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?

[Vanguard]

Goose, you are right that everything can be questioned. However, the characterizations by people are correct. You are trying to prove the veracity of the JC claim by claiming that nothing can be proven.

I think you and many others are jumping the gun. IMO, it is your characterizations of Goose's intent that are thus far wrong. Please point out where he has implied that the veracity of the "JC claim" can be proven by disproving everything else in history? Why do you make such sweeping conclusions? I don't believe Goose has implied any such thing and once he does he loses my support in the endeavor.

Anyhow, more importantly, the reason most people accept that Tut existed (and that it is actually Tut in the box) is because of a series of connections.

Whether that is actually "Tut in the box" at this juncture remains to be seen your reassurances notwithstanding.

I'd like to share them with you:

What characteristics make an explanation 'good'? Here's a list from Peter Carruthers:

Accuracy - predicting all or most of the data to be explained and explaining away the rest - i.e. showing where there may be errors of data collection or interpretation.

Consistency - that there are no contradictions within the theory or model.

Coherence - with surrounding beliefs and theories which are not to be superseded by the new, or at least consistency with them.

Simplicity - being expressible as economically as possible, with the fewest commitments to distinct kinds of fact and process.

Fecundity - making new predictions and suggesting new lines of enquiry.

Scope - unifying a diverse range of data.

I want you to notice that there are reasons behind the evaluation of Tut, and reasons for those reasons. There is a clear check list in how conclusions are arrived outside of mythology.

Fair enough. This is actually the first time anyone has even provided a workable list of variables to be considered when piecing together our past. Don't you find it interesting that so much energy has been spent on this thread resisting this simple request? I swear daedalus, conceal the names of those involved in this subterfuge and it looks like the stereoptypical exchange one might find when the non-theist community takes the theist community to task on methodologies! I think it is laughable.

Now, simply because you quote a gentleman who articulates dynamics that are to be controlled for does not necessarily mean we have resolved the dilemna. These variables should be vetted and kicked around by the group before coming to a consensus. You should not facily contend that your list brings this issue to a close.

In order for your explanation to be "better" you have to show by what metric you determine it better and why.

So, please explain the methology you use that makes your explanation better. If you can't explain WHY your explanation is better you are just asserting something without backing it up.

Again, don't hurry this along. It has taken how many posts to get this far? An immediate resolution to your request is not forthcoming. Assuming a consensus on this list, it would be interesting for someone more qualified than I to run these variables through the claim that JC is an actual historical figure.

[Zzyzx]

.
Mr. Goose,

After due consideration, I acknowledge that I, personally, cannot prove that the mummy identified as King Tut by those who study Egyptian history is beyond a doubt that of King Tut. Since I claim no expertise related to the matter, I DO rely upon the conclusions of experts based upon their study of the actual evidence that exists – the tomb and all its contents including the mummy.

Presenting a strong argument on a DIFFERENT TOPIC does NOT contribute anything to your intended defense of the resurrection as being true. All you have done is to focus attention on an EXCUSE for the lack of evidence that a dead body came back to life.

Whether I can “prove that the mummy is King Tut” is a very different issue from whether a dead body came back to life – and formed the basis of a major religion. I am not PROMOTING King Tut or using related information as a basis for life decisions, beliefs, or worship (for myself or others). I make no claims of supernaturalism or anything outside what is known about nature.

I regard that as a relatively minor issue from the past that has little contemporary significance. But even that minor historic issue has, as I correctly point out, EVIDENCE that CAN be examined and studied. The “resurrection”, representing what would be the most important event in history if it was true, presents absolutely NO evidence – nothing but stories told by those who promote worshiping the “god” described in the stories.

It makes NO difference in the conduct of lives of people living today whether the mummy is actually that of King Tut or not. The conclusions of Egyptologists could be wrong without drastically affecting the lives of anyone other than themselves and perhaps a few others.

