Editing Vaticinium ex eventu (section)

===In religious writings===

The Babylonian "[[Marduk]] Prophecy", a text describing the travels of the Marduk idol from [[Babylon]], "prophesies" of the statue’s seizure during the sack of the city by [[Mursilis I]] in 1531 BC, [[Assyria]], when [[Tukulti-Ninurta I]] overthrew [[Kashtiliash IV]] in 1225 BC and took the idol to [[Assur]], and [[Elam]], when [[Kudur-Nahhunte]] ransacked the city and pilfered the statue around 1160 BC. A copy<ref>Tablet K. 2158+</ref> was found in the House of the Exorcist at Assur, whose contents date from 713–612 BC and is closely related thematically to another ''vaticinium ex eventu'' text called the Shulgi prophecy, which probably followed it in a sequence of tablets. Both compositions present a favorable view of Assyria.

The [[Book of Daniel]] utilizes ''vaticinium ex eventu'', by its seeming foreknowledge of events from [[Alexander the Great]]'s conquest up to the persecution of [[Antiochus IV Epiphanes]] in the summer of 164 BCE.<ref>{{cite book|title=The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception|volume=1|editor= John Joseph Collins, Peter W. Flint|location=Leiden & Boston|publisher=Brill|year=2001|series=supplements to Vetus Testamentum ( vol. 83)|isbn=9004226753|author=Lester L. Grabbe|chapter=A Dan(iel) For All Seasons|page=230}}.</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Ryken |first=Leland |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qjEYEjVVEosC&q=Dictionary+of+Biblical+Imagery+Daniel+book+of |title=Dictionary of Biblical Imagery |last2=Wilhoit |first2=Jim |last3=Longman |first3=Tremper |publisher=InterVarsity Press |year=1998 |isbn=9780830867332|quote=The consensus of modern biblical scholarship is that the book was composed in the second century B.C., that it is a pseudonymous work, and that it is indeed an example of prophecy after the fact.}}</ref><!-- extra RS: <ref>{{cite book | editor-last=McConville | editor-first=Gordon J. | editor-last2=Boda | editor-first2=Mark J. | last=Tucker Jr. | first=W. D. | title=Dictionary of the Old Testament: Prophets: A Compendium Of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship | publisher=Inter-Varsity Press | year=2020 | isbn=978-1-78974-038-7 | chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=8GfnDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT211 | orig-year=2012 | page=unpaginated | chapter=Daniel: History of Interpretation|quote=a near consensus view of a Maccabean date}}</ref><ref name="Larousse h054">{{cite web | author=Éditions Larousse  | title=livre de Daniel | website=Larousse | url=https://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/oeuvre/livre_de_Daniel/115594 | language=fr | access-date=30 July 2023 | quote=Livre biblique composé vers 165 avant J.-C.}}</ref>--><ref>{{cite book
 | last1 = Tabor
 | first1 = James D.
 | author-link1 = James D. Tabor
 | chapter = Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Millennialism
 | editor1-last = Wessinger
 | editor1-first = Catherine
 | editor1-link = Catherine Wessinger
 | title = The Oxford Handbook of Millennialism
 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=zgUTDAAAQBAJ
 | series = Oxford Handbooks Series
 | edition = reprint
 | location = Oxford
 | publisher = Oxford University Press
 | publication-date = 2016
 | page = 256
 | origyear = 2011
 | isbn = 9780190611941
 | access-date = 7 September 2020
 | quote = The book of Daniel becomes foundational for the Jewish or Jewish-Christian millenarian vision of the future that became paradigmatic [...]. [...] One of the great ironies in the history of Western ideas is that Daniel's influence on subsequent Jewish and Christian views of the future had such a remarkable influence, given that everything predicted by Daniel ''utterly failed!'' [...] One might expect that a book that had proven itself to be wrong on every count would have long since been discarded as misguided and obsolete, but, in fact, the opposite was the case. Daniel's victory was a literary one. [...] Daniel not only survived but its influence increased. The book of Daniel became the foundational basis of ''all'' Jewish and Christian expressions of apocalyptic millenarianism for the next two thousand years. [...] Daniel is the clearest example from this period of the “when prophecy fails” syndrome [...]}}</ref><!-- First one was his hope, which luckily came true, so lucky guess. It does not make him a prophet, merely an agitator and propagandist, unless we mean that Marx, Engels and Lenin were prophets. Second one is trivial: all people die. So commenting it out. However, Daniel knows neither about the re-dedication of the Temple (1 Maccabees 4:52–54) nor about Antiochus' death, both of which happened late in November and December of 164 BCE. Therefore, Daniel 11:40–12:3 is no longer vaticina ex eventu but genuine predictive prophecy.<ref>Ehling, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der späten Seleukiden, 111, esp. fn 1; D. Gera, Dov and W. Horowitz, "Antiochus IV in Life and Death: Evidence from the Babylonian Astronomical Diaries", JAOS 117 (1997): 240-52; J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Press), 388--389 {{cite book|title=The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception|volume=1|editor= John Joseph Collins, Peter W. Flint|location=Leiden & Boston|publisher=Brill|year=2001|series=supplements to Vetus Testamentum ( vol. 83)|isbn=9004226753|author=Lester L. Grabbe|chapter=A Dan(iel) For All Seasons}} page 230.</ref>--> The stories of the first half are legendary in origin, and the visions of the second the product of anonymous authors in the [[Maccabees|Maccabean]] period (2nd century BCE).{{sfn|Collins|2002|p=2}} Its inclusion in [[Ketuvim]] (Writings) rather than [[Nevi'im]] (Prophets) was likely because it appeared after the canon for those books had closed, and the dominant view among Jews and scholars is that Daniel is not in any case a prophetic book but an [[apocalypse]].

