The Ten Plagues of Egypt- allegorical or historical?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, you apparently have a predisposition to share an uninformed and, thereby, superficial opinion, but this is par for the course when it come to historicity debates.

Don't worry. It's not a permanent disability. Just read a couple of books and call me in the morning.

I have a better idea: instead of self-important carping about other people's positions, maybe actually make your own case for your own position for once.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The Israelites arose out of the midst of the Canaanites…

all the nuance of a paper plate. Have you ever actually read a text on the subject?

Were the Moabites considered Canaanites? Yes. Was the Moabite language (e.g. the Mešaʿ stete) distinct from Archaic Hebrew (e.g. the Siloam inscription). No. Does that make the Israelites Canaanites? In my book, yes.

 

[1213]

...So were the ten plagues of Egypt allegorical or historical? What proofs if any can you use to support your position?

I believe it is historical and reasons why I believe it are the Bible story, The Brooklyn Papyrus and the Joseph Stone. (Joseph was probably called Imhotep in Egypt and Moses Senmut/Thutmosis. I recommend to read the Exodus case by Dr. Lennart Möller).

 

[GoodbyeDave]

But that is not what the Bible says.

But that's not an argument, unless you accept the Bible as literal history — which few do. Have you never heard the expression "preaching to the choir"?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Parenthetically, with all this talk about hardening pharaoh's heart, it helps to see the heart through the eyes of the Ancient Near East rather than the eyes of some 20th-21st century song writer. See, for example, HEART.

In Psalm 105:23-25 God ultimately is the one who hardened Pharoah's heart.
Perhaps God just stopped restraining fallen human nature and Pharoah's heart sank under it's own weight?

Interestingly Pharaoh wore a headdress of a snake and Exodus continues with the genre of the seed of the serpent biting at the heal of messiah (and God's people?) in opposition to God.

And as God made a world tofu v'tofu shelter skelter out of nothing, he makes a people out of a formless and void wilderness dessert, continuing the story of Genesis.

He also elaborates on the theme of holiness. Holy appears only once in Genesis, on the 7th day. Here in Exodus holiness appears more like 70 times and the narrative will transition to a thematic genre of leviticus on the theme of holiness the center book of Torah.

It's well planned out and historical

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Yes, well that part of the Bible was written precisely AS AN INVENTED HISTORY for a group that had none, except that their forebears were Canaanites and pagan.

So, there are no Jews. Interesting.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, there are no Jews. Interesting.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Now seriously, is that what I said? New religious movements arising out of existing ones is hardly new. LDS (Mormons) arose out of Christian roots, just as the Jews arose out of Canaanite origins. Both Protestant and Anglican Christianity arose out of Catholicism, and Catholicism itself has separated into different rites.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

But that's not an argument, unless you accept the Bible as literal history — which few do. Have you never heard the expression "preaching to the choir"?

I do accept the Bible as literal history and true. I thought I made that very plain.

I don't care how few there are that agree with me.

Yes, I have heard that expression.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Now seriously, is that what I said? New religious movements arising out of existing ones is hardly new. LDS (Mormons) arose out of Christian roots, just as the Jews arose out of Canaanite origins. Both Protestant and Anglican Christianity arose out of Catholicism, and Catholicism itself has separated into different rites.

Well...yes..that is what you said. There are no real Jews or Israelites. Just Canaanites.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Were the Moabites considered Canaanites? Yes. Was the Moabite language (e.g. the Mešaʿ stete) distinct from Archaic Hebrew (e.g. the Siloam inscription). No. Does that make the Israelites Canaanites? In my book, yes.

Masterful logic.

By the way, nascent Israel can be thought of as an amphictyony. The origins of its dominant cultural elements says little about the origins of all of its components. See, for example, Friedman's The Exodus Is Not Fiction.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have a better idea: instead of self-important carping about other people's positions, maybe actually make your own case for your own position for once.

Let's compromise: Pick up the Faust book on Israelite ethnogenesis, read it, and you and I could have a one-on-one discussion here at RF.

 

[MJ Bailey]

But I do believe the most driving question is why would God supposedly have caused this by "hardening Pharaoh's heart", and this simply doesn't make one iota of sense to me? For me, I have no problem with rejecting that as I've never been a believer in scriptural inerrancy.

I agree, however when referring to scripture (and this IMO is not just true of one religion's scripture) at times it is hard to decipher between what is meant to take literal and what is to be taken as a metaphor.

 

[Milton Platt]

Excuse my perverse sense of humour but with the coronavirus on the forefront of our minds, I thought a debate about the ten plagues of Egypt might provide a welcome distraction for some of us more scripturally orientated members. I’ve been thinking about plagues after a family member asked me if the coronavirus could be considered a plague. I explained that it couldn’t and the term isn’t used in medicine these days except when discussing the history of medicine long before the advent of the science of microbiology.

