Mike Burke wrote:So there's nothing in the word βλασφημείσθω itself to imply that those bad things are either true or false?
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 (Ceasar being the object.)
The Ceasar could be a monster like Nero, a fairlly good Emporer like Marcus Arelius, or a fairly neutral Emporer like Claudius.
As a context, Rome originally had a Republican form of government that some hoped it would one day return to.
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 (out of purely political motives), or could it be an honest historian hoping that future generations would remember a truly evil Emperor (like Nero or Caligula) for what he was?
Or, without further infomation (i.e. without further fragments identifying the Emperor spoken of, and providing more "context"), could it be either?
Again, is there anything in the word βλασφημείσθω that implies that the evil spoken is either true or false.
BTW: I fully understand and agree with what you're saying about Romans 14:16-17.
So it isn't necessary to say it again.
I understand what Paul is saying there, and who he's speaking to, and my question here has nothing to do with interpreting his words in that passage.
I'm interested in how βλασφημείσθω could be used in other contexts.
Barry Hofstetter wrote:you want the nominative, not the accusative, since βλασφημείσθω is passive
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest