Hey there guys. This is my first time posting on this subreddit so my apologies if I break any rules or conventions, or if this is the wrong place for this question.
I had a religious studies teacher in highschool who was a very informed man. Now, this was religious studies class in a Catholic high school, so needless to say everything was taken with a grain of salt, but as he approached the subject from a more historical perspective than his colleagues (who mostly just liked to talk about wishy-washy things like the value of virtue and the church's importance as a a community. Eventually getting to the point where they try and peddle the cruder point of Aquinean philosophy to bored high schoolers) I actually got very interested in his class.
He would always go on these lectures of biblical "history" (to give him due credit, he would always open up a semester's class by trying to give some perspective: that none of this stuff was entirely verifiable, and was really more myth with a message than history).
Anyway, to the point. One day he was talking about Exodus (Moses in Egypt, but I'm sure I don't need to tell you) and he was talking about the curses which the lord sent against Pharaoh (plague, locusts, etc etc) but he mentioned one that isn't actually mentioned in the bible but he claims is more a folklore tradition (in the same vein as ideas like the devil, the story of Lilith, and so on). Basically the crux was this: the last and final curse the lord laid upon Egypt, was to raise the seven hills that would soon be the seat of Rome, which would ultimately conquer Egypt.
Now I'm just wondering, has anybody ever heard this before? I've searched a lot and I couldn't find any reference to it, and so I'm starting to think he pulled it out of his ass. Now, obviously this isn't the truth - even setting aside issues of religion and whether God exists or if he actually acts on the world in such a tangible way - the timelines simply don't match up. I imagine the geological event that shaped the hills of Rome would have happened somewhere on the scale of thousands of years before we were even painting in caves, but I'm interested in the history of this myth. Does it have precedent? Or is it just a fancy idea my high school teacher had.
I hope it's alright if I comment. Though I'm a Lawyer, I'm also a Catholic Theology undergrad and a former Presbyterian.
I have also never heard about this before. What I can give you though is a Catholic view on what the Bible is and how it is supposed to be read, which will take into account your correct observation that this isn't true because the timelines don't match up.
For those who share our kerygma, the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, not a work of psycography. This means that it wasn't dictated to the writers: the biblical authors are, in fact, as important to the creation of the texts as God Himself.
The CCC puts it in the following manner:
106. God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."
So what we have written down reflects not only a metaphysical Revelation, but also the cultural, social, political and personal aspects of the writer. When we say the work is inspired, it means that it contains truth. These "truths" are Theological truths; the Bible is not a scientific or historical book, rather it's a book that reveals truths about God and His Revelation.
Dei Verbum, arguably the most controversial of all Vatican II documents, brought a succinct, elegant and almost en passant idea of Revelation. The document states that Revelation is a historical reality, meaning that God reveals Himself through and within human history and not through one-off magical encounters. Revelation is happening all the time in all things and events but it is only looking back upon history that we can identify God's interventions. Theophanies in the Bible, taking this into consideration, are not supposed to be actual manifestations of the divine, stricto sensu, but a way people portray this intervention.
When we look at a work such as Exodus, we need to make great Exegetical and Hermeneutical efforts to bring forth the true message the first writers were sending to the first receivers and from that extract "truth".
We can be fairly certain that the story is not at all historical because Egyptians kept fairly decent records of everything that happened in Egypt and there is only a footnote about Semitic people. If, indeed, over a million (conservative estimate, considering 600 thousand men with wives, kids, etc.) people had suddenly left Egypt, it would obviously be noted, more so when it is supposed to have happened in such extraordinary circumstances. Egypt had a population of around 3 million people at the time so suddenly losing 1/3 of it would be something definitely noteworthy.
There are a lot of conflicting opinions about Exodus but we can be fairly certain that it is a story written in post-exilic Judaism, probably compiled by Ezra utilizing older oral traditions. The story is an epic, where Moses is portrayed as a god ("rising" from the waters; part of the Egyptian royal family, which endows him with royal/divine prerogatives; performs the same kind of "magic" as the Egyptians; etc.) who needs to fight another god (Pharaoh). It tells the story of a clash between these gods to reveal the power of the absolute, monotheistic God.
It is noteworthy that Egypt was supposed to be a paradise on earth. So having 7 plagues destroy it, ultimately killing Pharaoh's first-born child is like a reverse version of the creation myth, with it's 7 day creation and "birth" of the first man in paradise. Adding an 8th plague wouldn't make much sense, looking at it through this perspective.
So if this folklore tradition exists or not, I can't really say. What I can say is that it probably has no historicity to it and that it is not really correct to interpret the story as God literally laying curses upon Egypt and miraculously leading his people through parted waters.
So from a theological standpoint this is a Christian tradition that takes language from the book of Relevations Chapter 12-18 that describes the fall of Babylon and applies that metaphor to Rome, and then places it in the context of the Exodus story.
In particular its a reference to Relevations 17:9
"His calls for a mind with wisdom. The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits."
In Judaism, I don't believe additional plagues are mentioned at all throughout any of the associated rabbinic literature. So this likely falls into the same category as much of other pro-Christian interpretation of the 'Old Testament'.