SFS Ist Si 0007 + SFS Ist Si 0823 + SFS Ist Si 0988[via caspo]

1Against the majority of previous translators, I do not think this line intends to communicate blindness (see Foster 2005: 689; Seux 1976: 290; and Falkenstein and von Soden 1953: 311). Note that the (previously unpublished) duplicate K.17421 + K.20314 reads [la da-g]a-la pa-ni-šu₂, "[not attend]ing to him." Thus, we should read here IGI-šu₂ = pānīšu. Oshima 2011: 398 suggests reading the final word te-se?-<er?>, "you lock up." Von Soden suggests reading te-si! from esû (AHw, 250), "to effectuate, bring to pass" (CDA, 81; see also Falkenstein and von Soden 1953: 311, where the verb is translated "führst du herbei"). But this very poorly attested verb does not make sense in the context of the full line, now available clearly in Si.7 but left out of Scheil's first transliteration of the tablet (1902: 97) and, apparently, not considered in Ebeling's treatment, 1953: 92, where he restores te-[pit-ti] as the final verb in the present line. CAD M/2, 245 suggests reading the verb as te-rim, "you strike with blindness(?)," but this seems to be based on Geers' copy, Notebook Ac, p.2, which, due to his drawing of the final sign in Si.7, would allow such ambiguity. The photograph does not. Although the verb is broken in both K.3505b and K.17421 + K.20314, in both tablets space considerations indicate room for only one sign after TE (preserved in both witnesses), exactly as Si.7 would suggest here, which reads te-si. But what could te-si mean? Based on the context of the preceding and following line, I think the present line indicates Marduk's active involvement in producing a negative outcome for the enemy described here (i.e., the malicious, treacherous person who shows no deference). The verb that fits the bill in the present line is nesû; te-si could be construed as a writing of the preterite form of that verb, tessi, "you abandoned, removed." But, based on the verbs in lines 10 and 12, we strongly expect, indeed, the context requires, a durative verb. But we do not have room for a durative form of nesû: te-ne₂-es-si or te-ne₂-si. The graphic similarities of NI, IS, and SI, however, lead me to suspect the current spelling of the verb, te-si, in Si.7 and the likely spelling in the two Ninevite witnesses (te-[si]) all represent an ancient mistake in the transmission of the text, which preserved a durative form of the verb nesû. Somewhere in the manuscripts' genealogies, the best reading was lost.

2See CAD R, 67 for the intended meaning: "you make bow the stiffnecked as (you make bow) the wicked."

3It seems Si.988 joins here and restores the ends of obv. 23-32.

4The reading is conjectural. The emendation's credibility hinges somewhat on reading a broken sign in Sm.390 (= P425389) as LAB rather than KIT. If the emendation is not allowed, then perhaps we have an otherwise unknown Gt predicative from katāmu (kittumū*). One might restore KI-ti₃ or KUR-MEŠ instead of AN-e.

5It seems Si.823 joins here and runs to the end of the obverse.

6Laguda is a name for Marduk, though here he seems to be separate from him. See Lambert 1980-1983 (RlA 6: 430-431).

7Si.7 breaks off after this line.

8It is hard to imagine how šerru, "infant," works in this context.