Talk:Plagues of Egypt

First Plague

The discussion on natural origins for the first plague (blood in the Nile) refers to scientific assessment of algae / bacteria as potential factors, but does not refer to the possibility of an upstream battle resulting in deaths and polluting the river with blood. Is there any reason why this would not offer a valid natural explanation? BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hard to see how this would have been a "miracle" in anyone's eyes considering a battle so large to cause a river to turn to blood would not have been a mystery to anyone. Also dubious considering the sheer volume of blood that would be required to mix with a large flowing river such as the Nile.

However this is all just speculation and neither of our opinions belong on the page. Ckruschke (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

This article is highly biased from the perspective of a believer. It is not in any way a scholarly presentation. The comment that historians believe the plagues are true and that "some historians" believe that they are allegorical incorrectly implies that the majority of historians believe that the plagues are true history. What is the basis for this statement? There is no evidence outside of the Bible for the Exodus, much less the 10 plagues. The article references the work of Albright, whose conclusions have been discredited, as possible archeological evidence for the plagues. The long discussion of posable natural causes is also out of balance and a bit silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physbang (talk • contribs) 01:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Scholarly interpretation

In the Scholarly interpretation section it is stated that the plagues narrative cannot have been written earlier than the 6th century BCE., due to reliance of the Deuteronomistic History. The source cited for this is John Van Seters. I think, however, that Van Seters' position is not a scholarly consensus. The older Documentary Hypothesis ideas are still as popular or more than Van Seters' approach. In the documentary model the plagues narrative is stitched together from either J or E (depending which scholar you ask), and P, and the J/E version is generally believed to be much older than the Deuteronomistic history. Some scholars (e.g. Friedman) also have stated that they believe J and P extend into the D history, but have been edited by Deuteronomistic editors. Such idea explains some similarities like the Red Sea/river Jordan crossings. Anyway, I think it is incorrect to say that the plagues could not be older than the 6th century. A least, there is no academic consensus on this statement. Does anyone agree? Arswann (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Direction of cloud of sulfur acid aerosols

I think that there is one issue with Sito Trevisanato' theory stating that an aerosol cloud of sulfur acid reached Egypt following the Thera eruption in ~1610 BC. Indeed, being given that Walter Friedrich demonstrated that aerosols ejected by Thera were directed to the north, and pumice to the east and larger blocks to the south and south-east (read "The Minoan Eruption of Santorini around 1613 B. C.and its consequences", 2013 at http://geo.au.dk/fileadmin/www.geo.au.dk/02_Forskning/Publikationer/friedrich_satz.pdf ), how S.Trevisanato can he claims that the cloud of sulfur acid reached Egypt that is 1000 km in the opposite direction, which is in the heart of his theory ? We know that pumice and ashes can include some acid but not enough to validate the theory of Trevisanato...--luxorion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7E8:C9A0:D300:9DC7:BE58:E56C:5715 (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

historicity

This section contains a number of unsupported broad claims:

"Historians assert that the plague stories are true" Historians, without any modifier implies all historians. This is not a statement of fact.

"Scientists claim" same problem

"Archaeologists now widely believe" really? define "widely." how can you cite that?

"Historians have suggested that the plagues are passed-down accounts" who? what are the counter-arguments?

This section also contains a more general problem, which is that a reader encountering this entry might well think that a preponderance of world historical, archeological and scientific opinion is in favor of the historic reality of the plagues. Personally, I doubt this is true. Certainly, in order to sustain such a statement in a neutral, secular encyclopedia, a much strong set of citations need to back a much more careful set of statements.

Ultimately, it weakens the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C4AA:2810:F895:70A1:5605:AF8A (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

“Scholars broadly agree that the Exodus is not a historical account, and rather that the Israelites originated in Canaan and from the Canaanites.“

This suggests, perhaps accidentally, that scholars think there was no exodus whatsoever and that Israelite ancestors were never in Egypt. This is not the case. Rather scholars think that this is an authentic memory, but that the account in Exodus is not a historical account. The phrase should be reworded to suggest this. ZacharyFoj (talk) 18:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

ZacharyFoj, this was added by a sense banned user. See the discussions over at Talk:The Exodus to get a sense of how we're trying to more accurately portray the scholarly consensus.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Should we mark this section as having problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZacharyFoj (talk • contribs) 19:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

An IP keeps removing the tag I added to the opening sentence of the section on the basis of this conversation.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plagues of Egypt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717130933/http://www.rutherfordpress.co.uk/Enmarch%20-%20The%20Reception%20of%20Ipuwer.pdf to http://www.rutherfordpress.co.uk/Enmarch%20-%20The%20Reception%20of%20Ipuwer.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Natural Explanations

This section is painfully original research. Can we get some kind of citation here?— Preceding unsigned comment added by FiveRings (talk • contribs)

