PLAGUES OF EGYPT. A series of miracu lous signs and judgments by which, according to Exodus vii. S-xi. 10; xii. 29-xiv. 26-29, Moses and Aaron proved that they were messengers of Yahweh, Israel's God, and punished the people of Egypt for the King's obstinate refusal to let the Israelites go into the wilderness to celebrate a festival. Ordinarily the plagues are regarded as 10 in number, viz.: (1) The turning of the river into blood, (2) frogs, (3) lice. (4) flies, (5) murrain. (6) boils. (7) hail, (S) locusts, (9) darkness, (10) the slaying of the first born. It is evident. however, that the author of Exodus iv. 9 looked upon the turning of water into blood as the third sign, two others having preceded, the change of a rod into a serpent and the ser pent into a rod again, and the hand turning lep rous and being restored. All scholars. are agreed that the narration is composite. Although the original Yahwistic and Elohistic (see Eronisz AND YAHWIST ) narratives have not been pre served intact in the priestly redaction (see ATECCH), it is possible to discern the general characteristics of each. The Yahwist made Moses merely the proclaimer of each sign. which then was wrought by Yahweh himself, while the Elohist made Moses stretch forth his hand and bring the evil upon Egypt. The Yahwist seems to have told of seven plagues, viz. the waters smitten, the frogs, the flies, the murrain. the hail, the locusts, and the death of the first-born. Of the Elohistic plagues only the turning of the water into blood, the hail, the locusts, the dark ness, and the death of the first-born seem to have been retained, though it is possible that this document also contained another pentad, viz. the rod and the serpent, the leprous hand, the frogs. the lice, and the boils. It is generally recognized that the flies and the lice are the same plague, and also that the murrain and the boils are only variants. The priestly editor naturally introduced Aaron and his rod, and otherwise combined and retouched the narration so as to emphasize the contrast between the Egyptian magicians and the chosen representatives of Isra el's God. It is to be noticed that the Yahwistic story, which is probably of Judean origin. has least of a distinctive Egyptian setting, while the Ephraimitish author of the Elohistic narrative here as elsewhere reveals more familiarity with Egypt. The priestly redaction, which dates from the Persian period, reflects a crystallized tradi tion as to Israel's deliverance from Egypt and the triumphant conflict with heathen idolatry and magic. The attempt to save the number 10
probably found in the Elohist may account for the separation of the rod and serpent sign and the awkward fact that the threatened sign of the leprous hand is not carried out. The in creasing evidence that there was a State in North western Arabia called by the Assyrians Muzri has led some critics and historians to the view that the scene of these plagues was originally laid not in Egypt, but in this Arabian Mnzri, south of Syria. It seems to be in harmony with the view that the Judean story, supposed to be the earliest. presents a series of calamities that may befall any country. There is no natural succession depending on the local phenomena of Egypt. The miraculous element is indeed pres ent, all such evils being regarded as direct blows struck by an angry deity. But the memory of some extraordinary sufferings of the people in Muzri connected with or causing the departure of Moses' clan may well have been the historic nucleus of the story. Canon Cheyne thinks of the sacrifice of the first-born by the Muzrites as the occasion of the migration of those who pre ferred to redeem their first-born. If this were so, the demand to go away to celebrate the leap feast, at which the firstlings of the animals but not men were offered, would possibly be a part of the original tradition. lint the story of Jeph thah's offering (see FEsnvm.s; JEPHT HA H) seems to show that the substitution of redemp tion for actual sacrifice was introduced at a later time. It. has been maintained that es pecially the so-called priestly writer bases his plagues throughout upon the order in which such occurrences would naturally conic in Egypt in the course of the year. It is extremely doubtful, however, whether the story in any form connected the change of the water into blood with the dis colorino. of the Nile water as it, rises at the end of June. This was not a calamity, but the earnest of great blessings. The heaping up of dead frogs would naturally cause various plagues. But it is evident that to these authors each plague is a fresh miracle. Consult: Dill-. mann, Exodus and Leviticus (Leipzig. 1S30): Holzinger, Exodus (Tubingen, 1900) ; Baentsch, Exodus-Leviticus (Gottingen, l900) ; Macalister in the Hastings Dictionary of the Bible. vol. iii. (New York, 1900) ; Cheyne in Eneyelopadia Biblica, vol. iii. (London, 1902).