As Jason noted, Rolf, this isn't B-Translation. While translation can be helpful, first and formost we should focus on comprehending the Hebrew. How do these perfects, prophetic or whatever, function in the context of the Hebrew sentences, paragraphs, and chapters where they appear? What information do they add? What nuances does the speaker offer by use of a perfect? Would another verb form have served as well to get the intended point across? These are all legitimate sorts of grammatical and linguistic questions (I'm sure there may be others) that we could look at in this discussion. The problem with focusing on translations for purposes of comprehension and analysis is that it feeds into or validates the old flawed assumptions about BH and ancient languages in general.
Dear Dewayne,
With all respect for you as a knowlegable student of Hebrew, here you have missed the point. The issue that I have raised really is an issue of Hebrew grammar. This is seen by the fact that “prophetic perfect” is discussed in Hebrew grammar books. And I cannot see that issues that are mentioned in Hebrew grammars should not be discussed on b-hebrew. The issue of translation has been a secondary issue in my posts. I have argued that the consequences of a grammatical rule that has no linguistic basis, is that Bible readers are misled as far as the temporal references of the words of the prophets are concerned.
You said: “How do these perfects, prophetic or whatever, function in the context of the Hebrew sentences, paragraphs, and chapters where they appear?” That is exactly what I have done. I have argued that that the perfects in future settings in the books of the prophets have a normal future meaning, and not a past meaning as the “prophetic perfect” rule implies.
Later this year, a book of mine will be published. Half of the book discusses Hebrew grammar. It shows that Classical Hebrew does not have tenses but only aspects. And it uses basic linguistic tools, such as “deictic time,” “non-deictic time,” “event time,” and “reference time” to show what Hebrew aspects really are. It also shows that Classical Hebrew only has two conjugations and not four.
Along the lines of your words that I quoted above, I discuss the differences in meaning when imperfects and perfects are used with future reference. I also stress word order. What is the difference in meaning when a substantive or pronoun is added before a verb in contrast when it is added after the verb? What is the difference in meaning when a perfect is sentence initial and does not have a prefixed waw in contrast when it has the waw? What is the meaning when two perfects with future reference stand together and none of them has a prefixed waw? —And many other syntactical question. This is a discussion at the core of Classical Hebrew.
The second part of the book presents my translation of verses from 110 chapters in the books of the prophets. These chapters have the following numbers of verbs, all having future reference: 697 perfects, 153 perfect consecutives, 378 imperfects, and 84 imperfect consecutives. These numbers are not what we would expect of contexts referring to the future.
Best regards,
Rolf J. Furuli
Stavern
Norway