If it had originated in the Hammurabi period,
we should have had Marduk introduced instead of Enlil.
Line 242. As has been pointed out in the corrections to the text
(Appendix), _s?-tu-ur_ can only be III, 1, from _at?ru_, "to be in
excess of." It is a pity that the balance of the line is broken off,
since this is the first instance of a colophon beginning with the
term in question. In some way _sut?r_ must indicate that the copy of
the text has been "enlarged." It is tempting to fill out the line
_s?-tu-ur e-li [duppi labiri]_, and to render "enlarged from an
original," as an indication of an independent recension of the Epic
in the Hammurabi period. All this, however, is purely conjectural,
and we must patiently hope for more tablets of the Old Babylonian
version to turn up. The chances are that some portions of the same
edition as the Yale and Pennsylvania tablets are in the hands of
dealers at present or have been sold to European museums. The war has
seriously interfered with the possibility of tracing the whereabouts
of groups of tablets that ought never to have been separated.
YALE TABLET.
TRANSLITERATION.
(About ten lines missing.
Pages:
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140