- In a number of texts in Genesis (E.g., 36:3) Nabaioth appears mentioned as one of Ishmael’s sons. Another one of Ismael’s children is Kedar, who seems to be identified with the Kedarites. Isn’t it possible that an ethnonym linked to pre-Nabatean inhabitants of the region is what the biblical account is talking about?
- We already possess equivalents of the ethnonym in Assyrian records from the seventh century BCE, the Nabatu or Nabayatu in inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III and Sennacherib, also Neba’ati in a Babylonian letter and Nbyt in an inscription in Teima. Edward Lipinski in The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture, Religion (Peeters, 2000) derives the name from the root naba’a “to be distinguished,” as a broken plural naba’ātu(n), with Naba’ātu > Assyrian Nabātu via ellision of the hamza (which is attested in the Neba’ati form). The Hebrew form along with Nabayatu and Nbyt reflects a mutation (ibdāl) of the hamza > ya’ which is a well-known phenomenon in Arabic. The objection of the equation of the name with the Nabataeans arises from the presence of the yod (which actually has an explanation, as given above) and the non-emphatic taw which contrasts with the form Nabāṭu in Nabataean Aramaic which has a ṭet. So if there is an equivalence between Nabatu and the Nabāṭu centuries later, the consonant would have an emphatic realization in the local dialect in this instance (although uncommon, this exchange does happen as Abu Taleb pointed out, cf. Arabic قتل qatala while Hebrew has קטל). E. C. Broome (JSS, 1973) observes this interchange is especially common in stressed syllables which would explain the form in Nabāṭu since there stress falls on the final syllable. Lipinski thus regards the names as equivalent despite the philological difficulty.