You know, plagues of locusts, river of blood, boils, dead cattle and death of the firstborn. I’ll throw in any historical records of the exodus for versamilitude.
I am not aware of any extra-biblical support for the plagues or the Exodus. There are a number of problems with the stories that have led many recent biblical scholars (as well as biblical critics) to conclude that the events never happened.
Certainly, it is unlikely that the events happened as described without some record appearing in Egypt. in defense of some event(s) occurring that were later shaped by folk memory by the Hebrews, it is known that the Egyptians were quite capable of re-writing their own history to leave out the embarrassing moments. However, we have a pretty strong record of pharoahs and their descendants from the period and it is unlikely that a pharoah’s son could have been struck down and the pharoah, himself, die on a military expedition without any record surviving.
Regarding the plagues, themselves, they are not attested in Egyptian history, (particularly in a series of ten all falling in the same season). On the other hand, most of them are plausible to the extent that they are not outlandish–except for the final plague in which the firstborn all die. Various vermin have multiplied in different places at different times throughout history. There is nothing to prevent a plague of gnats or frogs or locusts. Similarly, some infectious disease that produced boil-like eruptions of the skin are possible and there are several diseases than can affect all the livestock of a region. Even the plague of blood has a potential mimic in the growth of particular Middle Eastern microbe that can turn water red (although there is no record of an entire nation suffering from such an event). So the authors of Exodus would not have had to invent events out of whole cloth provided they were aware of any similar events at any time.
I’ve heard some say the death of firstborn sons might have been Pyloric Stenosis
Note that it tends to occur in first-born sons. And though this site says it’s most common in those of Northern European ancestry, I’ve heard its common in Jews and those of Semitic ancestry. Now obvisouly it doesn’t kill all first-borns, and of course it may have nothing to do with the Passover. OTOH there is evidence that SOME disease tends to strike first-born males so ther could have been another one.
I don’t recall any historical evidence for the plagues of Egypt (or, indeed, for a great many of the events in Exodus), and reading or hearing that this was the case. Every now and then someone will come up with a supposedly “natural” explanation for these events (or a downright weird one – look up the works of Immanuel Velikovsky), but this is far different from corroboration.
Heck, you have a hard time verifying the existence of Jews in ancient Egypt by non-Biblicalsources. The only reference I’ve heard of is a citation in a set of old documents (possibly the Tell el-Amarna records) about the “habiru”, which is generally (but not universally) taken to be a form of “Hebrew”.
Right. The Exodus and anything before falls into Myth & Legend, not History.
True- the Egyptians were perfectly capabale of making their version of history make them look good. (What is kinda odd is that many accept non-Biblical period sources as “gospel” and dismiss the Bible as complete Myth. :dubious: I take anything between David and the Second Exile with a large grain of salt, but I think it is based upon History and is as good as most other non-Biblical period sources. After that, it gets less & less legendary.)
Most of the plagues are- as Tom has said here- plausible and they don’t need a Miracle to occur. 10 all in a row? :dubious:
Cal- there are plenty of references to Jews in ancient Egypt. True, they date from around the placement of the Jewish garrison at Elphantine and after (c.593 BC). Prior to the Exodus, there is lots of data that shows that the Pharoahs and the Egyptians kept plenty of foreign slaves, and many likely from the general area of what was to become Isreal. Were they “proto-isrealites”? We don’t know.
Zero is the correct answer for this and all associated questions. There are no outside records of the plagues, no outside records of the Jews as slaves, no outside records of the Jews building the cities of Ramses and and Pithom, no outside records of the Jews escaping and wandering through the desert, no outside record of Moses as an individual, or anything else you can think to ask. In fact, even though Egypt was a massive trading nation which presumably had visitors from every known nation in their world, there is not a single outside reference that states directly that a Jew ever set foot in the Egypt of the time.
Raymond P. Scheindlin, in his A Short History of the Jewish People refers to a seminomadic people known as the West Semites or Amorites, ethnically related to the native Canaanites. “Such marginal people were found also in Mesopotamia and Egypt; they were know as Habiru or Apiru. These names, which designate not an ethnic group of clan but a social class, may be at the origin of the term “Hebrew,” which the Bible attaches to Abraham.” These Canaanites and Amorites did go to Egypt several hundred years before Ramses, and were so successful that they formed the Hyksos dynasty around 1650 B.C.E. What may or may not have happened over the next 400 years is hard to say although people have no shortage of theories that allow them to tie in biblical stories to the paucity of facts.
