This commentary is preserved on two identical tablets from Uruk. Both tablets contain a colophon that dates their production, and both contain a rubric that classifies the commentary as type ṣâtu 4b, i.e., as “Lemmata and oral explanations (relating to) a ‘reading’ (malsûtu) of the series Enūma Anu Enlil.” The longest manuscript, W 23300 (CCP 3.1.20.B.a), originally belonged to the library of the famous exorcist Iqīšāya, for whom it was copied by Anu-aba-uṣur, son of Anu-mukīn-apli, descendant of Kurī, on 20 September 321 BCE.
The second manuscript, VAT 7825 (CCP 3.1.20.B.b), was found in the course of uncontrolled excavations in Uruk, probably in the area of the Rēš Temple. In support of this findspot, its colophon states that its scribe (Tanittu-Anu, son of Anu-balāssu-iqbi, of the Ahuʾutu family) copied it “and deposited it in Uruk and the Rēš temple” (r 12'). The text was copied on 30 April 232 BCE. One may speculate that, if Iqīšāya's library was integrated into the Rēš Temple at some point in the 3rd century BCE, Tanittu-Anu may have copied his manuscript directly from W 23300. Both tablets are indeed almost identical.
The commentary is mainly concerned with making specific what in the base text is ambiguous. These specifications are based on a number of different factors, only some of which can be explained. Astronomical interpretations are prominent: for instance, lines r 12’-13’ explain the omen from the base text “(If) Papsukkal rises and stands present with the sun” (= Enūma Anu Enlil XX §XII) as meaning that “the moon god in the constellation Sipazianna caught up with Saturn.”
On other instances the specification is not based only on astronomical factors. Thus, lines o 10-13 explain the line from the base text “The god (sc. the moon) in whose eclipsing the dawn watch begins and delays for ⅓ of a watch” (= Enūma Anu Enlil XX §I 8) first by paraphrasing it as “the eclipse took place during the dawn watch, and set while eclipsed.” Then it proceeds to justify this translation. Since the night was divided into three watches, “⅓ means one third of the night, (i.e.) the third watch”: the third watch is the dawn watch. The commentary then offers an alternative interpretation: “what it says, ⅓, can (also) mean that (when) one third of the cusps of the god (i.e., the eclipsed moon) remained to dawn, he (sc. the moon) set in obscurity.” In this alternative explanation, the fraction is said to refer to the shape of the moon when it set. This commentarial entry thus provides two plausible specific explanations for a rather ambiguous base text.
Although philology is of secondary interest to the author of this commentary, there are some attempts at elucidating philologically difficult expressions in the base text. For instance, the rare phrase mātu sakiltu, lit. “an imbecile land,” is said to mean “Elam” (o 23).
The following technical terms are used in this commentary: aššum (r 7’), ina libbi… iqbi (o 7), ina muḫḫi… qabi (o 2), and ša iqbû (o 13 and 18).
Many of the explanations of the present commentary, especially those on the reverse of the tablet, have been studied in detail by al-Rawi & George, a study to which the present edition is greatly indebted. Additionally, this edition has benefited from the electronic editions of the two manuscripts prepared by Eleanor Robson for the GKAB project, which were kindly made available by their editor.
The manuscript VAT 7825 was collated in the Vorderasiatisches Museum in June 2016. Several new readings on the badly damaged obverse could be obtained then.
