The Ten Plagues of Egypt- allegorical or historical?

[nPeace]

I would certainly say that it is a matter of faith to accept a religious document as inerrantly true. These sacred manuscripts are collections of many genres: regular history, legend, myth, poetry and song, wisdom, plays...

If you want to have faith in your Bible as being the inerrant word of God, fine. But admit that it is an act of faith, and not because this is something you can prove.

Why do you believe it is a matter of faith... based on what criteria?

 

[whirlingmerc]

duh ...

And there is a calendar witness. The Jewish religious calendar starts the year of the Exodus. That would be quite odd.... a calendar that starts day 1 with an allegorical event?

Of course Moses and Elijah appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus and they discussed Jesus departure (Exodus in Greek) and Jesus Exodus wasn't an allegory either.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And there is a calendar witness. The Jewish religious calendar starts the year of the Exodus. ...
Of course Moses and Elijah appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus ....

WOW! It's hard to challenge incisive logic such as this!

 

[Dawnofhope]

Not really what we'retalking about in this thread. Inferring meaning from something doesn't mean that this meaning was intentional on the part of person who created it.

If you want to the approach the story is taken to be taken literally, you have the same problem as the Christian fundamentalists.... no evidence. There’s no historical evidence the ten plagues happened. We can’t say with any certainty who the story originated from other than the Hebrew people themselves. Most cultures have creation stories and how their people defeated an adversary. The difference with the Hebrew Scriptures is they were written down at a relatively early stage in their history (most likely around the Babylonian exile). So if the stories are not completely historical as the evidence makes clear, there must be something other explanation.

People find meaning in tea leaves.

That is true, but the ten plagues stories have images and motifs that recur throughout Hebrew Scriptures that can be easily demonstrated.

This is different from what's happening with an allegory. In an allegory, a (usually fictional) story is used to deliberately communicate the author's intended meaning.

Any skilled musician, writer or actor is aware of this process. Perhaps the difference between us is you are either unable or unwilling to see it in religious scriptures. Interestingly Jesus made this approach central and explicit to his Teaching approach along with His purpose in doing so (Matthew 13:12-16).

It only communicates this if the story is literally true. If it's a collection of deeds that God didn't actually do, then it's useless to establish God's greatness or power.

... unless God himself is an allegory, too. If God is nothing more than a fictional character in something akin to a collection of fables, then sure: fictional stories about how great God is establish God's character within the context of the stories, but not in the context of reality.

Is this the approach you're taking? I didn't think you were an atheist.

Once again, the problem in sharing the same approach as the Bible literalists is an inability and refusal to explore more plausible aspects of reality.

What "rich symbolism" are you talking about specifically?

Have you read any commentary’s on the ten plagues from Jewish or Christian sources?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why do you believe it is a matter of faith... based on what criteria?

How do you prove that something is the word of God? You can't. You just can't. It is something you make a decision to believe, and that is faith, not reason.

It can be supported by things like finding archaeological evidence that underscores the claims of the document, but that alone cannot prove that it is the word of God. After all, any historical document would have such evidence.

It can be supported by the fact that people who believe it and live by it find their lives better, even transformed in some cases. But that alone is not proof. After all, these anecdotal tales of lives turned around or elevated can be found for different and conflicting texts -- the Vedas, the Quran, the Sutras, the Book of Mormon, etc.

One thing that many try to do is use logic to support the notion that it is the Word of God. While believing in a Word of God is not contrary to reason, no properly logical argument can prove that is IS the Word of God.

The idea that the text is inerrant goes a step further. All you need is one error to prove it false. No sacred text has survived that test. Not yours. Not mine. Not anyone's. Furthermore, many of the claims are not falsifiable. Logically, you cannot claim conclusively that a teaching is true if its claim is not falsifiable. This is also true of every sacred text out there.

So if you want to believe that your Bible is the Word of God, more power to you. I certainly believe that the Tenakh is the Word of God. But let's admit that it is a leap of faith, and not something that is proven.

 

[nPeace]

How do you prove that something is the word of God? You can't. You just can't. It is something you make a decision to believe, and that is faith, not reason.

It can be supported by things like finding archaeological evidence that underscores the claims of the document, but that alone cannot prove that it is the word of God. After all, any historical document would have such evidence.

It can be supported by the fact that people who believe it and live by it find their lives better, even transformed in some cases. But that alone is not proof. After all, these anecdotal tales of lives turned around or elevated can be found for different and conflicting texts -- the Vedas, the Quran, the Sutras, the Book of Mormon, etc.

One thing that many try to do is use logic to support the notion that it is the Word of God. While believing in a Word of God is not contrary to reason, no properly logical argument can prove that is IS the Word of God.

The idea that the text is inerrant goes a step further. All you need is one error to prove it false. No sacred text has survived that test. Not yours. Not mine. Not anyone's. Furthermore, many of the claims are not falsifiable. Logically, you cannot claim conclusively that a teaching is true if its claim is not falsifiable. This is also true of every sacred text out there.

So if you want to believe that your Bible is the Word of God, more power to you. I certainly believe that the Tenakh is the Word of God. But let's admit that it is a leap of faith, and not something that is proven.

What does science prove? So is that faith? If not, why not?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What does science prove? So is that faith? If not, why not?

Archaeology doesn't prove that the plagues happened, but certainly science offers possible explanations for how the plagues COULD have happened.

