to that of the stele, but include some indications that they differed linguistically from the
Old Babylonian Haupttext.
The majority of the variations that exist in the first millennium sources occur in the pre-
served portions of the prologue and epilogue. The sources for these sections constitute
slightly more than half the total number of parallel SU, but they contain more than double
the number of variations compared to the sources for the law section. Further to this,
there are no large-scale interpolations or hermeneutic variations attested in the law sec-
tion, whereas the poetic sections show significant variations of these types.
For example, tablet B (a Neo-Babylonian text of unknown provenience) and possibly tab-
let D (a Neo-Assyrian text from Kuyunjik) may preserve a textual tradition that is in
closer agreement with a variant Old Babylonian source. This variant source has been de-
termined to come from another stele identical in material and antiquity to the Haupttext.
In addition, significant exegetical variations indicate that variation could occur between
sources for the poetic sections due to regional or theological considerations.
In contrast, the sources that preserve the legal section of the stele show a much closer
agreement with the Haupttext. There are very few differences in style, and those that do
occur are relatively minor. They include enclitic particles, conjunctions and redundant
pronouns. Hermeneutic variations are entirely lacking in the sources for the legal section.
This could be indicative of some distinction in the way the different sections were trans-
mitted. There is perhaps some connection to be made between the agreement of the