Did King Tut exist?

[Goose]

In our debate on the Resurrection in the head-to-head sub-forum Zzyzx made the following statement:

I see no reason to attempt to compare biblical accounts of “the resurrection” to actual historical events. However, if that is to be done, I would compare those supposed events to the even older events related to King Tutankhamun (1341 BCE to 1323 BCE) Egyptian Pharaoh.

and then this assertion:

There is no doubt that King Tut (by whatever name known) existed, died, was mummified and was buried in a tomb. Evidence CLEARLY exists.

"There is no doubt that King Tut existed..."

More recently in the thread The Sole. The following exchange between us took place:

When evidence that something exists is totally lacking, why would one believe that it exists? Why would one attempt to convince others to believe in something for which evidence is totally lacking?

You mean like your belief with "no doubt" that King Tut existed?

Mr. Goose, as you already know I support the existence of King Tut (by whatever name known – a stipulation I made from the beginning of discussion) backed by evidence of a mummified body, a tomb, and impressive grave goods indicating that an important person such as a pharaoh lived, died and was mummified and was buried in an identifiable tomb.

You have repeatedly indicated that you believe that “evidence is totally lacking” in spite of a body, a tomb and grave goods BUT you accept the story of a dead body coming back to life with no evidence other than hearsay repeated in an ancient book that cannot be shown to be anything more than fable, fiction or fraud.

What I have repeatedly asked Zzyzx for is evidence that the mummy IS King Tut and evidence for King Tut's existence other than a mummy (which could be anybody) or a tomb (which could have been intended for anybody) or anonymous Egyptian hearsay that can't be shown to be anything more than fable, fiction or fraud. Zzyzx has failed to provide this evidence I've requested and has therefore failed to prove the existence of King Tut. At this point it appears Zzyzx is ASSUMING the mummy is King Tut and that King Tut existed. He has not provided evidence that it is. If Zzyzx and others that believe King Tut existed are willing to appeal to ancient Egyptian accounts that are anonymous hearsay for support, how do they justify this and reject the Bible? I want to know what makes the existence of King Tut beyond doubt for a sceptic like Zzyzx that calls the Bible Bronze Age Tales and has made the following assertions regarding the Bible:

I DO, however, maintain that the bible cannot be shown to be anything more than fable, fiction or fraud.

and

I regard the bible as a FICTION book...

Taken from here.




Here is the evidence for Tut I have found so far:

1. A few ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs with the name Tutankhamun
2. Egyptologists heavily rely on The Egyptian historian Manetho's (3rd century BC, 1000 years after Tut) King Lists. However, Manetho does NOT mention Tut by name. He does mention "Rathotis" which some believe might be Tut.
3. A mummy, a fancy coffin, and tomb probably intended for a pharaoh (or at least someone important or wealthy). But in reality, the mummy could be anybody.

(Additionally, scholars disagree on what Tut's real name was. Who his parents were. And there is continuing mystery about how he died.)

My explanation for this evidence is that King Tut is a legend (or fable, fiction or fraud). He never existed but was invented by later pharaoh worshipers. He was never intended to be taken as a literal historical person. Howard Carter, in 1922, discovered a tomb. He was aware of the Tut legend and sought to capitalize on this for fame and fortune. He moved an unknown mummy into the empty sarcophagus and told the world he found King Tut.

Let's see if we can objectively determine if there is a BEST explanation.

The questions for debate:

1. What further evidence other than anonymous and biased Egyptian heasay is there for the existence of King Tut?
2. What is the BEST explanation for this evidence that combines explanatory scope, power, accounts for all the evidence, and need not rely on ad-hoc-ery and/or conspiracy?
3. What methods do sceptics (of Christianity) use to prove the existence of historical people or the truth of a historical event?
4. Are those methods biased toward Christianity or the supernatural?

[Goat]

We have the body for one.

We do? How can you be so sure? Can you "verify" that? Did you personally witness his death and burial?

We have the tomb, with the inscriptions describing who
he was.

How do you know those inscriptions are describing the mummy in the tomb? How do you know it actually was his tomb?

Let me get this straight. You accept anonymous inscriptions in a tomb that are thousands of years old and could have been inscribed by ANYBODY. Do you believe every inscription you read on a wall? Some people would call that gullible.

We have facial reconstructions that show his features are similar to other
mummies of the royal family we found.

How do you know the other mummies were from the Royal family? Can you "verify" that? Maybe the similarities are purely coincidental. Or more likely the similarities are due to common ethnic origins.

