CDOG 3, 339-340[via caspo/akkpm]

1The verb u₂-ša₂-ab-bal, derived from the Š stem of (w)abālu in my translation (see likewise Oshima 2011: 319), may also be derived from the Š stem of abālu, thus, "the wind dries up." It could also be read u₂-ša₂-ap-pal, derived from šuppulu, thus, "the wind brings low" (so Foster 2005: 852 and Hecker 2013: 91); see Finkel 1999: 328, 331. Giving Marduk agency over the wind seems to make the best sense contextually here and in terms of the mythology associated with Marduk in Enuma elish.

2Finkel (1999: 325) restores NAM.LU₂.U₁₈.LU rather than DINGIR-MEŠ (for which, see Oshima 2011: 318). I do not think there is room enough for more than a couple of signs, making Finkel's restoration less likely to me (in contrast to Oshima 2011: 324, who views both restorations as equally likely). Note: The space occupied by DINGIR-MEŠ in line 1 is just a bit smaller than the gap in the present line, whereas the space occupied by NAM.LU₂.U₁₈.LU in line 2 is larger than the gap here.

3The restoration follows Oshima 2011: 318.

4As Oshima notes, ina ni-kil-ta-ab-bab-ba-lu is a Sandhi writing for ina nikilti tabbabbalu (2011: 324). He suggests we restore a-[na za-qi₂-qu] (2011: 318) in the break, though there does not seem to be room for these signs, especially given the length of QU. His alternative restoration, a-[na ša₂-a-ru], fits the available space in the gap better. And so, if one wishes to see the wind in this line ("he turns it, i.e., the deceitful speech, into wind"), this is the most likely restoration, I think. Foster's translation, "Marduk will turn it [back on the talker]" (2005: 853; likewise, Hecker 2013: 92), reflects a restoration of a-[na da-bi-bi]. As contextually likely as this is (since turning the evil back on the one causing it is a common trope in Mesopotamian performative ritual speech), the gap here is too small for these signs, as one will see by comparing da-bi-bi in the previous line with the size of the gap here. But conceptually I think Foster has the right idea. Marduk turns the deceitful speech back on the speaker, who, I suggest, is identified here in line 5 as at the head of line 4: "the evil one" (lemnu). Restoring lem-ni here also has the effect of creating a kind of loose chiasm in lines 4 and 5.

5Finkel (1999: 325) restores a pronominal suffix on the final verb, -šu₂; there is room for it. The text above follows Oshima 2011: 318.

6"Squinting eyes" is a metonymy for one who is squinting their eyes, which is likely a gesture intended to convey scheming or malicious intent. A similar idea is expressed in the next line. (This is a topic for future research.)

7It may be worth noting that Girra is also involved in dealing with malevolent witches (as in Maqlû).

8See CAD B, 89 for similar phrases in Enuma elish.

9There looks to be a small erasure on the A before {d}AMAR.UTU. Foster (2005: 853) and Oshima (2011: 319) derive the initial verb from reʾû, "to shepherd" (2011: 319, 324). I follow Finkel (1999: 328) in deriving it from rêmu, "to have mercy," as there is no aleph in the orthography (compare obv. 11). See likewise Hecker 2013: 92n.151.

10What does this line mean?

11The storm may very well be Marduk.

12There is an erasure or false start on the tablet after SU.

13There is an erasure on the tablet near EN.

14Finkel posits the verb in this line and lines 24 and 26 derives from a previously unknown root, ḫatāb/pu, "to weep, shed (a tear)" (1999: 331). According to his understanding, the supplicant is described here and in the following lines 24 and 26 as weeping, shedding tears (i-ḫe-et-ti-ib). Other translators follow him (Foster 2005: 852; Oshima 2011: 319; and here until May 2024). Hecker suggests the verb is derived from the poorly attested root ḫaṭāpu (2013: 92n.153; see AHW, 336), "to wipe away." He cites UET VI 396: 23 to support his idea: di-ma-tu-ša ḫu-ṭù-pa-at, "ihre Tränen sind abgewischt." Although both derivations have weaknesses, I follow Hecker tentatively.

