KUB 37, 036 + (?) KUB 37, 037[via caspo]

1ša-qa-a-bu-ur-du stands here for šagapūrtu.

2The UGU looks more like DINGIR-LIM, which may be an aural mistake: ili for eli; see Reiner and Güterbock 1967: 258, n. d, 264; Zgoll 2003: 61.

3I think the copyist has made a mess in this line. But first, we consider alternatives explanations. If we read the opening phrase as [mu?-t]a?-an-di-rat {mi₂}LUGAL-MEŠ, the first word, as Zgoll notes (2003: 62), can be understood as an Ntn participle from nadāru, "to go on a rampage" (CAD N/1, 59) or adāru A, "to be worried, to be obscured" (CAD A/1, 103) or B "to be afraid" (CAD A/1, 108). Foster renders the resulting phrase "Who can make the wives of kings afraid(?)" (2005: 599); Zgoll suggests "[Ständig] auf Beute Ausziehende der Königinnen" with alternatives "immer wieder Ungeduldige" and "immer wieder Verfinsterte" noted (2003: 57 with n.147); and Zernecke has "Immer wieder Wütende der Königinnen" (2011: 87). Reiner and Güterbock give "who makes queens enemies?" (1967: 259). I do not think any of these make good sense in context. Perhaps we are simply overlooking a better restoration at the head of the line. Until something better comes along, I prefer to posit some scribal bungling, which, when recognized, brings the line closer to the SB version. What is taken as the sign MI₂ looks to have been mostly erased and then the scribe mistakenly wrote LUGAL for ŠEŠ, a close semantic approximation for the SB's itbāru. (ŠEŠ-MEŠ may have been mistakenly copied from the previous line into the present one.) As Reiner and Güterbock note, the sign after GAŠAN is written closely to that sign but has one too many horizontal wedges to be AT (1967: 259, n.g). Given the parallel in the SB version of this prayer, it seems likely to me that the sign is a mistake for TU. (Note also that the scribe had already copied GAŠAN-at twice before in lines 5ʹ and 6ʹ above. This may have simply been an unthinking repetition of that writing.) The most problematic issue is positing a mistaken RAT for the SB's NAT. One can imagine an aural mistake more easily than a graphic one. In any case, our scribe likely makes a number of mistakes in this line and thus he seems to have been rather distracted.

4The first preserved word likely stands for nammaštû ([na]m-na-aš-du-u, as read here, or ⸢x⸣ na-<ma?>-aš-du-u) as in the NB parallel. See Reiner and Güterbock 1967: 264 and Zgoll 2003: 63.

5The restoration at the end of the line follows Reiner and Güterbock 1967: 260.

6KUB 37 36 breaks off here. The size of the gap between KUB 37 36 and KUB 37 37 may only be a few lines.

7This is the obverse of KUB 37 37, which I am taking as the continuation of col. ii.

8There is an erasure at the end of the line.

9The copyist may have left out IGI-MIN after SIG₅-MEŠ, thus "your favorable eyes," as in the NB parallel. The form of the verb, li-pa-aš-ša-a, remains difficult to explain (see Zgoll 2003: 64). Perhaps there is a scribal mistake, in which IB was copied as PA-AŠ. If so, this would provide the expected form, li-ib-ša-a.

10Zgoll suggests this is a Sandhi writing with a preceding word (2003: 56, n. 143, 58, n.149). She translates "ändere mir!"

11A feminine unnīnītu (compare unnīnu) is otherwise unknown. See CAD U/W, 162 for a feminine plural form in an OB context. It is also possible that we take the TUM with a following word, perhaps dum[qu].

12A single rule line may follow this line. It may be the "Randleiste," that is, the "groove running along the lower edge" of the tablet; see Reiner and Güterbock 1967: 262, n. m. In any case, there are only a couple of lines missing between obv. col. ii and rev. col. i.

13Note the masculine singular imperative.

14The restoration here follows Reiner and Güterbock 1967: 262.

15Note the masculine singular imperative. Reiner and Güterbock suggest restoring [... ia-a]-ti at the head of the line (1967: 262); see also Zgoll 2003: 56.

16Reiner and Güterbock expressly reject reading QA TI in this line (1967: 262, n. o).