Statements attributed to [[Jesus]] in the [[Gospels]] that foretell the destruction of Jerusalem (e.g., Mark 13:14,<ref name="Hengel"/> Luke 21:20<ref>{{Cite book|last=Browning|first=W. R. F.|chapter-url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199543984.001.0001/acref-9780199543984-e-1988?rskey=SQeGb5&result=1952|url=http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199543984.001.0001/acref-9780199543984|title=A Dictionary of the Bible|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2000|isbn=978-0-19-954398-4|edition=2|pages=387|language=en|chapter=Vaticinium ex eventu (or post eventum)|doi=10.1093/acref/9780199543984.001.0001|orig-year=1996}}</ref>) and its temple are considered to be examples of ''vaticinia ex eventu'' by the great majority of [[Biblical scholars]]<ref>{{cite book|first=Gregory A.|last=Boyd|title=Cynic Sage or Son of God?: Recovering the Real Jesus in an Age of Revisionist Replies|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O9BMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA238|date=1 October 2010|publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers|isbn=978-1-60899-953-8|page=238}}</ref> (with regard to [[siege of Jerusalem (AD 70)|the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70]], in which the [[Second Temple]] was destroyed).<ref name="Soulen">{{cite book|last1=Soulen|first1=Richard N.|last2=Soulen|first2=R. Kendall|title=Handbook of Biblical Criticism|date=2001|publisher=Westminster John Knox Press|isbn=9780664223144|page=204|edition=3rd|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ooGh9TTe0jUC&q=vaticinium|access-date=19 February 2015}}</ref><ref name="Hengel">{{cite book|first=Martin|last=Hengel|title=Studies in the Gospel of Mark|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vVj7DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA127|date=14 March 2003|orig-year=1985|publisher=Wipf and Stock Publishers|isbn=978-1-72520-078-4|page=127 fn. 86}}</ref> However, there are some scholars who only see the verses from Luke as constituting a ''vaticinium ex eventu'' (and those of Mark not),<ref name="Hengel"/> while a few even go as far as to deny that the verses from Luke refer to the destruction of the temple in AD 70.<ref name="Soulen"/>