Etymologically speaking, how do archaeologists study words from old texts?

Question

Do some archaeologist decide the meaning of an ancient word by associating it to some word which sounds like it....without reference to the context it is being used in the documents?

Apparently, there are arguments today on meanings of certain words. I saw in one film, that the Red Sea might've been the Reed Sea, because of the reeds growing there.

In line with that, Must we not preserve context very clearly to be benifitted by our descendants?

I'm wondering if several centuries back our forefathers forsake history as to make it obscure as it is now. Did they not care to seek the truth of the texts that much as we do now? Or was the existence of Christ and other debated historical 'facts' as clear as crystal to them and only obscured in this farther timeline. Thanks.

Answer 1

On the specific question of the "Red Sea" or "Reed Sea" you've been given some popular misinformation (or partial information).

It's not an issue of "mistranslation". Translators translated the expression the Hebrew expression ("yam suph") in a way that would clearly identify which body of water was being referred to, as best they could. This is not so very different from useing the modern name of the country which is called Mizraim in Hebrew (not to consider what the Egyptians themselves called their land) but which has since become known as "Egypt".

If you look closely at the biblical evidence you find that the body of water meant by "Yam Suph" IS what in now known as the "Red Sea" (a name NOT created by Bible translators, incidentally!) along with the two "arms" of this body of water that jut up on either side of the Sinai Peninsula.

Though the precise location is debated, the biblical account of the exodus from Egypt clearly tells of the Israelites crossing somewhere along the "western arm" of this body of water, a section now know as the Gulf of Suez.

Then in 1 Kings 9:26 we discover that of a port Solomon established at Ezion Geber on the "Red [literally 'Reed'] Sea"
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=11&chapter=9&verse=26&version=31&context=verse

Ezion Geber is at the northern tip of the (modern) Gulf of Aqaba, that is, the "eastern arm" of the larger body.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9033495

See it here:
http://www.cameldive.com/red-sea-map.htm

In other words, the Hebrew term "Sea of Reeds" refers to the body which includes today's "Red Sea" and its "arms" (Gulf of Suez AND Gulf of Aqaba)-- and note that there has never been any real doubt about which body of water the Hebrew text was referring to. So how should we translate it? I suggest the traditional translation as simply "Red Sea" is perfectly fine.

On your related questions

1) (minor clarification of terms) "Archaelogists" are, in general, people who work with the material (physical) remains, and not with translating texts. When texts are found in an archaeological dig the interpretation is handled by "epigraphists", experts in language and inscriptions.

2) No, epigraphists and translators do NOT decide the meaning of words by something that 'sounds like it' in their own language (unless the two languages are related and there is reason to think the words involved are, in fact, connected) They do, in fact, do a great deal of study of the context of words.

3) As for "red" and "reed" -- the fact that they sound similar in ENGLISH is simply an accident and has nothing at all to do with how anyone has decided to translate the word. Long before any English translations existed (centuries before even Old English came to be!) the Latin name for this body of water was "mare rubrum" and the Greek translation of the Old Testament (perhaps the 3rd century BC) called it "eruthra thallasa", both of which mean "RED Sea".
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12688a.htm

Answer 2

Things got obscured as time went on, kind of like a game of broken telephone. A lot of holy texts from the early centuries of Christianity were lost in the middle ages after the Roman Empire collapsed. A lot of the ancient texts and religious works we do have are thanks to monks and religious scholars, such as those in Ireland that were never apart of the Roman Empire.
Also, language is a constantly changing thing. The english we speak today is very different from that of Shakespears time. I remember when I had to read Hamlet in high school I had to do it with a dictionary since some of the words were so obscure. Even a book from the early 20th century can sometimes be difficult to read. I remember reading a Sherlock Holmes novel once where Homes describes how he knocked Watson up in the morning. The line meant that to convey that Holmes had woken Watson up, but taken out of context by somebody reading the novel today the meaning could become slightly obscure.
Also, when it comes to translating an ancient language, especially one that is no longer spoken it can be very difficult and there is a lot of guess work involoved unless they have some sort of Rossetta Stone, which was an ancient Eygyptian stone, which was rediscovered by the French and had the same passage written in 3 langusages, ancient Greek, Hieroglyphic and another Eygyptian language, and allowed scholars to translate previously untranslatable Hieroglyphics, since they could understand the ancient Greek.
For us to preserve our history for future generations and to make sure that we are understood we will have to make sure that whatever records we have our preserved electronically, and on paper, and in a place that will not be overun by war or disaster. My suggestion, would be a time capsule in Antarctica.

Answer 3

It's a pretty established fact that the Red Sea was a mistranslation for Reed Sea. Usually what archeologists do is compare the texts to known texts of the time. They can date them by the word usage and by spelling, handwriting styles, etc. The problem is not that the meanings were obscured, but that the meanings changed over time, and that new names are given to places. The documents are first dated based on their similarities to other texts, then the words are given their meaning known in other texts of that time.

Answer 4

You ask a couple of really fascinating questions. Regarding etymology, the process has multiple layers. Over time we've pieced together a rather impressive language tree which connects ancient langauges with modern ones, and with languages even more ancient than the language itself. When examining obscure words we often place the language in a timeline and examine words similar to it (both before and after). An example of this would be the Ancient Greek word, "Arete."

If you place this in time sequence, we can look at the modern English word "Art." and the even more ancient Sanskrit word, "Rta." Placing words in this context gives us a good indication of meaning. Another tack is, as you suggest, to place the word is context of its setting.

"And he XXXXX her on the lips." "XXXXX" probably means "Kissed". In order to check that we have to look for recurring expressions of the same word in other contexts to see if the interpretation bears up. But then, of course, sometimes we get VERY LUCKY and find multiple linguistic expressions of the same text -- like the Rosetta Stone, that allow for precise explanations.

As to you question about history -- well, I'm afraid that isn't at all clear. Please understand, ancient historians and biographers weren't interested in objectivity. The idea of history as an objectively accurate expression of times, peoples and events is a relatively modern concept. Ancient historians were part entertainers, part polemicist, and part rabble-rouser. They mixed fact and fiction, myth and reality, and they did these things because they had an agenda to put forward. For example, linguistic analysis of the New Testament proves conclusively that Paul wrote only about one-half of the books attributed to him. But many others put Paul's name to their works because they had a mission, and they knew Paul's name would carry more weight.

Today, this would be considered unethical. But you have to understand, in the ancient world, there were no canons of professional conduct for such things. This is one of the reasons why studying ancient historians and biographers can be so maddeningly difficult.

Hope this helps.

Answer 5

I see the place you're coming from with this question. each thing interior the Bible has equivalent fact, however the words are spoken with the aid of others, inspired of God. The words of Jesus Christ, are the expressed know God. i'll get an incredible type of thumbs down from this. stable question. i've got puzzled the comparable myself and want decision on it.