15Oshima reads the first sign as -ṣir (2011: 318). I follow Finkel's reading of ⸢-u₂-a⸣ at the end of the line tentatively (1999: 326), though we do not yet expect the first person suffix. The preceding restoration is my own guess, based on the context.

16There is room for several more signs at the head of the line. The restoration follows Finkel 1999: 326.

17Finkel restores [šu-kun?] at the head of the line (1999: 326) while Oshima prefers [li-iš-ša₂-kin?] (2011: 318). In terms of room on the tablet, Finkel's suggestion seems more likely. But it is unclear that a verb is required. The restoration above, drawing on the previous interpreters' ideas, suggests a phrase that would make Marduk the liberator is required. Oshima restores a-[na {d}AMAR.UTU] in the middle of the line, but this may be too much for the available space. Finkel prefers a-[na-ku] (1999: 326), but I do not think the first person voice is contextually appropriate at this point in the prayer. My suggestion creates a bit of redundancy with the first restoration, but it defines the supplicant's location vis-à-vis Marduk. If correct, this location would indicate that the supplicant is not literally imprisoned, an interpretation that Finkel develops (1999). Rather, the references to imprisonment and binding are metaphors for the supplicant's distress and hardship (so also Oshima 2011: 324-325).

18The restorations follow Oshima 2011: 318.

19The restoration of the line follows Oshima's reasonable but conjectural suggestion (2011: 320), though due to space, I have combined his -sa-ar- into -sar- (perhaps better, given the space: -sar₂-).

20The restoration of the line follows Oshima's reasonable but conjectural suggestion (2011: 320).

21The restoration of the imperative in the middle of the line follows Oshima's reasonable but conjectural suggestion (2011: 320).

22The reading follows Oshima (2011: 320, 325).

23There is an erasure after the NA.

24Is this a gesture of derision?

25Oshima reads k[u?]-ri-iṣ, "reprove," before the divine name (2011: 320-321, 325). For šurīs, see Finkel 1999: 331.

26The restoration follows Oshima 2011: 320.

27The line is indented to a position just under the SU sign in the previous line.

28If this restoration is correct (from Finkel 1999: 327), then the scribe must have written the last several signs on the edge of the tablet.

29If this restoration is correct (from Finkel 1999: 327), then the scribe must have written the last several signs on the edge of the tablet. There is an erasure after the KIL sign.

30If this restoration is correct (from Oshima 2011: 320, 325, where he cites Mayer 1976: 229, 233-234 for parallels), then the scribe must have written the last sign or two on the edge of the tablet.

31My restoration at the end of the line builds on Oshima's suggestion to read the sign before the break as ṢI (2011: 320) and attempts to create an opposition vis-à-vis Marduk's speech between rev. 3 and rev. 4-5. In rev. 3, Marduk speaks favor for the supplicant; in rev. 4-5 he orders the enemy's defeat.

32The line is indented on the tablet, beginning under ri-kis in the previous line.

33If this restoration is correct (from Finkel 1999: 327), then the scribe must have written the last sign on the edge of the tablet. "Manipulated" for īpušanni relies on Foster's rendering (2005: 854).

34Finkel restores a first person pronominal suffix at the end of the line -[ia] (1999: 327). The above follows Oshima's lead (2011: 320, reading -[šu]), though I think the photograph may show a hint of the bottom part of ŠU₂.

35Oshima restores [ša₂ u₂]- at the head of the line and adds i-le-ʾi to the restoration at the end, though these signs would have to have been written on the tablet's edge (2011: 320).

36The verb u₂-ša₂-an-ni could also be derived from šunnû (D of šanû), "to change," which, with an object designating words or wording, suggests the changing of a message or inscription illicitly (see CAD Š/1, 406-407). The context is overwhelmingly about slander and rumor-mongering; thus, "repeat" is the better primary meaning. This second possibility may be viewed as a wordplay.

37Oshima suggests we restore [e-la-t]a? at the head of the line (2011: 320), rendering this "lies of." Perhaps it would be better to restore [a-ma-t]a, "matter, word." Both are conjectures. The meaning of the second half of this line as it appears on the tablet is unclear to me, especially the use of the Š-stem of dabābu. If the a-na before āpil idīšu is a mistake (a parablepsis of the a-na in the previous line[?]—note the same -an-ni ending of the preceding verb there and in the present line just before a-na; all four signs in line 9 are almost directly above all four signs in line 10), then we could translate the phrase, "he made his representative speak against (gossip/slander) me," which makes much more sense contextually. The second half of the line becomes one of the results of the "repeater" in the first half. (Note, also, the conjectured mistake in the next line.)