He also writes:
Marniptah was pharaoh from c. 1224-1216 B.C.E., the follower to Ramses II, who reigned c. 1290-1224 B.C.E, and who is the pharaoh traditionally involved in the plagues and the Exodus. This inscription therefore creates more chronological problems than it solves for Biblical validation, as the Bible does not record an Egyptian victory over the Israelites who had returned to Canaan. Such an event would clash with prophecy, since God had told Abraham that his descendants in the land of Egypt but that they would be returned to Canaan, where they would live forever as His people. A reconquering by the Egyptians is not something a Bible would want to record as fact at that time.
The way to think about such stories is to consider them as Instructional Fictions, Parables to glorify faith, Exalted Histories. I’ve said this before here on the Boards and was surprised at the attacks it engendered, although I hadn’t thought that any one in the conversation believed in their literal occurrence. Anyway, it’s quite clear that the stories here are stories and good ones: the rescue of Moses, the defiance of pharaoh, the plagues, the escape, the parting of the red sea, the bestowing of the ten commandments, the wandering in the desert, the death of Moses and the succession of Joshua, the conquering of Jericho. All Instructional Fictions, fables with morals suitable for teaching and expounding on in schools and in the temples. But not a whit of actual history from any other source we’ve able been able to find.
Well, since there weren’t any “jews” (by that name)nor did the term be come to be used until many many centuries later, it would be shocking to see any reference to the “jews” from that period. There are many references to foriegn slaves and references to the fact that slaves were raided from the area that was later to become the Kingdom of Isreal. The Egyptians didn’t apparantly care what their slaves called themselves to any degree nor did they care to record it. Nor- it seems- (despite what the Bible seems to indicate) were the then “proto-isrealites” a unified or important people. However, they did come from somewhere and did start conquering ancient palestine, and did end up settling a modestly large Kingdom. The “somewhere” could simply be that they went from nomads to conquerors, as has been posited. But there are scads of "digs’ that show the “isrealites” warring with and conquering the indiginous city-dwellers around that time.
And of course- that incrription is just as likely to be made-up propaganda as facts. So, it doesn’t show that the Bible is incorrect. Not that I am saying that the Bible is 100% historically accurate from that period or anything, but neither are such inscriptions.
Not a whit of actual History? Well, as I said- the Isrealites- according to archeaological evidence- did conquer that land around that time period (where 'around" encompasses a rather large potential time discrepency). Whether or not “Joshua fit the battle of Jericho” or even that there was a Joshua, that indeed is unknown. No reason that Joshua could not have been a “real” general that was made into a Myth, much like King Arthur. But again- there is plenty of eveidence of the ancient Isrealites conquering that area and it’s cities somewhere in that rough time period.
There is no reason not to accept the story happened like that in general terms: 1. Some nomads were captured from the land that was to become Isreal and made into slaves by the Egyptians. 2. They learned a lot about civilization while there. 3. They left Egypt, returned “home”, and (perhaps by unifying their still nomadic brethen) they 4. Conquered that area and founded the '12 tribes"- a group of allied tribes later to become the Kingdoms of Isreal-Judah. There could have been men by those names- Moses, Aaron, Joshua. Certainly there was a mighty leader of men, a great general- and maybe he was named Joshua. Why not? Religion was likely a unifying force- since it tended to be then.
Sigh. For the millionth time, stories are not the same thing as history. Of course there was a people in the land we now call Israel and they had a history and kings and wars and everything else that people did. But there is not the slightest reason to believe that the stories are anything other than stories.
Saying that they could have happened in some general way is utterly meaningless when the question being asked is historical evidence. Biblical archaeology was a sinkhole for many years exactly because people would take the stories in the Bible as truth and then try to find any scrap of evidence that would back them up. Today the field is handled quite differently. The archaeology comes first, timelines and histories are established, and only then checked to see if any correspondences occur. For the most part, the answer is no, as you yourself note.
If you have any cites for a biblical story being confirmed by the archaeology I would be very pleased to see them.
Exactly what do you consider to be a 'story"? There are many lines in the Bible that have been verified (well as much as anything can be) by various digs, other ancient writings etc. Shishak/Sheshonk (1Kings 11, etc) was indeed a King/Pharaoh of Egypt. Omri has been found on non-biblical writings, and so forth. Thousands of such details have been confirmed. If by “story” you mean those which have Miracles attached, then, no.
Story: a coherent narrative about an individual event.
The plagues of the OP are a story. All of Exodus is a series of stories.
There are many stories in the Bible that are not about miracles. David and Goliath. Samson and Delilah. Solomon and Sheba.
I’m not talking about random references to places and people. As I said, history happened. But that doesn’t make the stories in the Bible true any more than a reference to Paul Bunyon in a story set in a historically accurate Minnesota does. Nor does a reference to a name on a stele or parchment necessarily refer to the Biblical character of the same name. There is one reference extant to a King David but nothing to connect it to the Biblical David.
