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]

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?

It doesn't matter, because one of the things that is common for ALL Those historical figures..

Supernatural claims are not made about them, or if they are, they are not accepted.

Period.

Your technique of trying to distract that you have no evidence for an unreasonable claim is not working, and that technique is very hypocritical and frankly one of the more stupid techniques there are. It is reminiscent of the 'Gettysburg's' address issue, and frankly, is just plain childish.

[Goose]

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.

It does? Prove it.

...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...

In other words if I can't prove your claim false, then it must be true, right?

Or, are you saying the BEST explantion that has explanatory power and scope and accounts for all the evidence and need not rely on conspiracy is the true explanation?

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.

I've given a good counter argument. Tell me why it is not the best explanation.

... 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.

Tut was a Pharaoh. They were considered gods. Do you still believe Tut existed?

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, ...

Feel free to present some non-Egyptian evidence for Tut.

...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.

You beg the question. Are you actually saying that if there is a supernatural claim, events, or claim to deity surrounding the person in question, this means they were not historical? I can think of many people from history that fall into that category, Julius Caesar to name one of many.

[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?

It doesn't matter, because one of the things that is common for ALL Those historical figures..

Supernatural claims are not made about them, or if they are, they are not accepted.

Period.

Your technique of trying to distract that you have no evidence for an unreasonable claim is not working, and that technique is very hypocritical and frankly one of the more stupid techniques there are. It is reminiscent of the 'Gettysburg's' address issue, and frankly, is just plain childish.

goat can't back his claims so he resorts to telling us how "stupid" and "childish" the same techniques used on Christianity and the same requests made of Christianity are. Keep telling us how stupid this thread is goat.

My, my. The natives are getting restless.

[Vanguard]

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.

I guess it would help to clarify what the primary, though not only, debate topic is. Are we arguing whether the historical Jesus actually existed and/or are we arguing whether he was what the Bible purports him to be? If there are those who question the reality of his life, it seems silly then to be arguing about whether his supernatural claims really happened.

I am not sure what Z's claim would be in this regard. If he seeks to make the case that history does not verify the existance of the historical Jesus then he must be prepared to defend that standard as it applies to other historical figures hence the debate over Tut. If the other historical figures cannot be verified by this same standard then Z's case against the historical Christ is considerably weakened.

For that matter, I am not clear on Goose's argument. Is he seeking to make a case for the supernatural claims of Christ or simply seeking to establish whether he lived?

[Goose]

For that matter, I am not clear on Goose's argument. Is he seeking to make a case for the supernatural claims of Christ or simply seeking to establish whether he lived?

Neither at this point. The thread is not about Christ. I'm using the same requests, standards and methods sceptics make of Christianity to show that Tut (or other people or events that sceptics believe to be true) can't be shown true by the same methods they request of Christianity. Therefore, the requests and methods are biased and/or faulty.

[Furrowed Brow]

FB All the evidence we have supports the idea that the body belongs to King Tut.

It does? Prove it.

It don’t? I don’t know of any evidence to the contrary. And I doesn’t know of any competing theory. If they exist I must have missed them. So all the evidence supports the body belongs to King Tut. But as I said I am open to a good counter argument.

In other words if I can't prove your claim false, then it must be true, right?

No really. Maybe the body does belong to the janitor. Just got no evidence for that or reason to take that theory seriously.

Tut was a Pharaoh. They were considered gods. Do you still believe Tut existed?

Any text or artefact that says Tut was a God I rejected as evidence of the existence of Tut the God. As all pharaohs were considered Gods as a matter of course then that lessens the blow. If tut was the only Pharaoh considered a God, not because he was a Pharaoh but because he walked on water…..etc, then I would not believe in the existence of King tut.....without further evidence

Feel free to present some non-Egyptian evidence for Tut.

The body was dug up by an Englishman.

Okay you’re doing a good job. My belief in King Tut is waning, but I have not quite given up on it because I still haven’t seen an alternative serious reinterpretation of the evidence.

You beg the question. Are you actually saying that if there is a supernatural claim, events, or claim to deity surrounding the person in question, this means they were not historical? I can think of many people from history that fall into that category, Julius Caesar to name one of many.

I am saying that any claims to deity are false. That such claims are symptomatic of many things from political power plays, to cultural beliefs systems, to public relations, but not to godhood. If the only evidence for Julius cease states that Julius caser was a God, and the evidence was sourced from followers of Julius Caesar who believed him to be a God, but there is no other evidential source that has not come from JC believers then I do not believe any actual historical character JC existed. I can entertain the idea but I have no serious reason to believe Julius was real, or there was ever any reality behind the Julius myth...without further evidence. The other JC likewise.

