AOAT 034, 076 (+) K 02495[via caspo]

1Maul translates the last phrase "die (durch das Vorzeichen angezeigten drohenden) Folgen wird er sehen" (1994: 397), which I have followed in the alternate translation, marked with { }.

2The scribe wrote what should have been the final vertical of SU a bit farther to the right of the other constituents of the sign than usual (compare the SU in the previous line). He probably did this due to the fact that he was anticipating the writing of the next sign, ana (DIŠ). In fact, what is on the tablet suggests that he did write ana (DIŠ) rather than properly completing the SU.

3These three signs are written in a smaller hand and all the way over on the right side of the tablet, under a-ša₂-re-du.

4For the restoration of lines 14-17, see Maul 1994: 391n.19.

5The translation only reflects the Akkadian in the middle of the line.

6The translation "who makes 'its releasing' (i.e., the namburbi-ritual) effective" reflects my understanding that Shamash, after the performance of the namburbi-ritual, is the one who turns back the potential evil announced by the omen that raised concern.

7Maul (1994: 398n. 40) suggests "in my steppe" should not be taken literarly; rather, it is the place where the prince has confined himself for the ritual. He translates "in der Steppe, wo ich mich aufhalte" here and in lines 10ˊ and 12ˊ. The single ruling after line 9ˊ is only present on K.2296, not on the (directly) joined K.2776. There is a gap between the two fragments on the obverse but not on the reverse. This same rule line wraps around the left edge of the tablet—it forms a kind of left margin for the three lines written on this edge of the tablet (see below)—and joins the single ruling after line 3 on the reverse, where it extends across the face of both joined fragments. The single ruling after line 4 on the reverse extends across both fragments without disruption. Both rulings on the reverse demarcate the rubric. On the obverse, the ruling interrupts the prayer. The scribe must have made a mistake and stopped short of pressing the line all the way across the tablet.

8Mayer (1976: 519) and Maul (1994: 392) read the beginning of the line HUL PAD₃ DIR A DIR AN ŠU₂ BU ŠU/S[U. I think their PAD₃ should be read as two signs: šu₂ (rather than ši, since what is construed as a horizontal wedge on the right of the sign is hardly more than a nick in the clay) and šup. For the use of šupṭir in this kind of context, see CAP, 301 and note line 12ˊ just below. My reading of the next phrase, eṭir napišta, is what we expect in this context (see CAD E, 403). Epigraphically, it may be a bit of a stretch to think the scribe could write AN and ŠU₂ instead of ZI, but it is an easier mistake to imagine—somewhere in the manuscript's transmission—once one realizes that the four winkelhaken comprising the right side of the ZI sign also comprise the left side of the following BU (see the end of line 5 above for the same series of signs). If a scribe left those wedges off the ZI, the remaining horizontal and two verticals could be "fixed" rather easily with two short strokes of the stylus (at some point), yielding DINGIR-šu₂, "(rescue) his god," which makes some sense atomistically considered in context (even if the pronominal suffix is the wrong person). An alternative idea is simply to read DINGIR ŠU₂ as -an-ni!(ŠU₂), thereby providing the object to eṭir, namely, eṭiranni, "rescue me," which makes good sense here. As for the rest of the line: K.17386 is the only text that provides a duplicate. The traces after PU SU on that fragment are congruent with -US. The reading of K.17836: 5ˊ might therefore be [p]u-su-⸢us⸣ ina ⸢SU-ia₂⸣: "erase (the evil) from my body," which Mayer's copy supports (1990: 486).

9I follow Mayer's suggestion to recognize NUN as a mistake for SUḪ (1976: 522).

10This and the next two lines are written in smaller script on the left edge of the tablet. The single ruling between lines 9ˊ and 10ˊ on the obverse provides a kind of left margin for these lines. They are written perpendicular to the text on the obverse and reverse.

11The signs qa-tuk-ka are written below the previous three signs. Compare obverse 13, where the incipit for this incantation is prescribed. It reads a-ša₂-re-du [ša₂] maḫ-ri, "the pre-eminent one of the first."

12The restoration at the end of the line is my own, very tentative suggestion.

13The suggested reading and restoration of the second half of the line is tentative, an attempt to make sense of what has eluded previous decipherment (see Maul 1994: 398 and Mayer 1976: 520). If correct, this would be only the second attestation of ušbu to my knowledge (see CAD U/W, 300; AHw, 1441). Maul and Mayer read šam-ru (a near synonym of ezzu) šu-li-lu but leave the latter three signs untranslated; they restore the remainder of the line with p[a-nu-uk-ka], "[in your] pres[ence]." One weakness with my suggestion is that when Lilû is spelled syllabically it tends to be spelled li-lu-u/u₂. We might explain this oddity by positing that the scribe accidentally left off the final U₂ when he was copying his text because the U₂ looks something like the form of LU (compare the U₂ earlier in the line). So he left off the U₂ because he thought mistakenly that he had already written it.

14Maul translates li-mi-ti-ka (without a preposition in front of it) as "die, die dich umgeben" (1994: 398), but I do not see evidence for the word ever referring to people in this manner. Mayer leaves it untranslated (1976: 522).

15Thureau-Dangin's copy (1924: 129) and Maul's edition (1994: 394) do not represent this line so my line numbers will be x+1 compared to theirs.

16See Maul 1994: 394, n.22 for a suggested restoration.

17I think the first TA in the line is a mistake, perhaps accidentally written in anticipation of the next TA, which is also followed by GIŠ.GIGIR.

18NE.DIR = GANZIR₂ = nablu (see CAD N/1, 25). ZI₃.MAD.GA₂ wraps around the edge of the tablet and the last two signs, DUB-aq, are written under ŠIM.HI.A KI. For the possible meaning of šam-ḫu-ta, see Maul 1994: 399n. 43.

19The NU in ša₂-šu-nu is written over an erasure.

20Two duplicates attest the verb u₂-taq-qa-a before qu₂-la-a-ni. One wonders if the scribe's eye skipped from the IA on KA-ia to the final A on u₂-taq-qa-a, thus leaving out the verb.

21The RA and sign for 7 are both smudged. This is the beginning of a smudge that affects signs in the next few lines, the last of which is inserted between the double ruling. My understanding of luttaṣra (a Gt from naṣāru) follows CAD N/2, 45.

22GISKIM-MEŠ are both smudged.

23Inside the double ruling preceding this line there is written in small script ⸢AL⸣.TIL, "complete." The AL is smudged.