Why do you keep saying Nabataean from 1st and 2nd century? Nabataean inscriptions continue unbroken until the late 5th century.
Jallad has (and he is not alone...) an obsession to affirm that the earliest Nabatean script of the 1st c. is the genuine and pure origin of the Quranic script without any other influence. It is his discourse.
Just because the kingdom came to a political end does not mean its script and writing system or its people as such did.
Who say that? You extrapolate...
4th century Sabaic inscription still refer to NW Arabia as ard Nabat.
Normal.
Paleography is not able to do all what you seems to suppose. It is not as clear as that. I think that this development is due to Syriac script. It means influence, not necessarily copy of shapes, etc.
I do not think anyone cares about nationalistic concerns here 'Arabic script must come from Arabia';
I suspect the exact contrary because it was exactly the same affirmations about the Quranic texts itself. Scholars (following Muslims polygraphs) defended the original, pure, genuine Arabic content of it, and that it had nothing to do with an influence of Christianity, etc.
200 years later almost all scholars admit in a no coming back way that Syriac Christianity has, one way or another, much to do with the Quranic text.
I consider, that the Jallad and MCD constant affirmations of setting aside Syriac script is curiously of the same pattern...
it call comes from Aramaic in the end, Nabataean is a form of Aramaic obviously.
Of course.
The question is which one, it is not a question of Arabianness. Even if it came from Syriac, it would have developed in an Arabic context.
The question is that Jallad et al. after have been dispossessed of "the original, pure, genuine Arabic content of the Quranic text" defend from any Christian influence the only thing that remains : the genuine and pure origin of the Quranic script which directly coming of Nabataean script of the 1st and 2nd c. where Chistianity was not present, etc.
Arabic context, why not, but Arabic context is perforce an influenced context.
and the reason I say Saudis cannot produce a fake is because they do not believe in the paleographic models set up in the West. Their fakes would look very different, much more like the omar bin al-khattab fake.
Saudis can learn from the West how to make good fakes.
Altara, your presentation of the Languages and Civilizations model is a caricature and it cannot be compared to the diplomat school in the French system.
It can. And I'm pretty sure that the special school I'm talking about, to train diplomats, was better than the mainstream university in USA to learn Languages and Civilizations. But never these guys would have call themselves "historians". Yet they were studying 5 years in Oriental Languages and Civilizations. Arabic (all dialects) Indonesian, Chinese (all), etc.
This course of study, from what I know because I have applied to these programs, involves course work in historical methods, theory and practice of history, and many other things. It is not just learning languages like you say. Go investigate the curriculum. For example from University of Chicago:
I do not say it is only learn languages, I say it is learning Languages and Civilizations.
Ancient Near Eastern History offers an interdisciplinary program combining a broad view of Near Eastern history in pre-Islamic times with specialized knowledge of at least one major sub-region (e.g., Babylonia, Iran, Hatti, Egypt, or Syria-Palestine) or field (e.g., Late Bronze trade, early empires). Knowledge of two ancient languages (major and minor), Near Eastern archaeology, historiography, and historical method is required.
If it is so great, how do you explain that 99% of them still believe in the Muslim narrative (Mecca/Medina/Zem-Zem/Kaba/"prophet") as historical facts?
Topic: Qur'anic studies today