This lack of outside historical backup is just as true for the stories of the New Testament as well.
My challenge stands: if you have cites for any of the stories, please share them.
This would be workable, I think, if the payoff of the stories were an Aesop-like moral, like “don’t be greedy.” But many of the stories are assertions about the character of God; and calling people to act upon such assertions, while believing them to be false, is not admirable.
Take an extreme case: the Heaven’s Gate cult. The people involved were persuaded that by dying they would shake off their bodies and be safely taken on board an alien space craft hiding behind a comet; so they killed themselves. One might call the aliens an “Instructional Fiction”; but the payoff of the fable was deadly.
In the setting of the Bible, consider the prophetic injunctions to the kings of Judah to avoid negotiating with their enemies, and instead trust God’s promise to defend Jerusalem and the throne of David. It’s not a harmless claim.
So, in this case, the stories of the Exodus are claims about God. I find less reason for complete skepticism than you do. Nevertheless, if those claims are false, this would suggest God (if any) is not in fact that sort of God.
Again, this would all be fine if we were talking about reasonable morals which could just as well be justified on non-theological grounds. But to use “instructional fables” as supporting evidence for rather strong assertions about who God is, what God cares for, what God is likely to do – that’s questionable.
I appreciate your attempt to act with respect toward religious people. But I’m not persuaded that this is a workable approach. As a Christian, I do not consider religion to be all that harmless. So it would matter to me, whether our claims were real.
Well, like I said- in 1Kings 14:26 they mention the Pharaoh Shishak/SheshonqI taking “away the treasures of the House of the Lord…” and many other details about this Pharoah. This Pharoah’s conquest of Isreal is documented. On page 335 of The Oxford History of Anceint Egypt, they say “His Karnak inscriptions record a major military expedition c925BC against Isreal and Judah… . The Old Testament records the same event…”. There’s a “story” for you, verified. It was also verified by a “dig” at Beth-Shemesh “a destruction by Shishak about 926 BC”
Then there is 1Kings 16, which tells “the story” of King Omri (likely the most famous known King of Isreal, for centuries the Isrealites were known as “the people of Omri” in local inscriptions) where he buys the “hill of Samaria of Shemer…and built on the hill and called the name of the city…Samaria”. According to “Archeology in the Holy Land” (K. Kenyon, pg 261) “This accords remarkably with the evidence at Tell el Farah” She goes on to talk about the pottery and other evidence from her dig of the new Royal Palace. “Samaria has the unique interest in that it is the only major town founded by the Isrealites. Archaeologically it has the importance that, as we have a fixed date for it’s foundation, we can establish very closely the chronology…”
There is some evidence of the siege of Jerulsalem by Sennacherib in 701 BC. Herodotus himself speaks of the sudden retreat of Sennacherib, caused by a “plague” (but some think he is talking about Sennacherib’s invasion of Eqypt, and the “plague” is mice… but no mind, as at least the invasion and sudden retreat of Sennacherib are indeed documented by Herodotus). Assyrian records speak of the siege itself, but don’t mention that it was ended or why- *and *they mention that Hezikiah paid tribute- as mentioned in 2Kings. So- although the 'story" of the Plague that saved Jerusalem is not entirely verified, the historical data show that almost every other detail of this “story” is verified- the Invasion by the named Assyrian King, the destruction of other cities, the siege of Jerusalem, the tribute paid by Hezikiah, and the fact that the Assyrian reords conviently don’t mention a victory as the end of the siege. The archaelogical evidence also backs this up- except for the “miraculous plague”, of course. Not that a plague happening in a besieging army of that period takes a Miracle, I will point out. 
There is plenty of archeological evidence of the invasions and such of Tiglath-PileserII around 734BC- these are documented in 2Kings.
I could go on & on- but why? Around the Books of Kings, after Solomon- just about any historical point mentioned in the OT has been verified to some detail. That means around 900BC or so. As we get later & later, the details are better & better.
I admit, that before the Books of Kings, I can’t think of any “story” that is verified. Details, such as names, cities, and general facts such as a city being conquered at about the right time- yes. But not entire “stories”- with all the details.
I will also point out that 1Maccabees gives an excellent 9 verse 'story" of Alexander the Great- a “story” that we all likely know, and which is historically accurate.
So, we’re in agreement then? 
