It has long been recognized that certain texts from the ancient world that appear to predict future events were actually written well after the episodes they purport to foretell. Though the best known examples of this phenomenon may come from the biblical book of Daniel, compositions from across the ancient Near East exhibit this technique as well. Neujahr's publication, a revised version of his doctoral dissertation (Yale University, 2011), examines various manifestations of this phenomenon, known as vaticinium ex eventu, or “prediction after the fact” (p. 5). Neujahr first focuses on a number of examples of vaticinium ex eventu from Mesopotamia, including Prophecy Text A, the Marduk Prophecy, the Shulgi Prophecy, the Uruk Prophecy, and the Dynastic Prophecy, before moving on to those from Daniel, 1 Enoch, and various texts from Qumran, as well as Late Egyptian compositions and the Sibylline Oracles.
Neujahr's most salient points concern the relatively independent origins of ex eventu compositions, as he largely resists the urge to see limited similarities between texts as proof of wide-scale borrowing or dependence. For example, J.L. Lightfoot has argued for the fundamental reliance of Oracula Sibyllina 1–2 on 1 Enoch (pp. 230–32, 240), while E.M. Cook has claimed that 4Q246, the so-called “Son of God” text from Qumran, is an Aramaic adaptation of Akkadian ex eventu compositions (p. 160). Neujahr rejects these claims in his analysis of the Sibylline Oracles and 4Q246, pointing out that both Lightfoot and Cook exaggerate similarities and minimize differences between the texts in question. Similarly, Neujahr argues against the many Assyriologists and biblicists who have touted the resemblance of Daniel to Mesopotamian ex eventu compositions (p. 68), especially those that claim direct dependence of the former on the latter (pp. 119–20). Though similarities exist between certain sections of Daniel and Akkadian ex eventu texts, the differences between Daniel and the Mesopotamian compositions are manifold (pp. 124–5, 127–8, 129–31, 146–50). The strongest commonality between these two groups is neither specific linguistic nor ideological borrowings, but the use of vaticinium ex eventu, which “is not a terribly complicated literary device” (p. 135). Moreover, as evidence is lacking for the translation or diffusion of Akkadian ex eventu texts, Neujahr is certainly correct in his conclusion that “the evidence for direct literary dependence of Daniel on Babylonian prototypes is minimal and, where it exists, circumstantial” (p. 117).
Though the arguments for the independence of certain ex eventu compositions are strong, some of Neujahr's assessments of ex eventu texts miss the mark. He accurately concludes that while similar to omens, Mesopotamian ex eventu compositions are generically distinct from these texts (pp. 87–9). Yet his analysis of the Mesopotamian omen tradition is far too general. His assertion that “in practice, omens were recognized as either portending good or bad; the specifics of the apodosis could be ignored and the general tenor applied to the immediate situation or royal query” (p. 87) is heavily influenced by extispical oracular queries, and does not hold for unprovoked omens. Moreover, the argument that “predictions of omens are never absolute; they can be averted by means of apotropaic ritual” (p. 88) finds its foil in physiognomic omens, which seem to lack these preventative measures.
Mesopotamian ex eventu texts are characterized as seeking “to generate support for native claimants to the throne over non-native/illegitimate rulers” (p. 97) throughout the book (pp. 150, 194, 226–7). Not only is the concept of “native” fraught with difficulties in an area marked by numerous migrations of new cultural groups, but representatives of many of these groups (including Amorites, Kassites, and Arameans/Chaldeans) ruled at one time or another, setting up “native” dynasties. Moreover, many of the Mesopotamian ex eventu texts are silent on the subject of foreign monarchs contending for the Babylonian throne. In those texts where such rulers are clearly mentioned, such as the Dynastic Prophecy, “native” Babylonian kings are seemingly described as negatively as foreign monarchs (p. 60, though the negative assessment of the foreign “Elamite” ruler is restored here).
Though Neujahr tentatively labels Pseudo-Danielc (4Q245) as an ex eventu composition, as it includes the names of Judaean rulers and high priests, some of whom came to power after the pseudonymous author would have lived (pp. 156–7), it is unclear whether 4Q245 should be categorized as such due to the fragmentary nature of the text. Additionally, there may be roughly contemporary Mesopotamian parallels to Pseudo-Danielc – such as the so-called Uruk List of Kings and Sages (W 20030) and the latter parts of the Synchronic King List – which are concerned with genealogical pedigree, and not prediction per se.
Turning finally to the texts themselves, Neujahr includes bibliography, transliteration, translation, and brief notes for each Akkadian composition examined, as well as transcriptions and translations of the ex eventu texts from Qumran. Though Neujahr did not collate the Mesopotamian ex eventu texts, the editions offered are quite helpful, as they conveniently allow the reader to (re)examine the compositions in question and weigh the author's arguments firsthand. Errors in the Mesopotamian text editions amount to a few inconsistencies, such as sign values denoted by numbers as opposed to the accent marks Neujahr otherwise employs (pp. 16–8, 30, 32, 34–5), or the use of Borger's bracket system solely in those texts that were first edited by Borger. On the other hand, the mistakes present in certain Hebrew and Aramaic transcriptions take the form of haplography and substitution (pp. 170, 176, 178), and are thus more substantial.
Criticisms aside, this volume acts as a corrective to prior notions of the relationships between ex eventu texts, especially the view that Akkadian compositions are direct forerunners to Judaean mantic-historiographic works. For significantly furthering the discussion of ancient ex eventu texts, Neujahr's offering should be welcomed.
