H58 LH iia 69 Èr-ra OV – The proper noun Erra is written with the divine determina-
tive in B.^382
B iii 30 d Èr-ra-ra
H59 B iii 31 ú-ša-ak-ši-du-š[u] LH iia 70 ú-ša-ak-ši-du SV(2) – B has a redundant object suffix. (^383)
H60 B iii 32 ni-iz-ma-šu LH iiia 1 ni-iz-ma-sú OV(l) – Possible difference in pro-nunciation. (^384)
(^) H61 LH iiia 4 (^) mu-ra-ap-pí-iš (^) OV – B has CV-CV against CV-
B iii 35 mu-ra-pi-iš VC-CV in LH.
H62 LH iiia 16 i-lu OV(l) – B has the wrong case
B iv 2 ì-lí vowel for the nominative singu-lar. (^385)
(^382) The repetition of the sign RA in B is perhaps a dittography, perhaps a phonetic complement. The varia-
tion is not counted in the light of Rule 3. 383
The verb in LH appears without the cataphoric pronominal object suffix, which is redundant in the
phrase ušakšidu nizmassu, “he (Erra) allowed him to achieve his ambition.” See M.E.J. Richardson, Ham-
murabi's Laws, 33 for this translation. Following G.R. Driver and J.C. Miles, Babylonian Laws, another
acceptable translation of the verb and its object in B is “he (Erra) has satisfied it, (namely) his desire.” 384
The apparent variation here concerns the shift [tš] > [ss] in the noun √nizmatu, “wish, desire,” with the
3ms pronominal suffix (J. Huehnergard, Grammar, 87). However in Neo-Assyrian “<š> and have
changed their places in the phoneme-field” (J. Hämeen-Anttila, Neo-Assyrian Grammar, 9) which means
that the writing of <š> in B could in fact stand for the phoneme /s/ if the scribe was using a Neo-Assyrian
dialect. In light of this there may in fact have been no difference in pronunciation between the sources.
However, judging by the script and the museum number, one should consider B to be of Babylonian origin,
and this is certainly the opinion stated in D.J. Wiseman, "Hammurabi Again," 161 n. 1. 385
It is likely that the text of B preserves a stylistic variation here against the nominative phrase in LH ilu
šarrī, “the god of kings.” M.T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta: Schol-
ars Press, 1997^2 ) 78 and 140 n. 1, restores the phrase as Ezida <šubat> ilu šarrī, “Ezida, <dwelling place
of> the god of kings,” for which we would read B as containing the oblique plural <šubat> ilī šarrī, “dwell-
ing place of the gods of kings.” However, as this manuscript preserves only the variant case vowel, the
noun ili is read not as a plural but as a nominative singular written with the wrong case vowel (cf. A.R.
George, Gilgamesh, 439, “-i or -e for nominative or accusative singular”). The available parallel manu-
scripts, namely the fragments of the Old Babylonian duplicate stele AO10237 and the Middle Assyrian
fragment VAT10079, also preserve the variant case vowel and so perhaps strengthen the case for reading