H79 LH iva 6 mes-lam OV – The sign É, bītu, appears be-
B v 18 É-mes-lam fore the proper noun Meslam in B. (^394)
(^) H80 LH iva 7 (^) em-qum (^) OV – Different spelling of the ad-
B v 19 e-em-qum jective emqu, “wise, skilled.”
H81 LH iva 8 mu-tab-bi-lum OV(l) – B has the wrong vowel for
B v 19 mu-ut-ta-ab-bi-lam the nominative singular.
H82 B v 20 šá LH iva 9 šu SV(1) – Lexical interchange.^395
H83 LH iva 11 mu-uš-pa-az-zi-ir B v 22 mu-uš-pa-aṣ-ṣi-ir OVnunciation.(l) – Possible difference in pro- (^396)
(^) H84 LH iva 12 MÀ.AL.NAG.A (^) ki OV – Different spelling of the
B v 23 MA.AL.NAG.A ki proper noun Malgûm.
H85 LH iva 13 ka-ra-ši-im OV – The long vowel in √karāšu,
B v 24 ka-ra-a-ši-im “annihilation,” is written in B.
H86 LH iva 15 šu-ba-ti-ši-in B v 25 šu-ba-ti-ši-na OV(lnunciation.) – Possible difference in pro- (^397)
(^394) The name of the temple in Cuthah has the logogram for (^) bītu, “house,” preceding the proper noun in B.
D.J. Wiseman, "Hammurabi Again," 171, lists this as a “true variant,” but the variant is treated here as
purely orthographic. 395
The stele has šu ikšudu, “he (who) has attained,” in contrast to B ša ikšudu, “who attained.” B agrees
with the Old Babylonain duplicate of the stele, AO10237. 396
The difference between the sources could be lexical, as suggested in D.J. Wiseman, "Hammurabi
Again," 171 n. 5, where the stele has the III/3 form of √pazāru, “give shelter, refuge,” against √paṣāru in
B. The proposed meaning of the second lexeme in Wiseman’s solution is unclear. Perhaps a better alterna-
tive is to read a variation in the pronunciation of sibilants. Admittedly, though, the assimilation of the
voiced sibilant [z] to the emphatic sibilant [ṣ], or otherwise to the “ejective” [s’], is not well attested (see J.
Hämeen-Anttila, Neo-Assyrian Grammar, 15). Even so, invoking a rare phonological change to read a dif-
ference in pronunciation is more preferable than reading an otherwise unattested lexeme whose meaning is
unknown. 397
The feminine plural possessive pronominal suffix is “-šina” in B, apocopated to “-šin” in the stele. The
shortened form in the stele is perhaps a poetic device intended to rhyme with the next line: in nuḫšin (see
G.R. Driver and J.C. Miles, Babylonian Laws, 139). It is unclear why R. Borger, Babylonisch-Assyrische
Lesestücke, 9, reads B as “nu-úḫ-ši-i[m],” when the reading “nu-úḫ-ši-i[n]” is equally as plausible. D.J.