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?

[Fisherking]

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.

"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?"

[Furrowed Brow]

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.

If the message was that King Tut walked on water, raised people from the dead, was a god etc, then body or no body, there would be no evidence that that "King Tut" existed. Whatever evidence we have of some real historical character who might be "King Tut" that real character would not be the mythological one. We've got a body it belonged to someone, but not the myth.

If the argument for the real historical character depended on the mythological story, and only the mythological story, then that argument is built on nothing but myth. The attempt to invoke a real historical character is then no more or less than mythological.

The attempt to invoke a real historical king Tut, one for which we have a body, may be false. Maybe the real king tut will turn out to be no more than a myth. Maybe the body belonged to the janitor, and only proves the janitors existence. It still proves someone existed. But all we have for an historical Jesus are writings that support the mythology - and that is all the “evidence” amounts too - that there is indeed a Jesus mythology.

[Goose]

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?????

Zzyzx's says he'll address the OP. But doesn't answer the questions for debate and responds to my explanation of the evidence for King Tut by calling me "dishonest." He doesn't tell us WHY my explanation is not the best explanation, he just attacks me. Nice!

Applying “the same criteria” to the supposed resurrection as to King Tut -- Where is the body?...

You have Tut's body? Kindly "verify" that claim.

Where is the tomb? ...

Where is Tut's tomb? Kindly "verify" the claim you know where Tut's tomb is with something other than hearsay, Egyptian quotations and assumptions.

Where are grave goods?

What do grave goods prove? Where are Tut's grave goods? Kindly "verify" they are King Tut's grave goods and that he actually existed.

What is the name of the person who supposedly came back to life?

What is Tut's real name? Was it "Tutankhamun" or "Nibhurrereya" or "Rathotis" or "Tutankhaten" or "Nebkheperure" or "Bob." Kindly "verify" his name. How can we know he even existed if we don't even know his name?

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

Zzyzx thinks linking us to cites of people telling us what they THINK happened is EVIDENCE. Apparently Zzyzx doesn't know the difference between citing primary evidence and citing someone else's interpretation of that evidence. I briefly reviewed each link and didn't find a single reference to primary evidence other than some grave goods and tombs and a few inscriptions. When do we get to see this overwhelming evidence for King Tut(by whatever name known) that has convinced Zzyzx with to have "no doubt"? Actually, the evidence for King Tut is incredibly lacking. For this reason and others, I doubt Tut existed.

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.

You are correct. To use the word "method" in describing your requests would be too kind. Do you not recognize these requests and standards to name but a few?

However, you HAVE claimed that a dead body came back to life. I ask you to verify that claim with something other than hearsay, biblical quotations and assumptions. If you cannot do so, you have FAILED to demonstrate that the resurrection is true (which is the subject of this debate).

I consider verification to be “to establish truth, accuracy or reality”. Typically that requires “convergence of evidence” – information drawn from a variety of independent (not associated), impartial (if possible) sources

Come on now ZZ, let's see you prove Tut (by whatever name known) meets those same standards. We are still waiting...

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.

Now HOW does that prove King Tut existed? Kindly "verify" the claim that the mummy IS King Tut.

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).

Please, keep calling me "foolish" "dishonest" "desperate" and what ever other ad hominems you can think of. Every time you do you are unwittingly calling your own requests and standards the same. I'm lovin' it!

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).

PLEASE, show us some evidence for Tut that is NOT hearsay and assumptions. Whenever you ready, you may begin.

[Goose]

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.

If the message was that King Tut walked on water, raised people from the dead, was a god etc, then body or no body, there would be no evidence that that "King Tut" existed. Whatever evidence we have of some real historical character who might be "King Tut" that real character would not be the mythological one. We've got a body it belonged to someone, but not the myth.

If the argument for the real historical character depended on the mythological story, and only the mythological story, then that argument is built on nothing but myth. The attempt to invoke a real historical character is then no more or less than mythological.

The attempt to invoke a real historical king Tut, one for which we have a body, may be false. Maybe the real king tut will turn out to be no more than a myth. Maybe the body belonged to the janitor, and only proves the janitors existence. It still proves someone existed. But all we have for an historical Jesus are writings that support the mythology - and that is all the “evidence” amounts too - that there is indeed a Jesus mythology.