However, if claims regarding the “resurrection” are in error, that DOES affect the lives of millions of people. Thus it is CRITICAL that the claim that a body came back to life be true because a major religion is based upon that supernatural claim. Unless the “resurrection” occurred, Christianity is a fraud.

It is irrational to equate the need for understanding truth regarding King Tut with the need for understanding truth regarding the resurrection OR to expect the same level of evidence. It is equally irrational to plead that “since you cannot prove that the mummy is King Tut, I cannot be expected to prove that Jesus came back to life after being dead”.

Tales in a storybook constitute far less evidence that a dead body came back to life than the presence of actual physical evidence indicates that a pharaoh was buried in tomb filled with artifacts and gold. Someone existed, died and was buried in that tomb -- which is FAR more substantial than stories. A real tomb is very different from a story about a tomb. Real artifacts are far more evidence than bible stories. That is FAR more than you present to “verify” that the claimed resurrection occurred.

If the “resurrection” story was true it makes NO difference whether the person involved was Jesus or Joe. He could be called anything without changing the significance of the event because the supernatural EVENT is what is important. That ANYONE “rose from the dead” would be an indication of supernaturalism. In fact, the story of “rising” IS offered as evidence that the “risen” possesses divinity AND that story is used as the basis of Christianity.

Likewise, it makes no difference whether the mummy is called Tut or Joe because a very important person, such as a pharaoh, was buried in that tomb. It would NOT change the significance of the event (death and burial of an important person, probably a pharaoh) even if a different body had later been substituted for the original.

The position you take in this thread is an elaborate excuse for lack of evidence to support the claim in a different thread that the “resurrection” actually occurred. Basing your argument on, “you can’t provide evidence of a historical event so I can’t be expected to either” is NOT a valid defense and IS an admission that you have no evidence – yet you (and Christianity) are promoting the “resurrection” to others as a true event and as a reason to worship Jesus and to make life decisions based upon religious teachings.

You have NOT strengthened your case for the “resurrection” being a literally true event and you still can do nothing more than claim that “goddidit” with NO ability to show reason for others to accept that opinion / assertion as true even though lives can or will be strongly affected the decisions made based upon the claims and promises that you (and Christianity) make.

After the diversion and smokescreen, the FACT remains that what would be the most important event in history, a visit from “our creator”, CANNOT be shown to have occurred with anything other than stories told by those who claim the visit occurred. Upon these stories a major religion is based. The stories conflict with what we know of nature.

Those who believe the stories frequently (usually?) attempt to convince others to believe the stories – without offering anything other than stories. When asked to provide evidence that the stories are true, the response is excuses such as “I can’t be expected to provide evidence” – which is NOT substantiation of the claim but an excuse for lack of substantiation.

All you have to offer are stories told by promoters of an incredible supposed event.

In a typical theistic “argument” you have diverted attention away from your lack of evidence rather than providing support for your claims.

[Goose]

Goose, you are right that everything can be questioned. However, the characterizations by people are correct. You are trying to prove the veracity of the JC claim by claiming that nothing can be proven.

Wrong. this thread is not about Jesus, you guys just think it is. Are any of the questions fro debate about Jesus? No they are not. Please review them again.

Anyhow, more importantly, the reason most people accept that Tut existed (and that it is actually Tut in the box) is because of a series of connections.

That is correct. It would be called an inductive argument.

I'd like to share them with you:

What characteristics make an explanation 'good'? Here's a list from Peter Carruthers:

Accuracy - predicting all or most of the data to be explained and explaining away the rest - i.e. showing where there may be errors of data collection or interpretation.

Consistency - that there are no contradictions within the theory or model.

Coherence - with surrounding beliefs and theories which are not to be superseded by the new, or at least consistency with them.

Simplicity - being expressible as economically as possible, with the fewest commitments to distinct kinds of fact and process.

Fecundity - making new predictions and suggesting new lines of enquiry.

Scope - unifying a diverse range of data.

