V32 C:18-19 UD.20.KAM HV – Difference in ordinal number.^175
G:3 UD.21.KAM
J:26 2]1.KAM
V33 C:18-19 ina dUTU.È [ ]^19 ina
dUTU.È it-bal
Not Counted – This is clearly a case of
scribal error, where C has acquired a dit-
J:26 ina dUTU.È it-bal tography not present in J.^176
V34 C:19 UD.˹ 21 ˺.KAM HV – Difference in ordinal number.^177
G:4 UD.11.KAM
V35 C:22 UD.20.KAM HV – Difference in ordinal number.^178
G:7 UD.21.KAM
(^175) C records Σ on the 20th day of Teb (^) ēti, while G and J have the 21st day.
(^176) E. Reiner, BPO 1, 36, reads the last signs on C 18 as “dNin-si 4 [ ]”, rather than “ina dUTU.È [ ]”
which appears in both Rawlinson’s and Langdon’s drawings. C.B.F. Walker, "Notes on the Venus Tablet,"
65, reads in agreement with the latter, and after an inspection of the tablet that is also the reading adopted in
this study. Although this understanding of the signs creates a break in the formulaic style of the protases,
which is retained by Reiner’s reading, we can point to a similar departure from the expected format in line
8 of G. Following the methodology stated in Rule 1, the departure here from logical sequence discounts this
variation from the statistical analysis. 177
C records Ξ on the 21st day of Šabāti, while G has the 11th day. The period of invisibility during superior
conjunction in this omen is given as 15 days, which is impossibly brief. A period of more than two months
is usually to be expected. It should also be noted that the rulings on C that normally delineate individual
omens here enclose two omens, the second beginning half way through line18. This anomaly may have
some connection with the possible corruption of the astronomical data at this point. J.D. Weir, Venus Tab-
lets, 29, suggests that the month in which Venus again became visible was incorrectly copied, perhaps due
to a damaged exemplar, with the signs ÁŠ and BÁR being confused. 178
C records Σ on the 20th day of Abi, recorded as the 21st day in G.