[Furrowed Brow]

I guess it would help to clarify what the primary, though not only, debate topic is. Are we arguing whether the historical Jesus actually existed and/or are we arguing whether he was what the Bible purports him to be? If there are those who question the reality of his life, it seems silly then to be arguing about whether his supernatural claims really happened.

If you can point me to any text or evidence that is not embedded in Jesus the miracle worker or son of god etc then there might be a case to take seriously regarding some real historical (non supernatural) character. But the point is that as far as I am aware all “evidence” of Jesus originates from Christian supernaturalism.

The difference between Kind tut and Jesus is that at least with King tut there are artefacts and a body and a case can be made for a real King tut. Now Goose would like to doubt the evidence for King Tut. And good. There is nothing like a bit of healthy doubt. But even if we’ve got King tut wrong, there are still artefacts and a body that is the evidence of something.

With scripture we have no artefacts or body. And the scripture is bogged down in supernaturalism. They then hold as much water as evidence for Jesus as do the stories of the lady in the lake give evidence of King Arthur.

It is indeed possible to be sceptical about everything. But Gooses is leading us on a wild chase here. I apply the same criteria of evidence to the existence of Jesus as I do to king Arthur. I do not believe an historical character existed in either case. And the case for Jesus walking on water is as strong for the lady in the lake.

[Goose]

FB All the evidence we have supports the idea that the body belongs to King Tut.

It does? Prove it.

It don’t? I don’t know of any evidence to the contrary. And I doesn’t know of any competing theory. If they exist I must have missed them. So all the evidence supports the body belongs to King Tut. But as I said I am open to a good counter argument.

So, you are saying that a conclusion to a cogent inductive argument based on evidence, all be it scanty evidence, where there simply is no other strong competing theory with equal explanatory power and scope is the winner. And this can be determined objectively? Is that a fair summary?

In other words if I can't prove your claim false, then it must be true, right?

No really. Maybe the body does belong to the janitor. Just got no evidence for that or reason to take that theory seriously.

So the rational thing to do would be to discard a speculation rich and evidence poor theory in favour of a better explanation with evidence for support? And continue that process until we have the BEST explanation? Is that another fair summary?

Tut was a Pharaoh. They were considered gods. Do you still believe Tut existed?

Any text or artefact that says Tut was a God I rejected as evidence of the existence of Tut the God. As all pharaohs were considered Gods as a matter of course then that lessens the blow. If tut was the only Pharaoh considered a God, not because he was a Pharaoh but because he walked on water…..etc, then I would not believe in the existence of King tut.....without further evidence

Our information on Tut is pretty scanty at best. So, you currently believe Tut existed. However, if evidence surfaced that claimed he also walked on water, he would then, in your view, become mythical? Is that a fair assessment?

Feel free to present some non-Egyptian evidence for Tut.

The body was dug up by an Englishman.

That in and of itself is enough to think the discovery dubious. I lived in England for four years.

Okay you’re doing a good job. My belief in King Tut is waning, ...

Beware, that's my real agenda. I can't prove the existence of Tut untrue. But I can cause you to doubt.

I am saying that any claims to deity are false...

Do you make that decision a priori ? If not, what method do you employ to arrive at this conclusion?

...If the only evidence for Julius cease states that Julius caser was a God, and the evidence was sourced from followers of Julius Caesar who believed him to be a God, but there is no other evidential source that has not come from JC believers then I do not believe any actual historical character JC existed. I can entertain the idea but I have no serious reason to believe Julius was real, or there was ever any reality behind the Julius myth...without further evidence. The other JC likewise.

The majority of info about Julius Caesar comes from Romans who claimed his deity. Are you now saying you don't believe Julius Caesar existed?

[Goose]

It is indeed possible to be sceptical about everything. But Gooses is leading us on a wild chase here. I apply the same criteria of evidence to the existence of Jesus as I do to king Arthur. I do not believe an historical character existed in either case. And the case for Jesus walking on water is as strong for the lady in the lake.

Isn't this really a wordy way of saying you reject supernatural claims because they are supernatural claims? Aren't you Begging the Question? If not, what is the methodology you employ to determine if a supernatural claim from history is true or false?

[Goat]

It is indeed possible to be sceptical about everything. But Gooses is leading us on a wild chase here. I apply the same criteria of evidence to the existence of Jesus as I do to king Arthur. I do not believe an historical character existed in either case. And the case for Jesus walking on water is as strong for the lady in the lake.

Isn't this really a wordy way of saying you reject supernatural claims because they are supernatural claims? Aren't you Begging the Question? If not, what is the methodology you employ to determine if a supernatural claim from history is true or false?

No, it is fancy way of saying he rejects supernatural claims since there is no evidence for supernatural claims, and that there are natural explainations for the said supernatural claims.

The reasons he rejects the claims about Jesus are the same reason you reject the claims about Augustus, of Mohammed, of Brahma, of Vishnu, and of scientology.