BM 047458

1On the writing of Madānu’s name, see below ll. 6 and 11. The significance of the sign before the last DÙ is uncertain.

2In the cultic calendar BM 41239 (BTT pl. 54) // BM 32516 (Fs Lambert p. 294, edited in George Fs Lambert [2000] p. 293), it is stated that on the 28th of Šabāṭu Mār-bīti and Ninurta spent the night at Madānu’s temple in Babylon. The present line might refer to that event. Note that the rare technical term ina libbi kī is also used in BM 36595+ l. 27 (CCP 7.2.u103).

3bānû bīti (si vera lectio) might be referred to in l. 9.

4The line may be a quotation from the Love Lyrics. Compare Lambert, W.G. "The Problem of the Love Lyrics" Unity and diversity (1975a) p. 104 ii 15: ana kirî ma-s[uk^?-kan-ni ...]. The same entry can be found in BM 36595+ ll. 10-13 (CCP 7.2.u103).

5The temple (?) name Ursaĝĝa is elsewhere unattested.

6Si vera lectio, the equation between ⸢SAG⸣ and bītu is probably based on SUK = bītu in Aa I/2 211 (see the previous line).

7The same entry can be found in BM 36595+ l. 13 (CCP 7.2.u103).

8The same entry can be found in BM 36595+ l. 15 (CCP 7.2.u103).

9The tentative reading of ⸢pa^?⸣-[ra^?-ak^?]-⸢ki^?⸣ is courtesy of I. L. Finkel. On the phrase ša kīma šumīšīma for introducing notarikon analyses, see Gabbay The Exegetical Terminology of Akkadian Commentaries (CHANE 82, 2016) p. 92 fn. 45 and Jiménez The Babylonian Disputation Poems (CHANE 87, 2017), commentary on Series of the Spider l. 22.

10Quotation from Diri I 241. The speculation on ṣippatu might have been triggered by Diri VI/B 28, in which the diri-composite TI.ḪA (read as da-na-a-a) is said to mean ṣippatu. The “Lady of Nineveh” is thus explained as the “Lady of the Orchard.”

11The equation ^gišAN.NA.Ù.KU = ṣippatu can be found in Ḫḫ III 86 (MSL 5 p. 100). The restoration at the end is uncertain.

12Note that in the commentary on Enūma eliš and “Marduk’s Ordeal” [Bēlet]-Ninua is identified as Bēl’s nanny: see da Riva & Frahm, “Šamaš-šumu-ukīn, die Herrin von Ninive und das babylonische Königssiegel” AfO 46/47 (1999/2000) p. 174 and Frahm & Jiménez, “Myth, Ritual, and Interpretation. The Commentary on Enūma eliš I–VII and a Commentary on Elamite Month Names” HeBAI 4 (2015) p. 316. The abstract noun mušēniqūtu is a hapax legomenon.

13The idiomatic meaning of the sentence obtained by notarikon analysis, “she ‘made’ the back of Marduk,” must be “she brought up Marduk” vel sim., but no parallels to it could be found.

14The line is a quotation from the bilingual šuʾila Marduk 1 l. 18 (VAT 8411 and dupls., Maul Fs Borger 1998 pp. 165f). Note that the related commentary BM 36595+ l. 26 (CCP 7.2.u103) cites l. 25 of the same text.

15The equation of širku with A is elsewhere unattested.

16The line contains a quotation from Enūma eliš I 60 (not noted by Lambert Babylonian Creation Myths [2013] p. 60).

17The divine name is elsewhere unattested. The equation AM = bēlu is attested elsewhere: see CAD B 195b.

18The divine name is elsewhere unattested. Perhaps hamšā, “fifty”?

19The readings adopted follow the commentary on Enūma eliš l. 44′ (Frahm & Jiménez HeBAI 4 [2015] p. 309).

20The correct reading of the line was suggested by I.L. Finkel. It contains a quotation from Enūma eliš VII 35 (not noted by Lambert Babylonian Creation Myths [2013] p. 134).

21The last signs could be read as ⸢maš^?-ʾa^?⸣-[al-tú]