38Finkel (1999: 327) suggests we restore [a?-ma]t? at the head of this line; likewise, Oshima, though he adds the relative particle (2011: 320). The copy and photograph suggest only a mere hint of what they read as a MAT sign. I think it is congruent with BI, allowing the restoration of [dib-b]i, which makes at least equally good sense in context. Oshima reasonably suggests the end of the line be read hi-i-ṭu <hi-i-iṭ> {d}AMAR.UTU, thus providing the expected imperative in this line, as in the previous and following lines (2011: 320, 325). Given my restoration at the beginning of the line and my translation of išteʾʾe, I think it is better simply to see hi-i-ṭu as a mistaken writing for the intended imperative hi-i-iṭ. Hecker posits a mistake with the preterite iš-te-ʾ-e, which should be read, in his view, as an imperative, ši-te-ʾ-e hi-i-ṭu, "investigate the sin" (2013: 93).

39Oshima suggests restoring [a-ma-t]u₂ at the head of the line (2011: 320). There looks to be, however, only enough room for one sign. My suggestion, however, [sar-t]u₂, isn't much better in terms of space due to the size of SAR.

40The reading ⸢MU-ia₂⸣ follows Oshima (2011: 320) tentatively. Finkel reads in[a Z]I-ia₂ (1999: 327). There is an erasure before ši-ma-a.

41There is an erasure after ana.

42See obv. 16 above.

43Oshima reads the first break and its continuation: [x x (x)]-DAN-NA (2011: 320; see also p. 326). The restoration above is my conjecture, building off of Finkel's suggested reading [x x (x) ke?]-e-na (1999: 327). As for the verb from aḫāzu and the following signs in front of the second break: Finkel suggested u₂-ša₂-hi-za-an-⸢-ni!⸣ x [x] x-it-ti (1999: 327, 332 with reservations); Oshima reads -n[im š]e-et-ti (2011: 320). There is very little to go on for both the NIM and the ŠE. My suggestion to restore an-n[a-ta] at the beginning of the break is inspired by the use of the Š-stem of aḫāzu in the disputation between wheat and Nisaba: ananta tabtanâ tušaḫḫaza lemuttu, "you have created strife, you incite evil" (see CAD A/1, 181; for the orthography annāntu in SB literature, see CAD A/2, 111-112). One conjectural idea (that I used here until April 2024) for the remainder of the break, [la ki]-it-ti, "[unt]ruth," makes sense contextually but is likely too large for the gap. Oshima's idea to šettu, "crime," may be correct, and is adopted here tentatively. Or, we might restore ḫi-iṭ-ṭi₃, "sin," though, in such a case, the orthography is unexpected. In any case, restoring the second break is quite conjectural without a duplicate. Finally, do the first two participles in this line refer to Marduk?

44After the second ša, Oshima restores ⸢e?⸣-[lit? na?-ra?-m]a-ak e-te-ep-pu-šu, "who is always de[ceitful to] your [beloved] one" (2011: 321). I have no better suggestion. The spelling of the last word in the line, if it is to be read kim-te-ia₂-a (as Finkel does), is unexpected, as he himself notes (1999: 332). Oshima picks up Finkel's suggestion, reading the end of the line as šap-ti KUR i-gi la ⸢kim⸣-te-ia₂-a, "of the rim of the netherworld, he is negligent, (he is) not my family" (2011: 320-321). Finkel suggests an alternative reading of the final signs, qá?-qá-[r]u e-[...] (332), but he leaves most of the phrase undeciphered, rendering only ". . . my lips is much(?); the . . . . my family" (1999: 330). With regard to šap-ti KUR, I wonder if we might understand this within the semantic domain of 'reputation', taking "lips" as a metonym for what is spoken, on an analogy to pû, "mouth." Thus, "lips of the land" could mean something like "word of the land," i.e., "reputation in the community." Although I can find no similar usage, this is the solution adopted here provisionally. Another idea to consider: One might take KUR as a malformed/misunderstood ŠU₂ NU. The latter sign would then negate i-gi that follows. Thus, the resulting Akkadian, šap-ti-šu₂ NU i-gi, could be rendered "(with regard to ?) his lips, he was not negligent." For a similar phrase, see rev. 19 just below. (Finkel wonders if igi-la could be a Sumerian loanword, igi-lá, meaning "(harmful) looking(?)" [1999: 332].) As for the signs on the edge of the tablet, having looked at the photograph, I have decided, unlike Finkel and Oshima, to leave matters undetermined (updated April 2024). However, I only see four wedges forming ZA on the photograph, rather than the five in Finkel's copy that comprise what he takes as IA₂ (compare the IA₂ at the end of line 20). Given the context of speech, one wonders if we might have a form of aṣû: la it!-taṣ!-ṣa-a, "he did not continually utter." Putting together the various surmises and guesses collected here, one could render the last part of the line something like the following: "he neglected (my) reputation in the community, he continually did not mention (it)." This refusal to speak of the protagonist's good standing might then be contrasted with the antagonist's continual spreading of evil about him, perhaps hinted at in the next line, which completes the present one.