FB, just for clarity sake. Do you believe King Tut existed? Yes or no. Let's start with that.

[Zzyzx]

.

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.

With all due respect, Mr. Goose, I prefer to place greater confidence in the conclusions of Egyptologists and others who have studied the Tutankhamun mummy, tomb and objects for nearly a century than in your “best explanation”. Of course, those who actually study the matter could be wrong and your speculation could be right (and pigs might fly).

I have not encountered any legitimate researcher or scholar who suggests that Mr. Carter committed fraud by placing an unknown mummy in the tomb (“to capitalize on fame and fortune”); though such a person may exist. I have only encountered that “argument” from one apologist who struggles and stretches to excuse the absence of evidence for his favorite theories about dead bodies (ones that come back to life – and fly).

Can you cite evidence and credible research that supports your “best explanation” theory or is it pure speculation? According to your theory did Mr. Carter also fraudulently place in the tomb the gold “death mask” and other “priceless” objects, some with engravings and inscriptions identifying the mummy as Tutankhamun (or whatever name known)?

Zzyzx thinks linking us to cites of people telling us what they THINK happened is EVIDENCE. Apparently Zzyzx doesn't know the difference between citing primary evidence and citing someone else's interpretation of that evidence. I briefly reviewed each link and didn't find a single reference to primary evidence other than some grave goods and tombs and a few inscriptions. When do we get to see this overwhelming evidence for King Tut(by whatever name known) that has convinced Zzyzx with to have "no doubt"? Actually, the evidence for King Tut is incredibly lacking. For this reason and others, I doubt Tut existed. .

Bold added.

In your dismissal of the websites I listed and research in general, you mention the presence of primary evidence only in the form of “some grave goods and tombs and a few inscriptions”. Do you declare that those pieces of evidence are invalid or unimportant or fraudulent (like you suggest for the mummy)? That is far more evidence than you have supplied to support your “best explanation” and your “resurrection theory” combined.

Since you raise the issue of “primary evidence” do you feel as though you have earned the right to ask others to provide such evidence – after offering “evidence” for the greatest event in history (if it was true) consisting of “multiple attestations”, the “principle of embarrassment” and hearsay accounts from the bible as a “proof”? Is that your example of “primary sources”?

[Goat]

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...

Except, the standards we are using are

1) body
2) tomb
3) written testimony dating from the building of the tomb (on tomb walls)

That is physical evidence right then and there.

[Furrowed Brow]

FB, just for clarity sake. Do you believe King Tut existed? Yes or no. Let's start with that.

All the evidence we have supports the idea that the body belongs to King Tut. I accept the standard view that King Tut existed because I have no contrary evidence, and no better interpretation of the evidence to go against that idea. Moreover I have no reason to be an arch sceptic on the matter of King Tut because I am not being asked to believe the unbelievable. So I would say I believe Kind Tut existed but I'm always open to a good counter argument.

On the whole I think the King Tut argument falls a bit flat. If we cannot prove the existence of a generally accepted historical figure - namely King Tut but it could be anyone - then it seems you are saying it is not reasonable to ask the Christian to prove the existence of JC, or apply different levels of scepticism. But the real point is whether King tut belief is a reasonable interpretation of the available evidence, which it is, but just as important the King tut we believe in does not contradict physical science on matters like walking on water. And that is the real point, the very fact that what textual documents that talk about JC are Christian in origin, there is no non Christian evidence, the documents state miracles occurred, are the very things that undermines scripture as historical document to be trusted. Because scripture obviously contains falsehoods - like walking on water -the thing smacks of exaggeration and invention. So the documents have to be treated sceptically. As I said, if the same claims war made of King tut, then I would not believe in that King Tut, and without the physical evidence that exists, I would not belief there was a real figure behind the myth either. This would be the only reasonable stance in the face of a miracles King tut, as it is against a miraculous Jewish Rabbi. So I say the rejection of the Christian “evidence” is reasonable and consistent.

[Goose]

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.

With all due respect, Mr. Goose, I prefer to place greater confidence in the conclusions of Egyptologists and others who have studied the Tutankhamun mummy, tomb and objects for nearly a century than in your “best explanation”. Of course, those who actually study the matter could be wrong and your speculation could be right (and pigs might fly).