It had me thinking about the ten plagues of Egypt. Most of us are familiar with the story but for those who aren’t it forms part of the story of the book of Exodus when Ten disasters are inflicted on Egypt by Yahweh the God of Israel, in order to force the Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to depart from slavery; they serve as "signs and marvels" given by God to answer Pharaoh's taunt that he does not know Yahweh: "The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD."

The last plague is perhaps the most evocative. In Exodus 11:4-6 it is written;

This is what the LORD says: "About midnight I will go throughout Egypt. Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn of the slave girl, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well. There will be loud wailing throughout Egypt—worse than there has ever been or ever will be again."

Before His final plague, God commands Moses to tell the Israelites to mark a lamb’s blood above their doors in order that Yahweh will pass over them (i.e., that they will not be touched by the death of the firstborn). Pharaoh distraught at the carnage orders the Israelites to leave, taking whatever they want.

Adapted from
Plagues of Egypt - Wikipedia

So were the ten plagues of Egypt allegorical or historical? What proofs if any can you use to support your position?

There seems to be virtually no evidence outside of religious texts that any of the plagues actually happened.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

Where is the "all of the above" option?

 

[Dawnofhope]

The weird thing about the ten plagues is that in the story, they're not Pharaoh's fault:

Exodus 7
1 And the LORD said to Moses, “See, I make you as God to Pharaoh; and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.
2 You shall speak all that I command you; and Aaron your brother shall tell Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go out of his land.
3 But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt,
4 Pharaoh will not listen to you; then I will lay my hand upon Egypt and bring forth my hosts, my people the sons of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment.​

So Pharaoh seems to have been reasonable enough in his own right, since he won't refuse unless God hardens his heart.

The Bronze Age played pretty savage games.

So we have Pharaoh who appears fair and reasonable, but its the same Pharaoh who murdered the first born son of every Israelite. So “Let vengeance be mine says the Lord” and by hardening Pharaoh’s heart, Yahweh gets to enact the “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth” vengeance the Hebrew Bible is renowned for. It makes no more sense than the plausibility of the ten plagues of Egypt themselves, the seven seals of the book of Revelation or the worldwide flood. Isn’t that another reason to consider it as a meaningful story that resonated for many at the time it was first told? It still holds similar influence on the hearts and minds of many today. That is the power of Great Story Telling.

 

[blü 2]

So we have Pharaoh who appears fair and reasonable, but its the same Pharaoh who murdered the first born son of every Israelite. So “Let vengeance be mine says the Lord” and by hardening Pharaoh’s heart, Yahweh gets to enact the “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth” vengeance the Hebrew Bible is renowned for. It makes no more sense than the plausibility of the ten plagues of Egypt themselves, the seven seals of the book of Revelation or the worldwide flood. Isn’t that another reason to consider it as a meaningful story that resonated for many at the time it was first told? It still holds similar influence on the hearts and minds of many today. That is the power of Great Story Telling.

I think the historical value of the early books of the bible in throwing light on Bronze Age thought is considerable, whether it be in tales like Moses and Aaron against Pharaoh or Jephthah doing a deal with God by which he wins the battle, must sacrifice his daughter to God, and is rewarded by rising to the office of Judge (top man) of Israel (Judges 11).

Three thousand years or so is a long time ─ neither the God nor the morals are the same.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... by hardening Pharaoh’s heart, Yahweh gets to enact the “eye for an eye” and “tooth for a tooth” vengeance the Hebrew Bible is renowned for.

It seems to me that the plagues are anything but an example of reciprocity.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It seems to me that the plagues are anything but an example of reciprocity.

Actions have consequences though. So an eye for an eye doesn’t literally mean an eye for an eye but a reaction or consequence that is needed to restore order. The arbitrary slaughtering of innocent babes to maintain servitude is powerful imagery as the unleashing of dark forces from the unseen realm. Is Yahweh not Justice as He deals with tyranny? The story asks this question along with so many others.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Actions have consequences though. So an eye for an eye doesn’t literally mean an eye for an eye but a reaction or consequence that is needed to restore order.

I am not alone in suggesting that "an eye for an eye" was not not primarily about mandating a reaction but, rather, about mandating constraint, while insisting that this rule of constraint was God's law, not man's.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Let's compromise: Pick up the Faust book on Israelite ethnogenesis, read it, and you and I could have a one-on-one discussion here at RF.

Self-important carping it is, then.

Why would I ever be interested in a one-on-one discussion with you?