I'm guessing you believe that King Tut existed based on the evidence provided.

Maybe.. but the preponderance of evidence is that King Tut existed. We got a body, we got the 'coincidental' or not so coincidental resemblse to other mummies, we have the inscriptions in the tomb, we have outside references to him.

But, it is physical evidence. That is more than we have of anything from Jesus.
For example, we don't have a body for Jesus. We don't have anything in the way of physical evidence for Jesus, just writings that are at least 30 to 40 years after the fact (if it happened at all).

[Goose]

Maybe.. but the preponderance of evidence is that King Tut existed.

So, would you conclude that my explanation in the OP for the evidence is irrational and NOT the best explanation?

We got a body, we got the 'coincidental' or not so coincidental resemblse to other mummies, we have the inscriptions in the tomb, we have outside references to him.

In other words you have an inductive argument that the mummy is King Tut. From there you assume King Tut existed. What "outside" references are you speaking of? I'd REALLY like to know about those.

But, it is physical evidence.

It's physical evidence that somebody died a very, very long time ago, yes. But who the mummy is, is MUCH less certain. Now, if you are saying that the "physical" evidence of a mummy, tomb etc. supports the written or inscribed accounts of King Tut, I don't have a problem with that.

That is more than we have of anything from Jesus.
For example, we don't have a body for Jesus.

That's true. But you don't even know for certain the mummy IS King Tut. So it's kind of a moot point on your part. If you are going to impose as a criterion that we must have a body to prove someone's historicity, you've got a VERY big problem proving the existence of many other people. Shall I rattle off a list?

We don't have anything in the way of physical evidence for Jesus,...

Do you really have concrete physical evidence for King Tut? No you don't. You can't "verify" the mummy IS King Tut. At best it's an inductive argument that the mummy is Tut. So I wouldn't say the evidence is any better. Just different types of evidence.

...just writings [about Jesus] that are at least 30 to 40 years after the fact (if it happened at all).

So, you have writings from "verifiable" eyewitnesses that weren't biased within 30-40 years for King Tut? No, you don't. So, that is a double standard.

goat, you gunna answer the questions for debate?

[Goat]

Maybe.. but the preponderance of evidence is that King Tut existed.

So, would you conclude that my explanation in the OP for the evidence is irrational and NOT the best explanation?

I would say that your arguement is totally irrational, clutching at straws, misdirection, and basically trying to distract from the fact there is not evidence
for the resurrection.

Frankly, I am disappointed at the quality of the arguement.

And, you see, we have something better than testimony. We have the writing on the wall, in the tomb, and the artifacts in the tomb, and the body. That is a far far stronger piece of evidence than stories from an unknown author 40 years later.

The inscriptions about his life were when he was getting buried. That is reporting about his life and his death the year he died in case you didn't figure it out yet.

[Goose]

Maybe.. but the preponderance of evidence is that King Tut existed.

So, would you conclude that my explanation in the OP for the evidence is irrational and NOT the best explanation?

I would say that your arguement is totally irrational, clutching at straws, misdirection, and basically trying to distract from the fact there is not evidence
for the resurrection.

So my explanation for the evidence and existence of King Tut is irrational, yes?

And, you see, we have something better than testimony. We have the writing on the wall, in the tomb...

...by totally anonymous and biased sources. When was it inscribed? Who inscribed it? Were they eyewitnesses? Or was it hearsay? Let's see you "verify" it.

... , and the artifacts in the tomb, and the body.

Prove what? That there were artifacts and a body in a tomb. IOW, somebody died.

That is a far far stronger piece of evidence than stories from an unknown author 40 years later.

Oh yes, anonymous inscriptions in a tomb and historians writing a thousand years later are much better.

The inscriptions about his life were when he was getting buried. That is reporting about his life and his death the year he died in case you didn't figure it out yet.

Can you "verify" that? Or is that an assumption?

[Nec Spe Nec Metu]

Hypothetically, just to try to play devil's advocate here, what if the idea that King Tut never really existed was indeed valid? Does that mean that conclusive evidence is lacking, and that he himself was a figment of our imaginations?

If the secular benchmarks for evidence is applied in both cases, would the comparison not lead to the rational conclusion that Jesus was equally ficticious? I don't know about you, but I don't base my philosophy, religion, and way of life off of what King Tut proclaimed, however, you seem perfectly willing to base these very same principles off of someone who, again, to play devil's advocate, shares the same convoluted (that's an understatement) history.