This is a very good evaluation and list. Sceptics take note! Fecundity and a couple of others might need be clarified for how they would apply to a historical question. But other than that, it's a very good list and a very good start.

.In order for your explanation to be "better" you have to show by what metric you determine it better and why.

I agree wholeheartedly. And I will admit my explanation for the evidence for King Tut fails that test.

So, please explain the methology you use that makes your explanation better...

There is no methodlogy behind my explanation for King Tut not existing. I don't want him to exist so I create a set of standards that ensure he will fail.

...If you can't explain WHY your explanation is better you are just asserting something without backing it up.

AMEN! And that explanation, to be placed into the category of competing BEST explanations, should pass the list you've provided or something similar.

daedalus 2.0, your post was excellent and precisley what I was hoping for. Thank you.

[Goose]

.
Mr. Goose,

After due consideration, I acknowledge that I, personally, cannot prove that the mummy identified as King Tut by those who study Egyptian history is beyond a doubt that of King Tut.

OK, thanks for acknowledging that. It's not that the mummy can't be reasonably shown to be King Tut's, Zzyzx. The point is, it can't be shown to be King Tut's mummy and Tut can't be shown to exist by the same standards you expect of other historical claims. That's the point.

[justifyothers]

.
Mr. Goose,

After due consideration, I acknowledge that I, personally, cannot prove that the mummy identified as King Tut by those who study Egyptian history is beyond a doubt that of King Tut.

OK, thanks for acknowledging that. It's not that the mummy can't be reasonably shown to be King Tut's, Zzyzx. The point is, it can't be shown to be King Tut's mummy and Tut can't be shown to exist by the same standards you expect of other historical claims. That's the point.

Wow!!
I just read all 7 pages of this exchange.........the result I've seen is this:

By Goose showing reasonable doubt regarding King Tut, he has demonstrated good cause to look again at the evidence. Possibly to question it. But even at that, it became a moot point because those origianlly arguing the point, don't really CARE if he existed or not. It isn't something meaningful to their lives.

It's not the historical figure of Jesus that is so doubtworthy to some, but the idea that 'supernatural claims' tag along with his identity. Remove those and many would most likely take it or leave it, as they have shown they could do with King Tut.

So, we basically have a group of folks that wouldn't believe anything supernatural existed no matter what was proven or not proven, right? I mean, let's be honest...

[Goat]

.
Mr. Goose,

After due consideration, I acknowledge that I, personally, cannot prove that the mummy identified as King Tut by those who study Egyptian history is beyond a doubt that of King Tut.

OK, thanks for acknowledging that. It's not that the mummy can't be reasonably shown to be King Tut's, Zzyzx. The point is, it can't be shown to be King Tut's mummy and Tut can't be shown to exist by the same standards you expect of other historical claims. That's the point.

Wow!!
I just read all 7 pages of this exchange.........the result I've seen is this:

By Goose showing reasonable doubt regarding King Tut, he has demonstrated good cause to look again at the evidence. Possibly to question it. But even at that, it became a moot point because those origianlly arguing the point, don't really CARE if he existed or not. It isn't something meaningful to their lives.

It's not the historical figure of Jesus that is so doubtworthy to some, but the idea that 'supernatural claims' tag along with his identity. Remove those and many would most likely take it or leave it, as they have shown they could do with King Tut.

So, we basically have a group of folks that wouldn't believe anything supernatural existed no matter what was proven or not proven, right? I mean, let's be honest...

Let's be honest and say that there is no way to provide any evidence of any supernatural occurence at all. Let us further be honest and say that when it comes to some of the stories about Jesus, the veracity can not be confirmed with any kind of non-scriptural sources, regardless of the 'supernatural' part of the claim or not.

For that matter, when it comes to the mere existence of Jesus, there is NO extra biblical sources in the first century , except for Josephus, which could very likely be a later insertion.

Now, when it comes to King Tut, at least we have a body, that was discovered under circumstances which would make us assume it was a 'royal' burial, and the inscriptions in the burial tomb indicate that he was named Tut-Ankh-Amun.

