This work is by Ronald Dean Peters, who has since published his work. It constitutes some of the most recent work done on the Greek article, although I've read biting criticisms of the book that's based on his thesis.
See https://macsphere.mcmaster.ca/bitstream/11375/15578/1/Peters%20Ronald.pdf
http://ins.web.auth.gr/images/MEG_PLIRI/MEG_33_76_91.pdf
ReplyDeleteSanskrit has no articles but demonstrative pronouns can function as definite articles, and indefinite pronouns as indefinite ones.
https://www.academia.edu/3364233/Non-Prototypical_uses_of_the_Definite_Article_in_Biblical_Hebrew
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y-ZcBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=Sanskrit+s%C3%A1+and+s%C3%A1h&source=bl&ots=8pCGMtM4ii&sig=ZMJd7cLOofu98UtmE7JoDsiwVpg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiZ7rqvv4bNAhWDK8AKHez2D6gQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=definite%20article&f=false
ReplyDeleteApparently, not even reviews come for free nowadays.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bookreviews.org/bookdetail.asp?TitleId=9784
Lam 4:3
ReplyDeletehttp://www.emanueltov.info/docs/varia/263.JNSL%2040%202%20FINAL.pdf?v=1.0
Pg 167 footnote 20.
They only made that decision here recently. I don't know how it will work out for them, but they may wind up switching back to free. But I read the review before it went behind the paywall. The review is one of the scathing critiques I had in mind.
ReplyDeleteI have skimmed through the study and there is nothing very decisive in it but having said that. Wallace's claims of the oldest supposed NT manuscripts which appears to have been an attempt at distraction in his debate with Ehrman (the timing of the announcement seemed to good to be true, but maybe one day he will come up with the goods) would make me suspicious of his support of the mainstream view vs anything too radical, if that is how he plays his review?
ReplyDelete