In all of those cases, the influence of the other script is demonstrable. In the Arabic case it is not.
Then Arabic would be the "exception" of the entire planet? Are you serious? Due to what? You have no response (as usual, it can be noted...) to that.
And furthermore, there is zero evidence for Syriac script in the areas where the Arabic script developed.
There is zero evidence for Phoenician script in the areas where the Greek script developed.
You say the Arab people are in Iraq and Syria from the middle of the 4th c. That is fine, but there is no evidence for the Arabic script in these place.
What is the difference between Syria/Iraq and the peninsula (including not Yemen)?
Only once outside the province of Arabia in Zebed and clearly exceptional considering the distribution now, all clustered in NW Arabia and S. Levant.
Then, what the Zebed does there? According to you it shouldn't even exist!
Your arguments are very weak in fact - you assume the Arabic script had to evolve in Iraq and Syria because Arabs were there, well there were obviously Arabs in NW Arabia and provincia Arabia. Why not by the same argument say it evolved in the latter places. If you did that, you would have the support of the transitional Nabataeo-Arabic inscriptions to explain its emergence.
1/What I say is very simple : Arabic script (from Nabatean script of the 2nd c. itself product of Imperial Aramaic) has not evolved on his own. I do not think so, I'already explained why.
2/ It did not "had to". It evolved under influence (or was created) and spread to Arabic speakers towards the peninsula. It was a script as we see it there, graffiti, etc. Not at all for what was Nabatean script (administration, commerce, etc)
By claiming it comes from Iraq and Syria you have nothing to explain its emergence, not a single inscription until the 6th c., and then ONLY ONE, the few names in the Zebed inscription, which is not the earliest and clearly an outlier.
What I only claim here, is that an internal evolution would be an exception on this planet considering the environment. This "exception" is not even mentioned by Jallad et al. because they cannot explain it.
And this influenced evolution (which starts from the 2nd c. and lasts until Zebzd) is perfectly explainable when we consider the environment. It is not an "exception".
The difference between you and MAcdonald is that he bases his argument on actual evidence. Yours is based on inference and introspection with complete disregard for the evidence.
Unfortunately, he is unable to explain this internal evolution surrounded by scripts.
What you call "evidence" are not. It describes different stages of evolution. Theses stages come from where? Heaven? Nope from the outside. And outside is Syriac script.
Also your claim that scripts only develop gradually when there is not another script present is simply a claim you invented from nothing. This is not established and we should no tassume it.
When there is only one script around, yes, it can develop on his own. When there is multiple scripts and same pattern of language, there are script borrowings (China/Japan/Korea, etc)
Just give a same example of what you claim about Arabic!
That does not exist (as far as I know
) Arabic would be an exception! I do not think so.
Whether you agree or not, the Nabataean script continues to evolve after the fall of Petra. This evolution that happens in Northwest Arabia makes the letters more cursive
Under the influence of what? Heaven? Alone? Why not, without other script around. With other script I do not think so.
None of these developments are plausibly explained as Syriac influence, rather gradual changes from ink writing.
There was no ink for the Nabaeans before? Of course there was... Why this script would have to wait for ink to change? Whereas ink existed? You cannot be serious...
All of these changes are reflected in the final form of the Arabic script in the 6th century. The writing rules and shapes already emerge here with no Syriac influence.
And I say that it did not change on his own, whereas Arabs are surrounded by Syriac priests, monks and bishops, in a scribal culture, and where Arabs are slowly converted to Christianity. Never seen elsewhere, and Arabic would be an exception? I do not think so at all. And you cannot convince me as you tell thing as if Arabs where isolated population, etc. This was not the case.
So Altara, what does Syriac explain? Where does it come in? Why do you even need it?
It explains either the creation of what we see in Zebed, Dumat, Najran, etc. Either a long influence since the Nabatean. It comes in because it is the only Semitic script around heavily used. What you describe because of ink could be an influence from Syriac script read by Arabs who decided to copy the Syriac cursive script and to adapt it to their actual script. The cursive idea is come from others, not them (if the original script is the Nabatean script of the 2nd c.) like all the others (China, Korea, Japan, etc) And the others are Syriac people.
Anyway the appeal to Syriac explains nothing about the Arabic script.
It explains many things, the cursive, etc. I've already said my arguments and explained why the methodology used by Jallad et al. seems flawed to explain this evolution.
Is it only because you think it is present therefore it MUST have done something?
Something else is present, in this case there is influence as this is Semitic language. It's logic. Arabic is not an exception on the entire planet. He has not evolved on his own as if it was on Mars, whereas we know what we know of the history of Orient.
Or it's a miracle, like the Quran. I do not think (at all) that the Quran is a miracle.
produce a valid argument for how Syriac explains anything about the emergence of the Arabic script based on evidence.
My evidence is that the methodology of Jallad et al. is flawed. It does not take into account the environment of Orient between 150 and 600, and it does not explain why Arabic would be so exceptional, that it developed alone whereas he is not. Thing that did not (as far as I know... ) happened nowhere.
Topic: Qur'anic studies today