@FiveRings: New threads go at the bottom of the page: furthermore, if the citations present in the Natural Explanations section are insufficient or only tenuously relevant, the section can be deleted entirely on the grounds of original research and synthesis.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

lack of historicity

@Wallyfromdilbert: The title of the section should state what the section is about. Fajkfnjsak (talk)

The "historical basis" is what the section is about, which states that most scholars agree that it has none. Your addition is unnecessary and clutters up the section header. Also, the lack of a historical basis is clearly stated in the second paragraph of the lead, and so there is no chance of confusion. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, instead of 1 section header with 3 titles. I'll separate it into 2 so that the section header is not cluttered. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, this talk page should probably completely be archived. It's all years old and the page is too big. I don't know how to do that. Do you? @Wallyfromdilbert: Fajkfnjsak (talk) 04:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: That's not what the section, nor the sources actually say. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Fajkfnjsak: While I agree with your POV, you advocate it rather bluntly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

And of course I also agre. I just don't think that's the best wording, and editwarring is a terrible idea and got Fajkfnjsak blocked. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it's alright to make the paragraph into its own section. What about renaming it to "Historical basis" as the section title? I think the modifiers are unnecessary and look awkward. I think the section title should allow a reader to locate the information they are looking for, and does not need to go into the issue further. The second sentence of the lead and the first sentence of the main body paragraph about the topic says that the broad scholarly consensus is that there is no historical basis. A section title of "Historical basis" or "Historicity" does not imply that there is any actual basis, especially when the text is clear. I think it also avoid any potential POV concerns. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

"issues over its historicity" is completely misleading as it means that there are issues over its historicity, which is false. That's just POV editing

lack of historicity is not POV, it's academic consensus. You all said you agree with lack of historicity. "Lack of historicity" or "The plagues as myth" at least represents the info and consensus. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Fajkfnjsak: Part of the problem is you don't seem to understand how Talk works. You discuss an issue, form a concensus, then you act. You don't post the issue and then 1 day later make a change when you only have input from a small portion of the community or none ("This is what I did - like it or lump it"). Performing a one-man edit storm on a page that has a long history of specific wording and phrases crafted through several rounds of concensus building on Talk is not the way things work.

You seem to have alot of energy, knowledge, and interest in several Biblical topics. If you could reign your energy in to work with the established group of veteran editors, I think you could have a very positive influence. Ckruschke (talk) 18:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke

that's exactly what Ermenrich just did with The Exodus page, "Torah vs Bible" and you have no problem there because you agree with him

I've been editing on the mythology from the Torah which is from the Hebrew Bible, not the Bible Fajkfnjsak (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I made a single edit that could easily be undone if consensus were against it based on WP:Bold. That is not the same as reverting other users multiple times or saying "my way or the highway". I'll also note that Chruschke's position is somewhat more nuanced than "I agree with Ermenrich". If you can avoid a "me vs. them" mentality you'll have better luck achieving consensus here.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Bold for you, not okay for me. makes sense.

I started this talk page section to discuss and Doug came in changing it to "issues of..." without discussing first. I never said "my way or highway". Consensus should be academic based not "tribal me vs them" based.

You made the edit before consensus, same thing Ckruschke said I did. see his above quote... "You don't post the issue and then 1 day later make a change when you only have input from a small portion of the community or none ("This is what I did - like it or lump it")" - this is exactly what you did on the Exodus page. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

If you want to discuss my edit, please do so at Talk:The Exodus. In the meantime I suggest you read WP:Bold, WP:CYCLE, WP:Consensus, and WP:Battleground. The first three should clear up your apparent confusion about the difference between my and your edits and use of the talk page, while the last link will, I hope, cause you to rethink the way you're interacting with other editors.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Section headings also have to follow WP:NPOV. This is a bit of a silly argument, I don't know if anyone in this thread thinks there is a historical basis. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I feel like naming it "Historical basis" would indeed imply that there is a historical basis. Also, "Lack of historicity" is accurate, but perhaps a little... enh. Why not simply "Historicity"? That seems to be a neutral and non-prejudicing term. It is also as WP:CONCISE as we can possibly get. Elizium23 (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that is good reasoning, and support "Historicity" as the section title. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

section: "Historicity"
content: "There is none"
lol
but anyways, since we're keeping "historicity", do you want to just merge the 2 sections back into 1 as it was before? with "Composition, theology, and historicity" or keep it separate? Fajkfnjsak (talk) 04:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence 148.77.10.25 (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Captain Obvious, but if top 100 US universities don't teach that the plagues are historical, neither do we. If none of those 100 universities teaches that those plagues were historical, then for Wikipedia it is holy writ that those plagues are unhistorical. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Absence of evidence = evidence of absence. This is equally black and white and equally incorrect.

In reality, it depends on how likely a given event is to leave behind evidence, etc

For example, if I told you that the biggest hurricane in history hit Tokyo today. You flew there and the very next day saw a complete absence of evidence of this record breaking hurricane in Tokyo. This absence of evidence is clearly evidence of absence.