Now, evidence might exist of Jesus that is contemporary, but so far, no one has discovered it.

[justifyothers]

So, we basically have a group of folks that wouldn't believe anything supernatural existed no matter what was proven or not proven, right? I mean, let's be honest...

Let's be honest and say that there is no way to provide any evidence of any supernatural occurence at all. Let us further be honest and say that when it comes to some of the stories about Jesus, the veracity can not be confirmed with any kind of non-scriptural sources, regardless of the 'supernatural' part of the claim or not.

For that matter, when it comes to the mere existence of Jesus, there is NO extra biblical sources in the first century , except for Josephus, which could very likely be a later insertion.

Now, when it comes to King Tut, at least we have a body, that was discovered under circumstances which would make us assume it was a 'royal' burial, and the inscriptions in the burial tomb indicate that he was named Tut-Ankh-Amun.

Now, evidence might exist of Jesus that is contemporary, but so far, no one has discovered it.

I agree. Would you change your perspective on the possibility of the supernatural existing if this eveidence were found? I think you would - but I think some would not.
Or how about this....if claims of Tut involved actual miraculous events, would this lead you away from accepting him as a real historical figure?

[Goat]

So, we basically have a group of folks that wouldn't believe anything supernatural existed no matter what was proven or not proven, right? I mean, let's be honest...

Let's be honest and say that there is no way to provide any evidence of any supernatural occurence at all. Let us further be honest and say that when it comes to some of the stories about Jesus, the veracity can not be confirmed with any kind of non-scriptural sources, regardless of the 'supernatural' part of the claim or not.

For that matter, when it comes to the mere existence of Jesus, there is NO extra biblical sources in the first century , except for Josephus, which could very likely be a later insertion.

Now, when it comes to King Tut, at least we have a body, that was discovered under circumstances which would make us assume it was a 'royal' burial, and the inscriptions in the burial tomb indicate that he was named Tut-Ankh-Amun.

Now, evidence might exist of Jesus that is contemporary, but so far, no one has discovered it.

I agree. Would you change your perspective on the possibility of the supernatural existing if this eveidence were found? I think you would - but I think some would not.
Or how about this....if claims of Tut involved actual miraculous events, would this lead you away from accepting him as a real historical figure?

Well, I will always examine the evidence.

If the claims vs King Tut involved actual miraculous events, but there was sufficient evidence of his existence, I will accept the historical part of his existence, even if I question the 'miracles'.

I accept the historical existence of Vespitain, but I discount the miracles that he allegedly preformed as reported by Suetonius. Same things with the 'divine messengers' lighting Julius Ceasars funeral pile.

[wrekk]

Yes. I will admit, that through your posts in the debate and here, that I am skeptical of King Tut. Very interesting ...

Now will you get back to the debate?

[Zzyzx]

.

So, we basically have a group of folks that wouldn't believe anything supernatural existed no matter what was proven or not proven, right? I mean, let's be honest...

Okay, let’s be very, very honest and open.

I am one of those who don’t accept supernaturalism. HOWEVER, it is NOT true to assume that I refuse to accept the existence of supernaturalism no matter what is proved or not.

I WILL accept supernaturalism when it occurs beyond reasonable doubt. SHOW me supernaturalism, don’t just tell me bedtime stories about supernatural beings and events that happened “long ago and far away”, leaving only a story and no other sign or evidence.

Now it is your turn to be honest.

If someone shows you an ancient book that tells the story of a deity coming back to life after being killed:

1. Do you believe or do you question or do you reject if the god’s name is Jesus?

2. Do you believe or do you question or do you reject if the god’s name is Vishnu or Odin or one of the other gods?

3. On what basis (or for what reasons) do you decide whether to believe, question or reject the story?

4. Kindly explain and justify your answers

Note: I have asked these questions in a new thread "Do you believe in miracles?" to avoid hijacking this thread. Let's discuss the matter there.