tablet has broken off since 1953, affecting the endings of lines 1-9.

30The typical verb used in such prescriptions, teppuš (DU₃-uš), was elided. See Ebeling's copy.

31Ebeling's collation indicates the second sign is in fact ŠA (1919: 325). There is an erasure between the KA and the final DINGIR in the line.

32The restoration of the negative follows Ebeling 1953: 14.

33The reading of UR.MAḪ follows the suggestion in CAD Š/2, 450. See also CAD G, 33 and AHw, 278, cited in Seux 1976: 130n6.

34"Quell" intends to capture an active silencing or subduing of the enemy through force. I think that sense is required here, given the first part of the line.

35The line begins half way across the column. Ebeling's collation (1919: 325) confirmed his copy, which shows a ŠA₂ = the number 4 instead of the number 5. There is, however, a crack that runs through the sign now. It seems to me impossible to know which number was actually written. For the unusal construct chain, see Mayer 1990: 466.

36See Seux 1976: 130n10 for various translations of ma-šu-ta-ka. Add now Foster 2005: 692, "your primacy(?)."

37As Seux 1976: 130n12 notes, the plural pronouns may refer to one or more of the deities in the preceding lines alongside Marduk. If so, it is unclear which. Foster may have the better solution; he suggests the plural might refer to "Marduk as the sum total of all of the gods" (2005: 692n1).

38The last sign might be a partially erased NI (see Ebeling 1953: 14), perhaps a mistaken Assyrianism. I follow Seux (1976: 130, "Celui qui . . . a accru") in deriving the final verb from (w)aṣābu.

39The sign after ša₂-ru may be an erasure or possibly -u₂, as suggested by Ebeling (1953: 14). The reading of the end of the line follows the suggestion in CAD A/1, 363, cited in Seux 1976: 130n16, and M/1, 331.

40The line begins half way across the column. The suggestion in CAD M/1, 331 and A/1, 363 to emend the text to i-qar-ru-<bu>-ku-nu-ši seems unnecessary. Likewise, Seux 1976: 130n17, following Ebeling 1953: 14.

41The line begins half way across the column.

42I follow Seux (1976: 295n6) in understanding nu-u₂-ʾ-di as an infinitive from nâdu. See likewise Abusch and Schwemer 2016: 348.

43Abusch and Schwemer 2016: 348 notes that the determinative before šuluḫḫī is unusual and may have been intended to be read il šuluḫḫī, "the god of the purification rituals."

44The restoration follows Ebeling 1953: 16 and duplicate. Abusch and Schwemer are more cautious (2016: 342).

45The restoration is based on duplicates.

46This reading is tentative and assumes the poetic line has been ended before its proper conclusion and the remainder written on the followling line of the tablet, perhaps with an indent (as in other lines above). See now likewise Abusch and Schwemer 2016: 343.

47This line may have continued the previous and is now the line that lies between KAR 25 and KAR 23, col. ii, which begins in the next line. If so, the broken sign at the end should be RA.

48This is KAR 23, col. ii 1ˊ.

49The translation of this series follows Abusch and Schwemer 2016, here p. 347.

50"Extremely" translates šār bēri, "3,600 'miles'."

51The line is indented by about two signs, continuing the previous line.

52The sense of this line alludes me. Compare Ebeling 1953: 19.

53Ebeling 1953: 18 suggests mim₃-ma l[a ṭābu]; followed by CAD Ḫ, 248 and Seux 1976: 257n3. A different possibility: Might another word for "cold" follow in the line, e.g., eš?-⸢šu-u₂⸣? (Compare the sign for 30 = EŠ in line 12' below, written in a smaller hand than is usual for this tablet.) This Sumerian (eš₁₃) loanword (Akk. eššû), however, is only known in the synonym list Malku (CAD E, 377).

54The broken sign may be a partial erasure.

55The illness is named in line 3ˊ.

56On this version of the formula, here and in the next few lines, see Mayer 1976: 64, n.12.

57The line is written in a smaller script than the others. Also, there are no rulings above and below it (as in Ebeling's copy). Perhaps the rubric was squeezed in after the tablet was completed.

58Ebeling suggests the head of the line be restored to GU[RUN] = in[bu], "fru[it]" (1953: 20).

59Ebeling's copy shows a NIR. That may be the correct reading, though the tablet could support SA₅, instead. There is some abrasion that makes the decision uncertain.

60The first sign is probably not KI (thus qi₂), as Ebeling suggests (with a question mark; 1953: 20); compare the KI in the next line. He thinks the second sign may be KIT (see Ebeling's collation, 1919: 325; 1953: 20), but that also seems unlikely to me epigraphically. His resulting reading, ki(?)-kit(?)-tu = kikkiṭṭû, "ritual act," is also problematic since the word does not designate something one can throw into the river.

61Ebeling's copy shows the restored signs as extant. They are no longer on the tablet. The same is true of many of the lines to follow. It seems that a fragment from the lower right corner of the reverse has fallen away since Ebeling made his copy in the early twentieth century.

62Ebeling saw GAL-u₂ here, rabû, "great," at the head of the line. But the first sign is not (or no longer) entirely present. The traces on the tablet are consistent with a NUN. But this version of the prayer seems to show GAL instead of NUN, that is, rabû rather than rubû, on more than one occasion (see line 29 below). As for the restoration at the end of the line: Ebeling (1919: 325) collated the traces after making his copy and reads KUR₂-rum DU₁₁#-su, but one would expect DU₁₁.GA-su for qibīssu. The traces on Ebelings copy are not entirely inconsistent with the above restoration, which follows line 30' below. The tablet itself seems to be in worse shape than when Ebeling copied it.

63The last half of the line may have read bēl bēlī šar šarrāni, "lord of lords, king of kings." So Ebeling 1953: 20, who bases his reading on the parallel line in rev. i 32' below and traces in this line, neither of which are now visible on the tablet. Seux 1976: 272, n.5 is not convinced by his suggestion.

64The restoration is based on Ebeling's (1919: 325) reading of the traces at the end of the line, now gone. See likewise Seux 1976: 272, n.6 and line 31 below.

65Ebeling's copy shows most of the restored text here, which he reads: {d}NUN!(E₂).GAL-[MEŠ] mal-ku!(EN) {d}a-nun-na-ki, as well as the text in the following line. See his collations in 1919: 326.

66Ebeling's copy shows the entire restoration. It seems that we have here again GAL for NUN, i.e., rabû for rubû.

67Ebeling's copy shows the entire restoration.

68Ebeling's copy shows the entire restoration.

69Ebeling's copy shows the entire line except for the third EN sign and the last three signs in the line. He wants to read KUR.KUR-MEŠ as šar₄! šar₄!-MEŠ to follow the parallel in KAR 68:13, which has LUGAL LUGAL-MEŠ. Seux 1976: 272, n.11 simply states that the present text is incorrect.

70Ebeling's copy shows these signs on the tablet, but they are completely broken away now.

71Ebeling's copy shows two partial signs, which appear to be missing now.

72Ebeling's copy shows all of the signs in the restoration, though he only shows the right vertical of what I think must have been a KA (= DU₁₁).

73Much of the restored text above is in Ebeling's copy.

74Ebeling's copy reads AB.MA, but note Hunger's improved reading (1968: 79, n.1), adopted here.

75Ebeling's copy shows part of the DI and all of the IA. A mere trace is all that is left of the IA.

76I am following Hunger's suggestion that the scribe may have left out the LI, which would make this a precative, the expected form here (1968: 79, n.2).