PHILOLOGICAL COMMENTARY

• The apodosis’s verb is broken away on both manuscripts. K 03730+ 4 preserves a broken RA on the manuscript’s right­hand edge. Although a large piece of the manuscript is missing between ZAG ˹GÍD˺.[DA and the broken RA, collation confirms both the sign’s reading and its placement in line K 03730+ 4. Though If a City 2 includes RA in its reading of K 03730+ 4 (190, *32.2’, Ex(1)4), it does not incorporate the broken sign into the above omen (166, *32.2’).

We suggest reconstructing GUR ‘to turn back’ in the break and interpreting the broken RA as a phonetic complement. Thus reconstructed, the apodosis is a common and favorable prognosis indicating the god will ‘resume a favorable attitude’ toward the person. See CAD T, 255 s.v. târu 2d; CAD Z, 85 s.v. zenû a 3’ for other examples.

1. 1. The suggested reconstruction is supported by the above omen’s similarities in meaning and structure to 32.S.61.

[If] in a man’s house [a lizar]d with two tails is seen; its right t[ail] is long – (formerly) angered gods will return to the man’s house.
[DIŠ EME.ŠI]D šá 2 KUN.MEŠ­-šá K[UN]-­sà šá ZAG GÍD.DA ina É NA IGI DINGIR.MEŠ zi­-nu-­tu4 ana É NA GUR.MEŠ-­ni

1. 2. Note the CAD Š/1, 15 s.v. šabsu, commenting on K 06912+ 6, reads the apodosis as follows:

                      [DING]IR ŠÀ.DIB.BA ana amēli itâr

Collation shows K 06912+ 6 breaks off after ana LÚ, without any trace of GUR itâr. Nevertheless the CAD’s suggestion is probably correct.

• 3. The logogram ŠÀ.DIB.BA is attested in commentary and lexical lists for šabsu, zenû, and kamlu, all meaning ‘angry, wrathful’ (CAD Z, 84 s.v. zenû; CAD Š/1, 4 s.v. šabāsu; CAD K p. 124 s.v. kamlu). We read zenû because of 32.S.61, which has the phonetic reading zi­-nu-­tu4. If a City 2 (167, *32.2’) interprets DINGIR ŠÀ.DIB.BA as a single word meaning ‘divine wrath’, kimiltu in Akkadian. This and If a City 2’s suggestion to reconstruct ŠUB.MEŠ as the apodosis’s verb likely come from 32.S.62, where DI[NGIR.Š]À.DIB.BA ana É NA ŠUB.MEŠ is the first of that omen’s multiple apodoses. Kimiltu is a legitimate reading for DINGIR.ŠÀ.DIB.BA, but it does not fit well with the new reading GUR-ra as the above omen’s final verb. Also 32.S.62 is not as close a match for the above omen (32.N.2) as 32.S.61 is. Given the similarities between above omen and 32.S.61, it seems more appropriate to interpret the above signs as DINGIR ŠÀ.DIB.BA with the meaning ‘an angry god’.
• Both the right and left-hand edges of K 06912+ are broken, but it does not seem that much is missing. The right-hand side has room for a few signs at the most; while the left-hand side has a bit more room, it is not large. 
• An indentation has been reconstructed at the beginning of K 06912+ 6. Indentations are common when omens carry over onto multiple lines. Comparisons with this manuscript’s other omens indicate that there is room for a few signs on the left-hand side, but as the omen is logically complete with the reconstruction of NA IGI in line 5, an indentation seems probable.
• In K 06912+ 5, we reconstruct [NA IGI] at the end of the protasis as has been done in If a City 2 (166, *32.2’). There is enough room at the edge of the manuscript for the reconstruction, and it is logical given that the proceeding omen uses the verb IGI in the protasis.
• Collation of both manuscripts confirms the reading KUN.MEŠ-šá, instead of If a City 2’s (166, *32.2’) KUN.MEŠ-šu2.