45The line is indented on the tablet, beginning just under the ŠU in e-te-ep-pu-šu.

46Oshima reasonably suggests reading ⸢u₃⸣ at the head of the line (2011: 322), but the photograph I have and Finkel's copy do not seem to be congruent with this suggestion unless the scribe has formed the sign poorly. Finkel reads x (x)-šu₂ (1999: 327). Perhaps we could read ITI#-šu₂, "(In) its month," or ERIN₂#-šu₂, "His gang"? However, it is unclear how either would fit in context. There seems to be a small false start between E and NI. Oshima reads the middle of the line [ik-ki-i]l?-me-e-[šu], ". . . angrily lo]oked at h[im?]." Finkel suggests we have the first occurrence of the Sumerian loanword galam here (see the next line), reading galam-me-e, "trickery" (1999: 327, 330, 332), followed here provisionally until a duplicate can secure the fuller context. As for the end of the line, I follow Oshima tentatively, who reads [l]a before i-gi (2011: 322) followed by la it-ta-⸢aṣ⸣-ba-r[u], rather than Finkel's la it-taṣ-ba-r[u] (1999: 327).

47The reading [a]-⸢na⸣ follows Oshima 2011: 322. I follow Finkel in understanding ga-l[a-ma] as a loan from Sumerian, galam = nikiltu (1999: 332). Oshima prefers to interpret the grapheme in light of the Hebrew word kᵊlimmah, "shame, abomination" (2011: 326). The final word, sik/zik₂-ri-ia₂, could be rendered "my word" (so Finkel 1999: 330) or, with Oshima, "my blockage" (2011: 322, 326). According to Finkel's copy, there is little to go on epigraphically for the reading uš-š[i-i]ṭ (Oshima's reading), except perhaps the parallel in rev. 26. Whether this is the correct reading or not, it should be noted that the use of uššuṭu is something of a leitmotif in this prayer. Nearly all attestations of the word in the CAD come from this prayer (see CAD U/W, 325), and most of those are in the vicinity of this line. ŠU DU₃ DU₃ A has confounded previous translators. Compare Oshima 2011: 323, "all to (my?) hand" and Finkel 1999: 330, "binding(?)," suggesting on page 332 a possible Sumerian loanword, apparently from šudu, "handcuffs." My rendering, offered tentatively, takes its cue from Oshima and reads rama-ni-šu₂ as providing emphasis to the referent (qātu). The reading uštamṭû (Š perfect from maṭû, see CAD M/ 434) is a conjecture based on the context. There are but traces to go on.

48I think the context requires we read u₂-ṭi-ib-bi as uṭīb, which makes much better sense of the prepositional phrase at the end of the line. The BI could be a mistake caused by the consonantally similar IB preceding it and the graphically similar GA following it. (Note also that directly below these signs in the following line we may have the sequence BI GA LA MA A.) The word patāqu in the active sense "to create" (G stem) is only attested with divine subjects (CAD P, 275; note that there is one indirect reference to something not being created by humans in the N stem). For this reason, I think it is most likely that the participle refers to the divine creator of the supplicant's human father or ancestor. If this is correct, then we see hear a description from a supplicant's perspective of how a personal god could become enraged with his human protégé.

