The fallacy of "prophetic perfect"
Posted: Thu May 16, 2019 9:53 am
Dear List-members,
Are there list-members who really are interested in Hebrew grammar? Please let me hear your opinion of my points below.
The astronomer Clausius Ptolemy lived in the 2nd century CE. In his days, the belief was that the earth was the center of the universe, and the sun and the moon and the planets revolved around the earth. It was also believed by religious people that because God is perfect, the heavenly bodies must move in perfect circles. When observations were made showing that the orbits of the heavenly bodies could not be perfectly circular, an ad hoc theory was coined in order to save the view of perfect circles: The heavenly bodies move both in perfect circles around the earth and in perfect circles perpendicularly on their own orbits. Thus, the theory was saved, but without any evidence!
In the first part of the 19th century, the belief was that Hebrew perfect represented past tense or completed action (some still believe this). As the Bible study progressed, it was discovered that many perfects had future reference (I refer to 965 perfects with future reference in my doctoral dissertation). In order to save the theory, the “prophetic perfect” was introduced. The perfects really were past/completed, but that was in the mind of the prophet—he was so certain that the prophecy would be fulfilled, that he used past tense/completed action for future events.
A great number of grammars present “prophetic perfect” as a fact. However, the late H.S. Nyberg was a Swedish grammarian who rejected the “prophetic perfect.” In his view, “the so-called prophetic perfect that has been of such importance in the exegesis and in the grammars does not exist.” (His italics.) He says that such a view is “pure mystification” and in order to accept it one has to “seek recourse in psychological or parapsychological explanations.” (Nyberg, Hebreisk Grammatik (Hebrew Grammar), 280.) In my view, Nyberg is right.
The practical problem with the “prophetic perfect” view is that all Bible translations (or, at least all that I know—all-propositions are dangerous) translate many perfects with future reference in prophetic texts with English simple past or perfect. By this the readers are misled, because they fail to understand to which time the prophecy refer.
What is your opinion on "prophetic perfect"?
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway
Are there list-members who really are interested in Hebrew grammar? Please let me hear your opinion of my points below.
The astronomer Clausius Ptolemy lived in the 2nd century CE. In his days, the belief was that the earth was the center of the universe, and the sun and the moon and the planets revolved around the earth. It was also believed by religious people that because God is perfect, the heavenly bodies must move in perfect circles. When observations were made showing that the orbits of the heavenly bodies could not be perfectly circular, an ad hoc theory was coined in order to save the view of perfect circles: The heavenly bodies move both in perfect circles around the earth and in perfect circles perpendicularly on their own orbits. Thus, the theory was saved, but without any evidence!
In the first part of the 19th century, the belief was that Hebrew perfect represented past tense or completed action (some still believe this). As the Bible study progressed, it was discovered that many perfects had future reference (I refer to 965 perfects with future reference in my doctoral dissertation). In order to save the theory, the “prophetic perfect” was introduced. The perfects really were past/completed, but that was in the mind of the prophet—he was so certain that the prophecy would be fulfilled, that he used past tense/completed action for future events.
A great number of grammars present “prophetic perfect” as a fact. However, the late H.S. Nyberg was a Swedish grammarian who rejected the “prophetic perfect.” In his view, “the so-called prophetic perfect that has been of such importance in the exegesis and in the grammars does not exist.” (His italics.) He says that such a view is “pure mystification” and in order to accept it one has to “seek recourse in psychological or parapsychological explanations.” (Nyberg, Hebreisk Grammatik (Hebrew Grammar), 280.) In my view, Nyberg is right.
The practical problem with the “prophetic perfect” view is that all Bible translations (or, at least all that I know—all-propositions are dangerous) translate many perfects with future reference in prophetic texts with English simple past or perfect. By this the readers are misled, because they fail to understand to which time the prophecy refer.
What is your opinion on "prophetic perfect"?
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway