the small frog of Egypt called by the natives do/da, the Rcma Mosaica of JSeetzen (Reisen, ii, 245, 350 sq. ). See Frog.
(3.) The " Plague" of Lice. — The account of the third plague is not preceded by the mention of any warning to Pharaoh. We read that Aaron was commanded to stretch out his rod and smite the dust, which became, as the A. V. reads the word, "lice" in man and beast.' The magicians again attempted opposition; but, failing, confessed that the wonder was of God (viii, 16-19). There is much difficulty as to the animals meant by the term E3B. The Masoretic punctuation in ver. 13, 14 is Ci3. kinnam, which would probably make it a collective noun with n formative; but the pointing EiB (ver. 12) and the more decided plural form E""i~. Hnnim, also oc- cur (ver. 13, 14; Psa. cv, 31), of which we once find the singular *3 in Isaiah (li, G). It is therefore reasonable to conjecture that the first form should be punctuated BSB, as the defective writing of E^iB ; and it should also be observed that the Samaritan has E^JB. The Sept. has cKvicptc, and the Vulg. sciniphes, mosquitoes, mentioned by Herodotus (ii, 95) and Philo (/'< Vita Mosis, i, 20, p. 97, ed. Mang.) as troublesome in Egypt. Josephus, however, makes the E33 lice (Ant. ii, 14, 3), with which Bochart agrees (Hieroz. ii, 572 sq.). The etymology is doubtful, and perhaps the word is Egyp- tian. The narrative does not enable us to decide which is the more probable of the two renderings, except, indeed, that if it be meant that exactly the same kind of animal attacked man and beast, mosquitoes would be the more likely translation. In this case the plague does not seem to be especially directed against the su- perstitions of the Egyptians; if, however, it were of lice, it, would have been most distressing to their priests. who were very cleanly, apparently, like the Moslems, as a religious duty. In the present day both mosquitoes and lice are abundant in Egypt: the latter may lie avoided, but there is no escape from the former, which are so distressing an annoyance that an increase of them would render life almost insupportable to beasts as well as men. It is therefore probable that some species of gnat or mosquito is meant. See Eice.
(4.) The "Plague" of Flies.— In the case of the fourth plague, as in that of the first, Moses was commanded to meet Pharaoh in the morning as he came forth to the water, and to threaten him with a judgment *f he still refused to give the Israelites leave to go and worship. He was to be punished by BIS", ardb, which the A. V. renders "swarms [of flies]," "a swarm [of flies]," or, in the margin, "a mixture [of noisome beasts]." These creatures were to cover the people, and fill both the houses and the ground. Here, for the first time, we read that the land of Goshen, where the Israelites dwelt, was to be exempt from the plague. So terrible was it that Pharaoh granted permission for the Israelites to sacrifice in the land, which Moses refused to do, as the Egyptians would stone his people for sacrificing their " abomination." Then Pharaoh gave them leave to sacrifice in the wilderness, provided they did not go far; but on the plague being removed broke his agree- ment (viii, 20-32). The proper meaning of the word B"lS is a question of extreme difficulty. The explana- tion of Josephus (A nt. ii, 14, 3), and almost all the He- brew commentators, is that it means "a mixture." and here designates a mixture of wild animals, in accordance with the derivation from the root 3^3, "he mixed." Similarly, Jerome renders it omne genus musnarum, and Aquila irafiftvia. The Sept., however, and Philo t De Vita Ptosis, i, 23; ii. 101, ed. Mang.) suppose it to be a dog-fly, Kvvdfivia. The second of these explanations seems to be a compromise between the first and the third. It is almost certain, from two passages (Exod. viii, 29, 31 ; Hebrew, 25, 27), that a single creature is intended. If so, what reason is there in favor of the
PLAGUES
200
PLAGUES
Sept rendering? Oedmann (Verm. Samirduhgen, ii, 150, ap. Gesen. Thesaur.s.v.) proposes tiieblatta orien- talis, a kind of beetle, instead of a dog-fly; bul Ge- senius objects thai this creature devours things rather than stings men, whereas it is evident thai the animal of this plague attacked or at leas! annoyed men, besides apparently injuring the land. From Psa. lxxviii, 45, where wc read, "Hi sen! the 3"1S, which devoured them," ii must have been a creature of devouring hab- its, as is observed by Kaliscb (Comment, on 138 . who supports the theory that a beetle is intended.
ptian language might be Impel to give ns a clew to the rendering of the Sept. and Philo. In hie- roglyphics a fly is of, and a bee .<Inli.nr lcheb,sh and l.h being interchangeable in different dialects; and in Coptic these two words are confounded in aaf,af,al, haf, meaning musca, apis, scarabcevs. We can there- for ly judge t'n>m the description of the plague; and
nius seems to have too hastily decided against the rendering " beetle," since thi beetle sometimes at- tacks men. Vet modern experience does not hear out the idea that any kind of beetle is injurious to man in Egypt; hni there is a kind of gadfly found in that country which sometimes stints men. though usually attacking beasts. The difficulty, however, in tin- way of the supposition that a stinging fly is meant i- thai all Buch flies are. like this one. plagues to beasts rather than men: and if we conjecture that a fly is intended. perhaps it is more reasonable to infer that it was the common fly, which in the present day is probably the mosl troublesome insect in Egypt That this was a more severe plague than those preceding it appears from its effect on Pharaoh, rather than from the men- tion of the exemption of the Israelites, for it can scarce- ly he supposed that tin- earlier plagues affected them. As we do nol know what creature is here intended, «,■ cannol say if there were any reference in I his case to lie- Egyptian religion. Those who suppose it to have been a beetle might draw attention to the great rever- ence in which that insect was held among the sacred animals, and the consequent disire-s that the Egyptians would have fell at destroying it, even if they did so unintentionally. As already noticed, no insect is now bo troublesome in Egypt as the common fly, and this is not i hi- case with any kind of beetle, which fact, from our general conclusions, will he seen to favor the evi- dence i-r the former. In the hot season the flies not