I think acceptance of the written account of the Exodus is essentially faith based, but it is faith that is not irrational, not at odds with science.

 

[metis]

Archaeology doesn't prove that the plagues happened, but certainly science offers possible explanations for how the plagues COULD have happened.

I think acceptance of the written account of the Exodus is essentially faith based, but it is faith that is not irrational, not at odds with science.

Well said, imo, as I have long felt that the Exodus narrative could not be taken at the literalistic level.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

The entire story of exodus is religious myth.
It's myth just like the babel story, or genesis, or job, or the flood, or what-have-you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Well said, imo, as I have long felt that the Exodus narrative could not be taken at the literalistic level.

Although on an intellectual level I have to admit that I don't actually know, I have chosen to live my life as it were literally true.

Furthermore, I think it is far, far more important that the story tells me who I am as a Jew, and who Israel is as a People.

 

[metis]

Although on an intellectual level I have to admit that I don't actually know, I have chosen to live my life as it were literally true.

There certainly are elements that are "true" in terms of "the moral(s) of the story", thus this is the way I take it on pretty much all scriptural narratives.

 

[Muffled]

Based on what evidence?

I believe God is the evidence.

 

[Muffled]

From Wikipedia ...

The Ipuwer Papyrus has been dated no earlier than the Nineteenth Dynasty, around 1250 BCE but it is now agreed that the text itself is much older, and dated back to the Middle Kingdom, though no earlier than the late Twelfth Dynasty. [c.1991–1803 BCE]​

As such it would predate the Exodus by many centuries.

I believe the Exodus would have been around 1400 BC and that falls within the 1250 BC to 1991 BC.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From Wikipedia ...

The Ipuwer Papyrus has been dated no earlier than the Nineteenth Dynasty, around 1250 BCE but it is now agreed that the text itself is much older, and dated back to the Middle Kingdom, though no earlier than the late Twelfth Dynasty. [c.1991–1803 BCE]​

As such it would predate the Exodus by many centuries.

I believe the Exodus would have been around 1400 BC and that falls within the 1250 BC to 1991 BC.

Let me try again ...

From Wikipedia ...

The Ipuwer Papyrus has been dated no earlier than the Nineteenth Dynasty, around 1250 BCE but it is now agreed that the text itself is much older, and dated back to the Middle Kingdom, though no earlier than the late Twelfth Dynasty. [c.1991–1803 BCE]​

As such it would predate the Exodus by many centuries.

Does that help.

 

[Shad]

If you want to the approach the story is taken to be taken literally, you have the same problem as the Christian fundamentalists.... no evidence. There’s no historical evidence the ten plagues happened. We can’t say with any certainty who the story originated from other than the Hebrew people themselves. Most cultures have creation stories and how their people defeated an adversary. The difference with the Hebrew Scriptures is they were written down at a relatively early stage in their history (most likely around the Babylonian exile). So if the stories are not completely historical as the evidence makes clear, there must be something other explanation.

Literialism is a problem for any religion making claims regarding history. The problem is in the text itself. If there was no Mose and Aaron explain the Levites. Explain Passover's relationship with the Exodus if it never happen. Calling something allegory because evidence shows literialism is false is an ad hoc rescue.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If you want to the approach the story is taken to be taken literally, you have the same problem as the Christian fundamentalists.... no evidence. There’s no historical evidence the ten plagues happened. We can’t say with any certainty who the story originated from other than the Hebrew people themselves. Most cultures have creation stories and how their people defeated an adversary. The difference with the Hebrew Scriptures is they were written down at a relatively early stage in their history (most likely around the Babylonian exile). So if the stories are not completely historical as the evidence makes clear, there must be something other explanation.

The Torah was *compiled* in Babylon from many eariier texts. It is mistaken to say it was written in Babylon. I do think the original texts are quite ancient. For example, Genesis 1 was originally a song passed on orally before a written language existed, with each day being a verse and "it was evening and it was morning, the X day" being the refrain." Thus the rendering of the Exodus certainly has the possibility of being as old as the Orthodox claim.

 

[metis]

For example, Genesis 1 was originally a song passed on orally before a written language existed,

That's really only a hypothesis ("commentary"), but it's one I tend to think is most likely correct.

 

[nPeace]

Archaeology doesn't prove that the plagues happened, but certainly science offers possible explanations for how the plagues COULD have happened.

Scientific explanations on how something could have happened is not providing proof of what happened, so going by your reasoning (if I am reading you correctly), those who accept such explanations, are taking leaps of faith. Agreed?

I think acceptance of the written account of the Exodus is essentially faith based, but it is faith that is not irrational, not at odds with science.

I don't see why accepting the written accounts in the Bible needs to be essentially faith based, since it is presented as a historical account, by eyewitnesses, and related by Jewish people, to other Jewish people... who did not deny that these were facts (Acts 7), but instead got angry.

I think it is more a matter of persons having the choice to examine the testimony of the witnesses, consider if they are credible, and in line with the other evidence presented - particularly the historical records of the Jews, their customs, traditions (Passover - Wikipedia), and either accept, or dismiss them.

I don't understand where individuals see faith in this.
Are you saying that judges and juries rely on faith in court decisions?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't see why accepting the written accounts in the Bible needs to be essentially faith based, since it is presented as a historical account, by eyewitnesses, ...

But that is an "essentially faith based claim" at best.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The Torah was *compiled* in Babylon from many eariier texts.

According to what evidence?