Why not. I just says that the Quranic script have one foreign influence as well. What deny Jallad & Nehmé vigorously. I explained both why at length in this forum.
yes - and i agree with you. this is now the majoritarian view, too, supported by the evidence. nehmé & al-jallad deny a specifically syriac influence on the script. you have rebutted their claims many times on this forum--unfortunately, i do not have access to those posts anymore, haha.
I did not say it was "purely" Syriac but it has necessarily an influence.
yes. as one (very) respected scholar noted: “a Nabatean mother and a Syriac tutor”.
I did not know that he had written traditional Catholic stuff in English. Teach me.
well, i do not have anything in english, unfortunately, and what is available in french, i do not rememeber, haha.
I do not know if I know scholars who knows Gallez...
apologies; rather, you are familiar with that scholar.
Well ...one passes from "fundamentalist", to traditional, to conservative. You see the issue?
Interestingly, King treats the Catholic Gallez as "fundamentalist", but not the Protestants Crone & Cook. Maybe he has a grudge against Catholics... as Yeez said, his idiosyncratic considerations are b*** in our field.
gallez is indeed a traditionalist--a fundamentalist per liberalism. as to king's ad hominem
, he is more than likely referring to gallez's religio-political views and not so much his scholarship, which in terms of ‘radicalness’, is not that different from crone & cook. as to crone & cook, they were not really religious and politically vocal. so, in their case, they are your typical protestant liberal. catholics, on the other hand, especially those critical of vatican ii, e.g., gallez and bonnet-eymard, are on the other side of the spectrum. so, i understand king's usage of the term, however unnecessary.