A completely preserved cola-type commentary on Tablet 8 of Enūma Anu Enlil, one of six commentaries on this series found in Uruk, whose colophons indicate that they belonged to the well-known scholar, exorcist, owner of a brewer’s prebend, and (perhaps) teacher, Iqīšāya, who was active in Uruk in the late fourth century. This particular manuscript is one of several tablets belonging to Iqīšāya that was found by unauthorized diggers, and so it is unclear whether it was found in Iqīšāya’s private library (in the U18 quarter of Uruk) or in a library in the grounds of the Bīt Rēš temple.
The tablet’s subscript is type ṣâtu 4b, in other words the tablet classifies itself as “Lemmata and oral explanations (relating to) a ‘reading’ (malsûtu) of the series of Enūma Anu Enlil and referring to entries from “If in Tašritu the Moon is surrounded by a lunar halo.” This type of subscript is found only on tablets from Uruk containing commentaries on EAE. The colophon also includes the catch-line to EAE 9, thereby indicating that scholars in Hellenistic Uruk used a commentary series on various tablets of EAE. A final feature of the colophon is the word uppuš, literally “made.” The precise meaning of this word in the context of colophons is uncertain; it seems unlikely, for instance, that it refers to a newly composed text.
A different feature of this manuscript may nevertheless support the proposal that the commentary is, at least in part, a new composition. As argued by J. Koch, the commentarial remark (r 38-40) refers to an astronomical phenomenon that in the first millennium is only attested on 15/16 October 321 BCE. Koch accordingly suggests that this phenomenon’s occurrence prompted the remark – the final remark in the commentary. Also relevant to the question of the text’s composition date is the absence of ḫepi-glosses in the manuscript. Such an absence supports the idea that this commentary is a new composition. However, another explanation for a lack of ḫepi-glosses is also possible: it may simply indicate that the Vorlage was perfectly preserved.
The commentary comments on 43 omens, and the order in which these omens are cited deviates slightly from the order in the base text (in its currently known form). Most of the commentarial entries have the purpose of elucidating astronomically impossible or unclear statements in the base text. For example, the commentary is often concerned with explaining the base text’s description of (impossible) movements of fixed stars and constellations. The commentary does so by equating the relevant stars and constellations with planets, which do move. For example, (1) the commentary explains the appearance of the star “Kidney” in the Moon’s right horn by stating that “Kidney” is another name for the planet Mercury (lines o 5-8); (2) the commentary’s explains the appearance of the constellation the “Yoke” inside the Moon’s lunar halo by stating that the “Yoke” is a name for the planet Jupiter when Jupiter is in the constellation the “Bull of Heaven” (lines r 14-16). Further examples of this type of explanation abound. Another type of explanation found in this commentary is that based on the equation of a planet with a particular color. For example, the red, black and yellow-green appearance of the Moon’s right horn is respectively explained as meaning that the planets Mars, Saturn, and Venus are approach it (o 8-11).
Some of the explanations in this commentary are paraphrases, such as the explanation of the protasis “If it (i.e., the Moon) is surrounded by a lunar halo of fog” as meaning that the Moon “is surrounded by a lunar halo in fog” (r 23), or the explanation of the apodosis “a defeat will be inflicted” as “a massacre will take place” (r 3). Other explanations amount to simple translations of a logographic phrase into Akkadian. For example, lugal kur šub-ta tuš-eb (o 31) is explained as Akkadian šarru māta nadīta ušeššeb (“a king will settle an abandoned land”), and eme bar-tu (o 33) is explained as lišānu aḫītu (“foreign language”).
The commentary contains three lexical equations that are not attested elsewhere: the first two are the equation of the Sumerian su with kibsu, “foot,” and nabāṭu, “to shine” (o 17). The third is the equation of sù with pelû, “light red” (r 16-17).
Of the lexical series that served as sources for some of the commentary’s explanations, Hunger identifies Izi, Erimhuš (?), Antagal (twice), Sb (?), Nabnītu, Ea, HAR-ra (three times), and Sa.
Technical terms used in the commentary are: šanîš (o 3, 7, 14, 23, 31, 34, 38; r 18, 26, 30, 36, 38 (x 2)), ša iqbû (o 4, 27), ina libbi ... iqbi (o 9, r 19), aššu (o 19, 28; r 32, 35), ana muḫḫi ... qabi (o 38 (partially restored), r 22), kayyānu (r 38). The phrase nu dù (o 23) may be the remark of a student in reference to the preceding commentarial note (“I did not do (it)”). However, the logographic writing makes this interpretation uncertain.
The present edition is greatly indebted to H. Hunger’s edition. In addition, it has benefited greatly from the electronic edition prepared by Eleanor Robson for the GKAB project, which was kindly made available by its editor.
