This tablet preserves one of the latest datable commentaries. According to its colophon, the tablet was copied by Nabû-šumu-līšir son of Nabû-balāssu-iqbi, grandson of Marduk-zēru-ibni, of the Egibatila family. This same scribe is attested in two other commentaries: one of them, DT 36 (CCP 3.5.48), which is very similar to the present tablet in both format and contents, is commentary on the immediately preceding chapter of Šumma Ālu, Šumma Ālu 48. The other, DT 35 (CCP 3.8.2.B), a commentary on the series of calendrical divination Iqqur īpuš, is dated to 9 November 104 BCE, and represents the latest dated commentary tablet. It is likely that the present tablet was produced around the same time.
The present tablet, which comes from the city of Babylon, was copied from an “old one-column tablet whose original was from Borsippa” (l. 37). The Vorlage of the present tablet was ostensibly badly damaged: the last three lines of the text contain ḫepi-glosses marking a broken section at the beginning of the line. In l. 33 the ḫepi-gloss is written over an erasure: the scribe probably tried to copy a damaged passage, but then desisted and wrote “broken.”
The main concerns of this commentary are two. First, it aims to provide philological glosses for difficult logograms or words: thus, in l. 11 the logogram gi.gilim is explained first by means of its Akkadian equivalent, kilimbu; a further gloss is then added to explain the relatively rare kilimbu as riksu ša qanê, “bundle of reeds.” Secondly, the present commentary occupies itself with demonstrating the internal consistency of its base text: it sets out to prove that the apodoses of the omens can be “deduced” from their protases. This double concern of the commentary is visible in the way in which the main text is quoted: when the purpose is simply to explain difficult words or phrases by means of more common ones, only the words in questions (the explananda) are cited. However, when the goal is to demonstrate the relationship between protasis and apodosis, the whole omen is cited: thus in ll. 2-3, 12, 16-17, and 30-31 (?).
The internal coherence of the omen is usually demonstrated by proving that a word from the protasis is in some way related to a word from the apodosis. Thus, the omen “If a pig repeatedly opens its mouth in front of a man, the man’s wife will repeatedly have (illicit) sex” (šumma šaḫû ana pān amēli / pâšu iptenette aššat amēli ittanayyak) is proved to be “logical” by stating that the words “mouth” (from the protasis) and “anus” and “female genitalia” (both semantically related to the verb in the apodosis, nâku, “to have intercourse”) are equated in lexical lists with one and the same Sumerain word, múrub (ll. 16-18).
Several quotations from literary texts, most of them previously unidentified, are preserved in this commentary. The quotations are often intended to underline the relationship between protasis and apodosis: thus, the omen “If a pig carries a palm from, wind will rise” is proven to be coherent by means of a line from the witchcraft series Maqlû (“May the date palm receive it, (the tree) that receives every wind!”) in which “date palm” and “wind” co-occur in the same line (l. 12). The present commentary also quotes from Lugale (l. 3), Iqqur īpuš (l. 15), and perhaps also the epic Anzû (l. 19).
The following technical terms are attested in this text: aššu to provide the semantic field of an explanation (l. 27), libbū for contextualizing explanations (ll. 15, 29) and šanîš for adducing alternative interpretations (ll. 5, 10, 20, 25).
The edition below has benefited from an electronic transliteration and translation kindly made available by S. M. Freedman. Collations from the original were made by E. Jiménez, who also identified the previously unidentified quotations.