Reading akkadian PRayeRs & Hymns An Introduction

434
ESSENTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY:
READING AKKADIAN PRAYERS AND HYMNS: AN INTRODUCTION
The Personal God. Rainer Albertz. Persönliche Frömmigkeit und offizielle
Religion: Religionsinterner Pluralismus in Israel und Babylon. Calwer Theologische
Monographien, Reihe A, 9. Stuttgart: Calwer, 1978. Repr., Atlanta: Society of
Biblical Literature, 2005. Robert Anthony Di Vito. Studies in Third Millennium
Sumerian and Akkadian Personal Names: The Designation and Conception of the
Personal God. Studia Pohl, Series Maior 16. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto
Biblico, 1993. Thorkild Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian
Religion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976, 157–60. Karel van der
Toorn. Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria, and Israel: Continuity and Change in the
Forms of Religious Life. SHCANE 7. Leiden: Brill, 1996, 66–87, 94–115, 136–40.
A. Löhnert and A. Zgoll. “Schutzgott. A. In Mesopotamien.” RlA 12 (2009), 311–
14.
Text. Edition: W. G. Lambert. “DINGIR.ŠÀ.DIB.BA Incantations.” JNES 33
(1974), 267–322. i Translations: Foster, 722, 721. Seux, 203–5. von Soden, 352–
53.
i Margaret Jaques at the University of Zurich is publishing a fuller edition and study of the
dingirshadibba-prayers with their rituals. She also addresses their reception history and reuse.
1. ÉN DINGIR.MU ul i-de še-ret-[ka dan]-na-at
2. niš-ka kab-tu qa-liš [a]z-za-kar
Line 1: ÉN = šiptu, “incantation, ritual wording,” indicates to the user of the tablet
that a prayer or incantation follows. It is not part of the prayer proper. DINGIR = ilu, “god.”
MU = 1cs pronominal suffix, “my.” Unlike the shuilla-prayers, the invocation in dingirshadibba-prayers
is always short; they are typically limited to a vocative and perhaps an
epithet or two (contrast lines 18–19 in the second prayer). Edû, idû, “to know.” The supplicant
admits ignorance several times in the course of the prayer (see lines 6 and 7). Šērtu,
“guilt, punishment.” Danānu, “to be(come) strong.”
šiptu: ilī ul īde šēretka dannat
Line 2: Nīšu, literally, “life,” but idiomatically “oath.” Kabtu, “heavy, grave, important.”
Qalliš, “lightly, slightly,” seems in this context to denote a lack of respect for the
deity invoked, which brings the traditional language of the Decalogue to mind: “in vain.”
Zakāru, “to speak, to name, to invoke,” with nīšu, “to swear an oath” (lit. “to invoke the
life [nīšu] of” a deity, king, or someone). The 2ms pronominal suffix in our line replaces
the expected ili, “god,” because the supplicant is addressing the one on whom they have
sworn. See CAD Z, 19–20 for the idiom. The verb may look like an N stem (azzakkar), but
a passive would not make sense in this context. Rather, the verb can be either a G perfect
(azzakar) or Gtn preterite (azzakkar; see also lines 3a, 4, and 5 but note the simple preterite
in line 3b). One’s decision about these verbs will affect one’s translation and under-