[Goose]

Hypothetically, just to try to play devil's advocate here, what if the idea that King Tut never really existed was indeed valid? Does that mean that conclusive evidence is lacking, and that he himself was a figment of our imaginations?

Did King Tut exist? Yes or no.

If the secular benchmarks for evidence is applied in both cases, would the comparison not lead to the rational conclusion that Jesus was equally ficticious?

You tell me. Would that be rational?

I don't know about you, but I don't base my philosophy, religion, and way of life off of what King Tut proclaimed, however, you seem perfectly willing to base these very same principles off of someone who, again, to play devil's advocate, shares the same convoluted (that's an understatement) history.

Ah yes, but now you are reduced to changing the subject and presenting a philosophical argument where you should be a presenting a historical argument. It looks like you've run out of options.

[Zzyzx]

.

Zzyzx ignores the OP and questions for debate and goes into another typical off-topic rant. That, in and of itself, speaks such volumes it's deafening.

Pardon my oversight. I will correct that forthwith.

From the OP:

My explanation for this evidence is that King Tut is a legend (or fable, fiction or fraud). He never existed but was invented by later pharaoh worshipers. He was never intended to be taken as a literal historical person. Howard Carter, in 1922, discovered a tomb. He was aware of the Tut legend and sought to capitalize on this for fame and fortune. He moved an unknown mummy into the empty sarcophagus and told the world he found King Tut.

Thank you for demonstrating your integrity and credibility for all to see.

The above is a strong argument in support of Christianity. It demonstrates clarity of mind and judgment of a “defender of the faith”. Arguments like this encourage people to respect the writer and his religious beliefs, and they provide an example of the benefits of following “The Resurrected Christ”.

Surely a “follower of Christ” would not be untruthful or dishonest or irratoinal in an effort to defend Christianity????? Surely the faith doesn’t need such defense?????

...Instead of evidence to support these stories he attempted to focus on “methodology” of historical research by placing GREAT emphasis on “Prove King Tut existed”.

Actually, you brought up the whole thing about there being better evidence for King Tut as evidenced by the quotes in the OP to this thread that you ignored. The ironic thing is you couldn't show your own belief in King Tut to be "verified" by the same criteria you requested of the Rez.

Applying “the same criteria” to the supposed resurrection as to King Tut -- Where is the body? Where is the tomb? Where are grave goods? What is the name of the person who supposedly came back to life?

The tactic was/is an abortive attempt to excuse the lack of evidence for what should have been the most important event in history – the grand finale of a thirty year visit to Earth by “our creator” (according to the tale) – a demonstration of divinity -- the BASIS of Christianity. If the “resurrection” story is not true, Christianity is, in my opinion, a fraud.

First, this thread is about Tut, not the Resurrection. Secondly, that is a philosophical defence of your perception that there is a "lack of evidence." Pharaoh's had god-like status. What do we hear about Tut? Crickets.

Are you actually that unaware?
http://www.kingtutone.com/tutankhamun/life/
http://www.kingtut.org/home
http://www.site-ology.com/egypt/KT.HTM
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1920s/a/kingtut.htm
http://www2.fi.edu/tut/exhibit_info.html
http://guardians.net/egypt/tut1.htm

I feel no need to “Prove that King Tut existed”...

That's because you CAN'T prove Tut existed by your own methods.

“Own methods”????? Explain.

I have not attempted to prove or disprove the existence of anyone or anything. I have asked for evidence to support your claim that a dead body came back to life. Evidence that you cannot supply – so you attempt to excuse your lack of evidence by challenging me to “Prove that King Tut existed”.

Attempting to discredit anything known about a REAL body, found in a REAL tomb...

What is actually KNOWN about the body and tomb? How do you go from there to King Tut existed?

A body is very good evidence of existence. Being buried in a tomb suitable for a pharaoh is good evidence that the body was that of a pharaoh. I realize that you do not accept either of these as being real. That is certainly your prerogative.

I am NOT selling belief in King Tut nor am I making life decisions based upon his existence or non-existence. I certainly do not suggest that anyone dedicate their life to believing in King Tut.

By contrast there is NO evidence to support the “resurrection story” except bible stories. NONE. Yet you accept this? And, you promote the belief in an incredible “came back to life” story to other people in a public forum?

When I mentioned King Tut as an example of an historic figure for which there IS evidence of existence,...

Yes, that was a mistake.

Quite the contrary Mr. Goose. My mention of King Tutankhamun has, through no effort of mine, allowed you to make quite a fool of yourself (in my opinion, of course).

I had no idea that anyone would be foolish enough or desperate enough to base their “argument” on questioning the existence of such a well known example.

