Stephen Carlson wrote:Context(s)? Also, some of these glosses (e.g., "let be supposing") don't seem to be proper English.
Stephen Hughes wrote:Understanding the third person imperative is based on the social (power) relationship between the person being spoken to and the person who is expected to actually do something.
Meanings can range from the person being spoken to doing something themself to them telling or forcing others to do something.
Without a context, it is difficult.
Mike Burke wrote:The only context I'm aware of βλασφημείσθω being used in is Romans 14:16, where it's used with an adverb of negation (μὴ, or "not.")
μὴ βλασφημείσθω οὖν ὑμῶν τὸ ἀγαθόν.
But can the word be used without a negative particle, and what would it mean?
Romans 14:16 - 17 wrote:μὴ βλασφημείσθω οὖν ὑμῶν τὸ ἀγαθόν. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ βρῶσις καὶ πόσις, ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνη καὶ εἰρήνη καὶ χαρὰ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ·
If we found such a papyrus with the words βλασφημείσθω Καῖσαρ, we could assume that it was written by somebody who wanted people to say bad things about Caesar to somebody who he believed would agree to do it and who could do something towards those ends. The exact understanding of our two words will depend on who those people are in relation to each other and what the second one is reasonably capable of.Mike Burke wrote:I want to construct a sentence using βλασφημείσθω without a negative adverb (if it can be sensibly used without one.)
if a subject is implied in βλασφημείσθω, I believe "βλασφημείσθω Καίσαρας" is a complete sentence. So if I came upon a papyrus fragment dating from Imperial Rome, and it read "βλασφημείσθω Καίσαρας," would I be justified in concluding that some Republican wanted a good Emperor (like Marcus Arelius) to be spoken of as evil
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests