From the works of Arab authors M. Qnatrcmiire (Me- moire sur les Xabateenx, Paris, 1S35, leprintert from the Xouveau Joiirn. Asiat. Jan. -March, 1S36) proved the ex- istence of a nation called yabat or yabit, pi. Anbiit {Sihuh and Kdmfig), reputed to he of ancient origin, of whom scattered remnants existed in Arab times, after the a;i'a of the Flight. The Nabat, in the da.vs of their earlv pios- pei'itv, iiih.-ibited the coiiiitiv ehieflv'between the K'ii])lii-a- tes aod the Tigris, Bein eii-Nalirciii and El-Irak (the Mes- opotamia and Chakijea of the classics). That this was tlieii- cliief scat and that they were Araniteans, or, more accurately, Sj-ro-Chaldaaans, seems, in the present state of the inquiry (for it will presently be seen that, by the publication of Oriental texts, our knowledge may be" very greatly enlarged), to be a safe conclusion. Tlie Arabs loosely apply the name Nabat to the Syrians, or especially the eastern Syrians, to the Syro-Chi'ildaeans, etc. Thus El-Mesildi (ap. C^uatiemcre, I. c.) says, " The Syrians are the same as the N.ibathaeans (Nrtba"t). . . . The Niinrods were the kin<rs of the Syrians whom the Arabs call Naba- thffiaus. . . .'The Chakljeans are the same as the Sviians, otherwise called Nabat {Kit('ib ct-Tcnhih). The Naliathic- ans . . . founded tlie city of Babylon. . . . The inhabit- ants of Nineveh were part of thoVe whom we call Nabit or Syrians, who form one natiini and speak one laiunia-ze ; that of the Nabit differs only in a small inimber of letters ; but the fonndatiou of the lansruage is identical" (Kitiib Mnrrj ed-Dltahab). These and many other fragmentary passa','es sufflciently prove the existence of a great Ara- maean people called Nabat, celebrated among the Arabs for their knowledge of agricultnie, and of matjic, astron- omy, medicine, and science (so called) generally. But we have stronger evidence to this efl'ect. Quatienu-re intro- duced to the notice of the learned world the most impor- tant relic of that people's literature, a treatise on is'aliat agriculture. A study of an imperfect copy of that work, which nnfmtunately was all he could gain access to, in- duced him to d:ite it about the time of Nebuchadnezzar, B.C. cir. 600. M. C'liwolson, jndfessor of Oriental lan- guages at St. Pi-tci-.-btuL', who liad sliown himself fitted for the inquiry by his trcali.'-e on the SabiauB and their rcliu'ion {Die Sabier inul dcr Snhiamna), has since made that book a subject ot' special sliidv; and in his Unnniun of ancient ISiihijlvnian lAtcnitnrc i'n Arabic Traitshitiona (Ceber die I'rberreste der AU-J!al>!!loiti.iclien Literatur in Arabinclien t'ebersetziinneti, St, Petersburg, IsV.t), he has published the results of his inquiry. Tlio.-e results, while they establish all that M. (^uatremuie had advanced re- specting the existence of tlie Nabat, go far beyond him both in the antiquity and the inqiortance which Si. fhowl- s(ni claims forthat people. Ewald, however, in 1S67, stated some grave causes for donbiiiii; this antiquity, and a^rain in lSfi9 (both ])apers apixMicd iii the Guttimiewhe Gelihite Anzeitien) re|ieali'd niodeialely but decidedly his misgiv- ings. ' M. Kiiian followed on the same side (Jintrn. de. Vlhslitvt, A|)iil-Mav, ISf.o) ; and more recentlv M. de (iut- schmid (/.eitschiift d. dentsch. monioibnid. a,\itlls,-lio/t, XV, l-ioii) has attacked the whole theory in a Icn^'ihy es- say. We recapitulate, as shortly as possible, the bearings of this remarkable inquiry, as far as they relate to the sub- ject of the article.
The remains of the literature of the Nnbnt consist of four works, one of them a fratrinent : the "Book of Na- bat Agriculture" (alreadv mentioned), the "Book of Poi- sons," the "Book of 'leiikelusha the Babylonian," and the " Book of the Seciets of the Sun and Moon" (Chwol- 80U, UeberrMte, p. Id, 11). They purport to have been
NEBAIOTH
893
NEBAIOTH
translated, iu the year 904, by Abii-Bekr Ahmad Ibn-Ali, the CUaldieau of Kissiu, or Keisi, better kuowu as Ibu- Wahshiiyeh. The '• Book of Nabat Agriculture" was, ac- cording to the Arab translator, cominenced by Daghrith, continued by Yaubushadh, and completed by Kuthami. Chwolsou, disregarding the dates assigned to these au- thors by the translator, thinks tliat the earliest lived some 2500 years B.C., the second some 300 or 400 years later, and Kuthami, to whom he ascribes the chief authorship (Ibn-Wahshiyeh says he was little more than editor), at the earliest under the sixth king of a Canaanitish dynasty neiitioiied in the book, which dynasty Chwolsou— with Bunsen— makes the same as the lifth (or Arabian) dynas- ty of Berosus (.Chwolson, Ucbenr.ite, ]■>. 5S, etc. ; Bunseu, Eqill't, iii, 432, etc. ; Cory, Ancient Frarjmenis, 2d ed. p. 60y, or of the i:!th century B.C. It will thus be seen that he rejects most of M. Quatremere's reasons for placing the work in tlie time of Nebuchadnezzar. It Is remarka- ble that tliat great king is not mentioned, and the author or autliors were, it is arcued by Chwolson, ignorant not only of the existence of Christianity, but of the kingdom and faith of Israel. While these and other reasons, if granted, strengthen M. Chwolsoii's case for the antiquity of the work, on the other hand it is urged that even neg- lecting the difficulties attending au Arab's translating so ancient a writing (and we reject altogether the supposi- tion that it was "modernized, as being without a parallel, at least in Arabic literature), and conceding that he was of Clialdiieau or Nabat race— we encounter formidable in- trinsic difficulties. The book contains mention of per- sonages bearing names closely resembling those of Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Shem, Nimrod, and Abraham; and M. Chwolson himself is forced to confess that the partic- ulars related of them are in some respects siniihtr to those recoiiled of the Biblical patriarchs. If this difficulty proves insurmountable, it shows that the autlior borrowed from tlie Bible, or from late Jews, and destroys the claim of au extreme antiquity. Other ajiparent evidences of the same kind are not wanting. Such is the mention of Ei'misa (Hermes), Agathadiiniin (Agathodiemon), Tam- mnz (Adonis), and Yunan (lonians). It is even a ques- tion whether the work should not be dated several centu- ries after the commencement of onr sera. Anachronisms, it is asserted, abound— geographical, linguistic, (the use of late words and phiases), historical, and religious (sucli as the traces of Hellenism, as shown in the mention of Hermes, etc., and inllueuces to be ascribed to Neoplato- iiism). The whole style is said to be modern, wanting tlie rugged vigor of antiquity (this, however, is a delicate issue, to be tried only by the ripest scholarship). And while Chwolson dates the oldest part of the "Bonk of Agrictilture" B.C. 2500, and the "Book of Tenkclusha" in the 1st century A.D. at the latest (i). 136), Kenan asserts that the two are so similar as to pieclude the notion of their being separated by any great interval of time {Jour- nal lie rin.ititiit).