[.sup.d.N]arru and [.sup.d.Z]ulummar in The Babylonian Theodicy (BWL 88: 276-77).

• Author: Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor

The well-known Akkadian composition Asis[...], usually designated "The Babylonian Theodicy," is an acrostically arranged dialogue containing twenty-seven stanzas of eleven lines each in which an anonymous sufferer complains to his wise friend about his bitter lot in life. The friend tries to convince the sufferer that things are not really as bad as he thinks and that he should pray to his protective god and goddess for relief. The sufferer speaks first and last for a total of fourteen times, while the friend speaks thirteen times. The composition has frequently been compared with the biblical book of Job, which also contains a dialogue between a righteous sufferer, Job, and several wise friends who advise him to mend his ways and that he must deserve his troubles.

Unlike the supposed biblical counterpart, it seems that in Asis[...] the final time the wise friend speaks he has started to accept the claims of the sufferer that the gods have indeed done him wrong. As an indication of his rethought position he states that the gods [.sup.d.N]arru, [.sup.d.Z]ulummar, and [.sup.d.M]ami who created man and gave him birth instilled in their creature perverse speech (itguru dababu), and lies rather than truth (sarratum u la kinatum). To make matters worse, men flatter the wealthy of whom they speak well (sa sari idabbubu dumqisu) but harm the poor man as if he were a thief (sarraqis ulammanu dunnuma amelu) by slandering him and plotting his murder (sarkus nullatum ikappudusu nirti). In other words, Man has been endowed by his creators with certain indelible traits among which are a propensity to lies, flattery, and slander. If the sufferer's woes have been caused by such men, then the gods are indeed the ultimate source of blame.

Who might these malevolent gods be? The third one, [.sup.d.M]ami, is, as her name implies, a well-known mother goddess. The first god is none other than [.sup.d.E]llil, as indicated by the ancient commentary to the text. The second god is [.sup.d.Ea], as indicated by the entry [.sup.d.KA.sup.ZU]-lum-ga[r.sup.mar] = [.sup.d.e]-a in a god list (CT 25 33: 16; see M. Civil, JAOS 88 [1968]: 9).

The question must arise, why are these well-known gods given such rare names, especially in a composition in which the vocabulary is not all that difficult except in places where rare words were needed for purposes of forming the acrostic? This question seems not to have interested the translators of the text...