A Disconnected Ramble On God And King

Do two lines found together only in SST 60 and SST 61 from Sultantepe refer to gods, people, or both? Here are those two lines, 25a and b, with their immediate context (Line numbers refer the position of the lines in the most compete witness to the this text and not to either of SST tablets).
24) šutlimmamma egirrê dunqi
25a) ilu u šarru lišāq[irui]nni
25b) kabtu u rubû ša qabî[ya] lipuš
26) ina uli u rīšātilūbbil ūmū
Grant me good outcomes.
May god and king esteem me.
May the influential and the noble respect what I say.
In pleasure and rejoicing may I spend my days.
Lines 25a and b stand in place of the single line 25, ina sūqi lû magir qabûa, “In the street, may my speech be acceptable,” that we find, with minor variations, in the other witnesses to this prayer to Shamash.
Three factors indicate that lines 25a and b are analyzable as a self-contained unit: 1) the likelihood that the lines following line 24 in all versions represent an unfolding of the desire for “good outcomes;” 2) the change in theme between line 25b and 26; and 3) the fact that lines 25a and b appear together as an alternative to line 25.
Occasionally and in some locations, ilu u šarru refers to a human king with divine attributes (CAD I-J, 92, 101). But note ilu u šarru liqbû damiqtī, “god and king bless me” (BMS 33:35, CAD I-J, 98) where both a god and a king (not just a kingly god or godly king) are intended. Kabtu and rubû can refer to gods, Ištar for example. But more commonly, they refer to influential persons. See for example, kabtum u rabûm mamman ša la ušaqqaranni ul ibašši, “there is no influential person or official who does not hold me in esteem” (TLB 4 22:29, CAD K 27). Note how our lines 25a and b make use of the same verbal roots as in BMS 33:35 and TLB 4 22:29 but reverse their subjects.
One might compare ilu u šarru to אלי מלכי in Ps 68:25[24] where there is no doubt that “my god, my king” refers to a god. On the other hand, expressions like ana šarri dšamšiya iliya ilâniya, “to the king, my sun, my god, my gods” in EA 151:1 and elsewhere from Amarna clearly refer to the Pharaoh of Egypt, to be sure, the divine Pharaoh of Egypt, but still the Pharaoh. And then there is the use of il // mlk at Ugarit cited by Dahood (KTU 1.6 I:35-36; KTU 1.108:1-2 [in reversed order] and less obviously in KTU 1.4 IV:47-48). In each of these cases, il is the god El. There are also repeated passages in KTU 1.3 (for example KTU 1.3 V 35:1-3) where Ba’al is installed as king. The personal Hebrew names אלימלךilmlk (mDINGIR-LUGAL) from Ugarit may reflect the same theological traditions seen in Ps 68:25 and Ugaritic il // mlk. Whether the Biblical expression אלי מלכי is indigenous to Hebrew or has more a general Northwest Semitic, Akkadian or Egyptian origin cannot be easily resolved. For the fun of it, compare the parallel use of אל and מלך in Ps 95:3 (also cited by Dahood). The form אלי in Ps 68:25 leads me to think that the expression אלי מלכי is either early, whatever that might mean, in Hebrew or not solely indigenous. The same may be true of אל // מלך in Ps 95.
If I must choose, I think the case for ilu u šarru, and kabtu u rubû in SST 60 and SST 61 referring to a human king and a class of high-ranking individuals is easier to make than the case that both lines refer to gods. Here is how I might try to make such a case. First, the language in the more common formulation of the prayer points to people rather than god or gods; the king and elites having been substituted for the people of the market place in the Sultantepe tablets. Second, the TLB 4 22:29 sentence, cited above, clearly indicates influential persons. Third, and here is where it gets tricky, the more common usage of kabtu u rubû meaning “influential persons,” at least indicates that its contextual parallel, ilu u šarru, may well apply to a king.
But because of the last step, this case is weak and depends on a very strong parallel association between lines 25a and b. But the parallel association between these two lines need not be strong for them still to be an analyzable unit. I think the plain reading of the text provides the strongest case. The first line, as a literal reading would suggest, simply refers to both a divine god, no matter how anthropomorphic, and a human king, no matter how divine, while the second line refers to influential individuals in a kind of four step decrescendo: god to king to the influential to the noble.
Reference:

Dahood, Mitchell, “Ugaritic-Hebrew Parallel Pairs,” RSP I (1972), 71-382, here #36, 111