In both its versions the Marduk Ordeal text states that “enūma eliš, which is recited and chanted before Bel in Nisan, concerns his imprisonment”. Diverse clever and mostly correct interpretations of this somewhat weird statement have been offered, generally dwelling on the obvious attempt at Assyrianising Babylonian lore (and dogma) underlying this text and related material. These explanations, however, seem to overlook an important point: the statement is simply untrue. This is in stark contrast with the other unequivocal mention of enūma eliš: the reference to Anšar in MO A. 1. 54, who is presented having come into being before heaven and earth were created. The reason why this notion is taken over wholesale seems simple: to an Assyrian audience the identity between AN.ŠAR and the god Aššur (probably via *aššar — an almost universal assimilation feature of Akkadian) will have been obvious and convincing. It should be noted that Bel's defence in MO A 1. 35 “I only did what was beneficent to Aššur” also hinges on this identification. But this leaves us with the palpable untruth of 1. 34. How is this to be understood? I suggest that no answer to this question should be attempted without taking into account the text as a whole, and in particular its specific and highly idiosyncratic texture and structure.

The text is made up from bits of different types of discourse, strung together very loosely and without any apparent structure. The prevalent types are:

1. short bits of apparently narrative material, such as “Bēlet-ilī, who roams the streets, is looking for Marduk (saying:) ‘Where is he kept prisoner?’”;

2. short point-to-point equivalencies of disparate materials, such as “The dog which crosses Esabad is a messenger. Gula is sending it to him”;

3. somewhat longer passages explaining some point by reference to other texts (the note about Bel's imprisonment seems to belong to this group).