H245 LH xxivb 29 id-di-nam SV(1) – Lexical interchange.^476
e 1 obv. ii 14 iš-ru-kam
H246 LH xxivb 30 na-ak-ri e OV(lnunciation.) – Possible difference in pro- (^477)
1 obv. ii 15 [n]a-ki-ri
H247 LH xxivb 81 na-ás-qá OV – Different spelling of the ad-jective √nasqu, “precious, choice,”
in e.
e 1 obv. iii 4 na-às-[ ]
H248 LH xxivb 84 dša AN ù KI mi-sa-ri i-na UTU da-a-a-nim ra-bi-im
KALAM li-iš-te-pí
HV – Different grammatical agent and phraseology in e. (^478)
e 1 obv. iii 8 dni pa-ri-su pu-ru-us-se-e UTU ù d IM da-i-nu de-e-
de-e-ni li-iš-te-pí^
H249 LH xxivb 92 e mu-ša-sí-ka[m] OV(l) – e lacks mimation.^479
1 obv. iii 15 mu-ša-as-sí-ka
H250 LH xxivb 94 a-ra-am-mu e OV(lnunciation.) – Possible difference in pro- (^480)
1 obv. iii 17 a-ra-am-mu-u[m]
(^476) The stele reads: ša Marduk iddinam (^) , “which Marduk has given to me.” This is against e, which reads: ša
Marduk išrukam 477 , “which Marduk has granted to me.”
See also H78, H166 and H194. Manuscript e has an additional anaptyctic vowel that is lacking in the
stele. 478
The stele reads: Šamaš dayānim rabîm ša šamê u erṣetim mīšarī ina mātim lištēpi, “By the command of
Šamaš, the great judge of heaven and earth, let my justice be promulgated in the land.” Against this e reads:
ina qibīt Šamaš u Adad dayānu dīni parisu purussī dīni lištēpi, “By the command of Šamaš and Adad, ex-
pedite just judgement (or ‘they execute just judgement’), may my just decisions be promulgated.” The ap-
pearance of Adad here is probably related to the increased importance of that deity (see G.R. Driver and
J.C. Miles, Babylonian Laws, 285). The rest of the variant seems to be similar in sentiment but wholly dif-
ferent in form and style. 479
Either mimation is lacking in e, or that manuscript lacks the ventive marker that is present in the stele
(which seems to have an ablative sense). The orthography of e also has a doubled middle consonant for the
III/1 participle of √nasāku, “remove, reject.” The doubled middle radical would suggest the II/1 participle,
but this is clearly ruled out by the infixed causative /š/.This leaves open the possibility that e has rare II/III
participle form, or perhaps the form III/2, *muštansāku > mušassāku, where /št/ > /šš/ (written <š>), and
/ns/ > /ss/. In favour of the latter interpretation (III/2) cf. the precative form “li-iš-ta-as-sú-ku” in KBo I 11
obv. 20 (and see CAD N 2 20b).