49Finkel reads pa-qid a x after the break (1999: 327), without translation. Oshima reads ... lu?]-u? pa-qid a-i, rendering this as "what abominable things shall be assigned?" (2011: 322), but the photograph seems to disallow I. It looks, rather, as though a BI has been written over a partial erasure. Perhaps a duplicate will clarify the reading. Until then, I leave the matter unresolved.

50Finkel suggests reading at-[ta {d}AMAR.UTU(?) ...] at the beginning of the line (1999: 327). After the first break, Oshima suggests reading ḫ]a-⸢bat? šu?⸣-tu-um-ma (2011: 322). After a-na, Finkel reads x u₂ x whereas Oshima reads x LU x. All of these signs are quite crowded together. In any case, without a duplicate the beginning of this line is lost. As for the last half of the line: Following Oshima's rendering of tuk-ka as deriving from tû, "incantation," I restore a relative particle before the verb āḫuzūšu.

51Oshima reads x# [x]-ma#?-ku at the head of the line (perhaps to be translated: "I am . . . [?]") and lu-un-gi-r[a?] at its end, "let me deny" (2011: 322). I follow Finkel at the beginning; he reads su?-un-gi-x [...] at its end (1999: 327). The copy and photograph show an ambiguous sign before UN and GI. I leave the matter unresolved.

52Oshima reads [su?-u]m-mu, "dove," at the head of the line and du-u[m?-qu?], "favor," at its end (2011: 322). I see no other meaningful alternative to summu. As for du-u[m-qu], adopted here tentatively: it fits the context well. Foster translates the end of the line "[my] oppres[sion]" (2005: 855), which may reflect a restoration of du-u[l-li] or the like. This may work better than dumqu if we read the NU after u₂-kan with the verb; thus, "they will impose misery." Unlike previous translators, I understand the verb in the subordinate clause to be in the first person.

53Oshima reads [ša₂ pu-u₂]-a at the head of the line (2011: 322), but there is only enough room for one, perhaps two signs at most in the break. Perhaps KA would be better, if his understanding is preferred. My understanding of the head of the line is similar to Foster's (2005: 855). My reading of a-na KUR i-gi iz-kur-ma builds on Oshima's (2011: 322), though my translation is different.

54The reading of the line follows Oshima 2011: 322; compare Finkel 1999: 328.

55The restoration at the head of the line follows Oshima (2011: 322); it is a bit of a squeeze in terms of space. He restores l[i-te-er-ru?] after eg-ri (2011: 322), but I think there is too little space for so many signs. "Unravel" depends on Foster's rendering (2005: 855).

56The LA in ga-la-ma-a seems to have been written over another, perhaps partially erased sign.

57Oshima reads it-ta-quru{+ru} (2011: 322) instead of it-ta-ma-ru, as Finkel does (1999: 328). I suggest the sign before ṬU is a misshapened AL. The resulting reading is a bi-form of ašṭu (see CAD A/2, 475), which feeds into a motif that revolves around words associated with the root (w)ašāṭu throughout the prayer. I propose it-ta-ma-ru is a Gtn preterite from amāru (see rev. 38; similarly, rev. 32 and 36). My rendering of the line follows the lead of Foster 2005: 856.

58Oshima reads [liš]-tam₂#-ra at the head of the line (2011: 322). Finkel's suggestion, [ŠE]D₇-ra = lippašrā (332), may not fit the traces on his copy. The ŠU₂ in ku-šu₂-ud is written over an erasure.

59Both Finkel (1999: 328) and Oshima (2011: 322) read UN.ME but Finkel's copy and the photograph show MEŠ. The line is indented, beginning under the word ik-su-šu₂ in the previous line.

60The line is indented about the space of two signs. One wonders if ipišti here forms a counterpoint to pišti in rev. 31. Previous transliterations (Oshima 2011: 322 and Finkel 1999: 328) have omitted the NA in {m}{d}MUATI-MU-GI.NA. The sign is present in both the copy and on the tablet. The precise Akkadian restoration at the end of the line is my own, though already suggested in Foster's translation (2005: 856).