The ironic thing is I'm using YOUR methods to question the existence of King Tut. The fact that you deem it "foolish" and "desperate" to use your methods to establish history is all I need to know.

You are trying. However, it is very obvious that there IS evidence for King Tutankhamun (body, tomb, grave goods) and NONE for Jesus (only hearsay).

It is not important that you understand or accept the difference. Others do.

[Cmass]

Perhaps they switched the body and the one we see is actually King Toot!

Goose & Co. it is difficult for me to believe you guys are actually taking this line of debate, especially given how long you have been participating in this forum. This is a sad distraction.

Nonetheless, I'll bite since I would hate to have you be forced back into addressing the original debate with ZZ.

Let's follow your attempt to what I assume is your hoped-for conclusion: We have a body and a coffin and all sorts of other pieces of evidence and yet cannot prove the existence of King Tut. This Non-proof-of-Tut = Jesus was real.

But heck, why bother with the Tut theme? Let's just go with Zzyzx's great great grandmother. He probably doesn't even have her body or even a coffin! He may not have any writings of hers or mementos showing she actually existed. Probably no eyewitnesses either. He cannot prove she existed.
Therefore, by your logic: Zzyzx's great great grandma is not proved = Jesus existed.

[Vanguard]

Perhaps they switched the body and the one we see is actually King Toot!

Goose & Co. it is difficult for me to believe you guys are actually taking this line of debate, especially given how long you have been participating in this forum. This is a sad distraction.

Nonetheless, I'll bite since I would hate to have you be forced back into addressing the original debate with ZZ.

Let's follow your attempt to what I assume is your hoped-for conclusion: We have a body and a coffin and all sorts of other pieces of evidence and yet cannot prove the existence of King Tut. This Non-proof-of-Tut = Jesus was real.

But heck, why bother with the Tut theme? Let's just go with Zzyzx's great great grandmother. He probably doesn't even have her body or even a coffin! He may not have any writings of hers or mementos showing she actually existed. Probably no eyewitnesses either. He cannot prove she existed.
Therefore, by your logic: Zzyzx's great great grandma is not proved = Jesus existed.

But if Z cannot prove King Tut existed using the same standard he expects of Goose when speaking of Christ wouldn't this lessen the impact of Z's argument?

By the way, I have this nagging suspicion Z really did have a great, great grandmother...

[Fisherking]

My explanation for this evidence is that King Tut is a legend (or fable, fiction or fraud). He never existed but was invented by later pharaoh worshipers. He was never intended to be taken as a literal historical person. Howard Carter, in 1922, discovered a tomb. He was aware of the Tut legend and sought to capitalize on this for fame and fortune. He moved an unknown mummy into the empty sarcophagus and told the world he found King Tut.

Thank you for demonstrating your integrity and credibility for all to see.

.... It demonstrates clarity of mind and judgment of a “defender of the faith”. Arguments like this encourage people to respect the writer and his religious beliefs, and they provide an example of the benefits of following “The Resurrected Christ”.

Surely a “follower of Christ” would not be untruthful or dishonest or irratoinal in an effort to defend Christianity????? Surely the faith doesn’t need such defense?????

Ad hominem
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. Many times, an opponent's use of an ad hominem attack is an indication that the opponent realizes that the argument itself is correct and cannot be refuted"

I have not attempted to prove or disprove the existence of anyone or anything. I have asked for evidence to support your claim that a dead body came back to life. Evidence that you cannot supply – so you attempt to excuse your lack of evidence by challenging me to “Prove that King Tut existed”.

Actually, this thread is titled "Did King Tut exist?". The questions for debate were:

1. What further evidence other than anonymous and biased Egyptian heasay is there for the existence of King Tut?
2. What is the BEST explanation for this evidence that combines explanatory scope, power, accounts for all the evidence, and need not rely on ad-hoc-ery and/or conspiracy?
3. What methods do sceptics (of Christianity) use to prove the existence of historical people or the truth of a historical event?
4. Are those methods biased toward Christianity or the supernatural?

Care to address any of them?

Attempting to discredit anything known about a REAL body, found in a REAL tomb...

What is actually KNOWN about the body and tomb? How do you go from there to King Tut existed?

A body is very good evidence of existence.

Right, a body is very good evidence that it is a body.

Being buried in a tomb suitable for a pharaoh is good evidence that the body was that of a pharaoh.

Care to take a stab about how you have come to the conclusion that a body in a tomb (suitable for pharaoh) is King Tut?