In other words, you place your faith in what Tut-apologists believe rather than evaluating the evidence and using reason and logic. I'm also assuming you believe my explanation to not be the best explanation. I want to know WHY.

I have not encountered any legitimate researcher or scholar who suggests that Mr. Carter committed fraud by placing an unknown mummy in the tomb (“to capitalize on fame and fortune”); though such a person may exist. I have only encountered that “argument” from one apologist who struggles and stretches to excuse the absence of evidence for his favorite theories about dead bodies (ones that come back to life – and fly).

My theory will gain momentum among those that don't want to believe King Tut existed. Give it time.

Can you cite evidence and credible research that supports your “best explanation” theory or is it pure speculation?

I don't need evidence. Speculation is enough as long as it is derived from my "common sense." I don't need to prove Tut didn't exist with an objective methodology, I only need to create an alternate theory that could have happened and uses "common sense". My evidence is human nature. People will do almost anything for fame and fortune. From one of your sources recounting Carter's discovery of Tut's tomb:

Tension mounted. If there was anything left inside[the tomb], it would be a discovery of a lifetime for Carter. If the tomb was relatively intact, it would be something the world had never seen.

"If" the tomb and coffin were empty Carter would disappear into obscurity and be ridiculed. It was Carter's lifetime ambition to find Tut. He had Lord Carnarvon breathing down his neck as well. Carter had motive to make a big discovery. He needed to make a big discovery.

Are you telling me that speculation rich and evidence poor explanations that lean on conspiracies are very weak explanations? Is that what you are acknowledging?

According to your theory did Mr. Carter also fraudulently place in the tomb the gold “death mask” and other “priceless” objects, some with engravings and inscriptions identifying the mummy as Tutankhamun (or whatever name known)?

Yes.

In your dismissal of the websites I listed and research in general, you mention the presence of primary evidence only in the form of “some grave goods and tombs and a few inscriptions”. Do you declare that those pieces of evidence are invalid or unimportant or fraudulent (like you suggest for the mummy)? That is far more evidence than you have supplied to support your “best explanation” and your “resurrection theory” combined.

Are you telling me anonymous inscriptions that are hearsay and thousands of years old is good evidence? Do you believe every chicken scratch on every wall? Do grave goods with inscriptions with someone's name prove that person existed? Kindly "verify" the grave goods are King Tut's and that Tut existed with something other than Egyptian hearsay and assumptions.

Since you raise the issue of “primary evidence” do you feel as though you have earned the right to ask others to provide such evidence – after offering “evidence” for the greatest event in history (if it was true) consisting of “multiple attestations”, the “principle of embarrassment” and hearsay accounts from the bible as a “proof”? Is that your example of “primary sources”?

Pharaoh's were worshipped as gods. The Egyptian Empire was the mot powerful in it's region at the time. If Tut existed, surely you can provide more than a few chicken scratches on a wall and some "grave goods" and an anonymous mummy. Even Egyptian historians writing a thousand years after Tut don't mention him. You have an incredible lack of evidence for such an important and powerful figure (if he ever existed).


The truth, Zzyzx, is you have "no evidence other than" hearsay from ancient anonymous inscriptions and the unknown and "unverifiable" mummy and tomb.

Kindly "verify" King Tut existed with something other than hearsay and assumptions. Kindly "verify" Tut's existence by the following standard for verification:

I consider verification to be “to establish truth, accuracy or reality”. Typically that requires “convergence of evidence” – information drawn from a variety of independent (not associated), impartial (if possible) sources

Do it or admit you can't.

[Fallibleone]

I'd like to ask what any 'Tut-apologists' would get out of their apologetics. What would be the motivation for them to push fprward their argument?

[Goose]

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...

Except, the standards we are using are

1) body
2) tomb
3) written testimony dating from the building of the tomb (on tomb walls)

That is physical evidence right then and there.

1. Kindly "verify" the body id King Tut.
2. Kindly "verify" the tomb is King Tut's
3. Kindly "verify" this "written testimony" dates from the building fo the tomb. Kindly "verify" who wrote it or inscribed it.

Are your standards for proving someones existence that we must have the following?

1) body
2) tomb
3) written testimony dating from the building of the tomb (on tomb walls)

Shall I rattle off a list of historical people that we do NOT have those things for?