So it depends on the circumstances. The problem here is that religions tend to foster the idea of black and white, right and wrong. But the universe does not work that way. Science shows us that universe is gray, full of exceptions, spectrums, and nuance. Fajkfnjsak (talk) 03:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Natural explanations nonsense

Citation:

Attempts to find natural explanations for the plagues (e.g., a volcanic eruption to explain the "darkness" plague) have been dismissed by biblical scholars on the grounds that their pattern, timing, rapid succession, and above all, control by Moses mark them as supernatural.[20][21]

Ridiculous! 'Supernatural' is not within the naturalist framework, so if naturalists are going to explore the narrative they aren't bound by:

1. the literalist model – Moses might have been out of control, he might have even been nonexistent and a possible real person from which the mythical Moses was created, might have lived at another historical time, or not at all,

2. any supernatural apologist models – historians don't refer to supernatural events when explaining history, that's the role of theologists (and probably no else).

Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 18:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

??? They dismiss them as supernatural, i.e. they didn't happen. It does say they endorse them as supernatural.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

The hiostorcity section of the article appears to be POV pushing, and therefore in my opinion, is in violation of WP:NPOV. The article needs to be expanded to clearly include other viewpoints on the subject, even if they might be minority viewpoints. Otherwise, it is debatable as to whether the coverage of the section imparts an improper non-encyclopedic motive and purpose (e.g. politics, advancement of atheism or other religions, etc.) 98.178.179.240 (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not done. Top 100 US universities agree with our position. It is only controversial for WP:FRINGE WP:POV-pushers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Lede sentence

I somewhat find the statement 'to force the Egyptians to free the Israelites from slavery' to be - not quite misleading, but very heavily glossed. If you read the actual text of the scripture, the Israelites likely could have been freed after the first plague, but their god Jehovah extended the cycle through to 10 plagues for reasons that would seem to be based on sadism and narcissism..one, for displays of grandiosity to the egyptians... And he turns it into a kind of cat and mouse game that he seems thoroughly amused in (which sentiment Moses does not share, and comes close to telling him off once or twice). Each time pharoah first decides to let them go, then Jehovah tells Moses 'but I will harden pharoah's heart against you so he will not let you go, and then I can inflict another plague on the Egyptians and then everyone will know how strong and mighty the god of Israel is. And this goes on....

A footnote, perhaps? The lede sentence as currently written is about the best that can be put into one summary sentence, but some kind of asterisk or whatever appended to it letting the reader know that it's more complicated than that might be helpful. Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

We Report what wp:RS say on a topic. We can’t add this unless they discuss it.—Ermenrich (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Plagues of Egypt → Ten Plagues of Egypt – The subject here is known in many Jewish circles and Haggadahs as the Ten Plagues of Egypt. Because of the article's long history. I am going to leave this to discussion on whether or not it should be moved so I don't waist a page move if consensus feels it should stay here. I am also going to note the {{Passover}} template uses "Ten Plagues" instead of simply "Plagues". NYC Guru (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The article is specifically about the 10 plagues of Egypt mentioned in the Bible, not about plagues in Egypt in general. "Plagues of Egypt" should be left as a redirect. JIP | Talk 02:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  That's pretty obvious as moving a page will automatically leave a redirect. NYC Guru (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the change as proposed. Starting an article title with "The" is generally discouraged (see WP:THE), and the number of plagues isn't a great way to disambiguate it in my opinion. I'd suggest something like Biblical plagues of Egypt or Egyptian plagues in Exodus. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  Does the new proposed title look better? As I stated above this is almost always called the "Ten Plagues". NYC Guru (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. This move is unnecessary. The plagues of Egypt are commonly known simply as the plagues of Egypt, there’s no reason to specify that there were ten in the title.—-Ermenrich (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as currently proposed. The term is as close to common as you can get. Ckruschke (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)Ckruschke

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm going to note that while the move was not done a redirect Ten Plagues of Egypt → Plagues of Egypt was created. NYC Guru (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Literary analysis of the plagues?

The lead section intriguingly states that each plague "confront[ed] Pharaoh and one of his Egyptian gods", but the article never gets around to explaining that statement, such as which plague corresponds with which god. It appears the lead section is the only part of the article that contains commentary about the plagues themselves. Is this done intentionally to avoid controversy? I think the article would benefit from the inclusion of a little literary/thematic analysis, at least enough for readers to understand what the lead section was talking about without needing to spend $57.99 on the cited 1480-page dictionary. Apophaniac (talk) 20:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Frog vs frogs

There’s a meme going around that Jewish scholars have argued about plague of frogs being plague of a Frog….and I came here to see if that’s true. There’s nothing here, really, at that level. 2600:1700:F90:6950:4C4:A95C:DC7B:FFEA (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)