Well, unless your words mean the opposite of what they should, then no. You asked for cites of stories (“coherent narrative about an individual event”) from the Bible that have been veirifed. I gave you several. There is the 'story" of the Pharoah Shishnak- verified. The story of King Omri founding a new captial- verified. The story of the siege of Jerusalem- 99% verified. The stories of the wars of Tiglath-PileserII- verified. And, the story of Alexander the Great in Maccabees- even schoolboys know that one. That’s several more than one. Each verified by sources outside the Bible and even archaeological evidence. Actual potsherds even. Every one generally accepted by Mainstream Historians & Archaeologists.
At this point in time, since you doubted that any of the ‘stories’ in the Bible could be verified and you asked for one cite- since i have given you several, it is time for you to admit that you were wrong. Note that I even asked for your definition of a 'story" as opposed to a stand-alone factoid. And, I gave you such.
As I have said- and shown- from what I can tell- most of the “stories” after Solomon are historical truth- perhaps slanted, sure. Before that, I agree we enter mostly into Myth & legend. If you paint with a very broad brush, then the general overall history seems to be possible, if not likely.
Are there extant non-biblical records from that period that even corroborate each other?
Why is the Old Testament singled out as the less believable (except when making claims that violate physics) of two accounts? Or less believed than some other document from the period, when each is the only known source for a given “maybe event”?
There was never any conquest of Canaan by Israelites. The archaeology shows that the cultural group which later identified itself as “Israel” was indigeonous to Palestine, never left, never came back and never conquered anything. It just sort of grew up in the southern hills and eventually established some political power in Jerusalem, but there was never any unified kingdom, no evidence for David or Solomon or really for anything in the Bible until the time of Josiah (when the Torah was probably written).
This may better suited to GD since there are bound to be arguments.
Tom has already nailed the GQ answer.
The OT accounts are refuted by archaeological evidence more than documentary evidence. There is zero contemporary documentary evidence to corroborate the OT and even the OT was not written contemporaneously to the supposed time of the legends it relates.
There are some known historical events which some believe gave rise to the Exodus legend, namely the Hyksos expulsion and some military forays into Canaan by a Pharaoh named Tuthmoses but there is a huge amount of physical evidence against the Exodus as described in the Bible.
That is certainly the current mainstream theory (No Exodus, the early proto-isralites were always there). It has a couple of problems in that there is no good reason why a bunch of nomandic goatherds would suddenly turn to taking their neighbors cities. I have a WAG theory that some few ex-slaves did return and brought to their old tribe members modern Egyptian technology & tactics.
As to “no unified Kingdom”- well, that viewpoint is not held by the mainstream. Certainly there is no solid evidence (other than the Bible- which was very very likely written long after as you said) either way.
There is indeed- as I have shown- evidence for things in the Bible before Josiah (c638BC). Egyptian records (and some archaeological evidence) confirm the raid of Pharaoh “Shishak” (aka SheshonqI) into Isreal in c925BC. That’s nearly 300 years prior. True, the Egyptian records do not mention who was King of Isreal, but the Bubastite portal at Karnak does show a clear record of his campaign, and that same campaign is there for everyone to read in 1Kings14:26. Have all the OT details been verified? No. But that’s still one good solid detail, from a period where we don’t often get two sources from different backgrounds.
The first non-Israelite mention of the Israelites is also Egyptian- the “Israel stele” which only mentions them as a tribe, not a Kingdom- but that was to commemorate the reign of Merenptah (C. 1203BC) who some Biblical scholars think was the “Pharoah of the Exodus” (which I sincerely doubt occured as the OT says). Note I say “Biblical Scholars” and not Historians.
The Seige of Jerusalem and the payment of tribute by King Hezikiah (two Kings before Josiah) to the Assyrians is also verified. By extant period Assyrian records, and to some extent Herotodus. Admittetly, Herotodus got a lot wrong, but he is often considered the first Historian.
King Omri and his founding of Samaria (c887BC) is also verified. By a real life 'dig"- they have the floor plan of the Royal palace, potsherds, fragments of ivory carvings (as mentioned of King Ahab), etc… What more does one need?
I would also add to this, the fact that we often don’t know what geographicaL locations the Egyptians were referring to. Take the voyage to “Punt” , undertaken in the reign of Queen Hatshupset . Nobdy KNOWS where “Punt” was…it could have been Ethiopia, or Somalia, or East Africa. Some historians have even identified Punt with the Canaan of King Solomon. It is impossible to verify the location of Punt, because we have only one papayrus describing the voyage. Did Solomon receive the Quenn of Sheba? Nobody knows, because nobdy knows where Sheba was. My take on the Exodus: it was probably a long slow migration, taking place over decades…heck, NOBODY can spend 40 years wandering around in the Sinai desert-you can walk from Alexandria to Jerusalem in a few weeks at most!