ACh Adad 25[via ccpo]

1A protasis that begins the same way is attested in K.7941 o 14’, part of Tablet 45 of Enūma Anu Enlil (Gehlken, p. 68).

2Protases with similar beginnings are attested in r 6’-8’ of Tablet 45 of Enūma Anu Enlil (Gehlken, pp. 47-48). The same phrase together with the same explanation is attested in K.68.

3This interpretation of the passage assumes that the commentator’s equation in ll. 12-13 of šub with nadû is incorrect in this context. The dimming of the sun’s brightness, šarūra maqātu is a well attested meteorological phenomenon in cuneiform texts (CAD Š 2 141b and M 1 245a).

4The tentative restoration of [qarnu SI šarūru] is based on a possible parallel in a commentary on SIT 6 (ACh Adad 33, l 21 = K. 50) in which the base text begins similarly (¶ U₄ SI-šú ŠUB-ma), and in which SI is equated first with qarnu and then with šarūru.

5In a section dealing with omens in Tablet 45 of Enūma Anu Enlil, K.4777 (a ṣâtu-type commentary on several Enūma Anu Enlil tablets) cites a protasis with a similar beginning, šumma Adad iktanaṣṣaṣ (Gehlken, p. 50 l. 17).

6This verb seems to be the Assyrian preterite form (3 mp) of temēru D, “to bury.” The Assyrianism may indicate that this particular entry was composed by an Assyrian scholar; however, an Assyrian origin for the text seems less likely in view of the colophon’s statement that the present tablet is a copy of a tablet from Babylon. Alternatively, the Assyrian background of the scribe who produced the present tablet could have caused him to Assyrianize a verb that was written with a Babylonian form in the Vorlage. For linguistic Assyrianisms in other text commentaries from Assur and Nineveh see Frahm (2011: 84 n. 420, 122-123, 144, 149 n. 719, 174 n. 816, 223 n. 1044, 256 n. 1215, 269-270 with n. 1218).

7To date, this is the only attestation of the word šumātu, “lines/ explanations,” in the colophon of a text commentary. Since it is written here logographically, it is unclear whether it should be understood as status rectus or status constructus, i.e., whether the line should be understood as “Lines, mukallimtu-commentary and oral expl[anations]” or as “Lines from a mukallimtu-commentary and oral expl[anations].” At Nineveh are attested three so-called excerpt commentaries, all of which are concerned with Enūma Anu Enlil and which seeming to belong to a series (Frahm 2011: 133). However, their colophons identify them as nisḫu mukallimtu rather than šumātu mukallimtu.

8Hunger (BAK no. 504) restores the title of Bēl-kundi-ilā’ī as ^lú⸢DUB⸣.[SAR], however the traces of the sign following LU₂ fit GAL rather than DUB. Bēl-kundi-ilā’ī also bears the title rab ṭupšarri in the colophons on two Assur tablets, KAR 168 (= BAK no. 252) and LKA 11 (= BAK no. 253).