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]

A "fact" shouldn't necessarily need to pass all of the listed criteria to be considered probable. Failing any one particular criterion does not necessarily make the fact false. Indeed very few, if any at all, ancient historical "facts" we rarely question would adequately pass all the requests of such a rigorous criteria as set out below. However, a fact that fails to pass a single criterion we would be justified in believing it to be improbable. Passing one or two should be sufficient to have the "fact" be at least considered probable. If a fact passes three I think we can be confident that it is very probable and so on. This methodology is not fool-proof of course as it is open to our biases and ultimately subjective to a degree. However, this seems to be the only way (I know of) to establish a reasonably objective treatment of evidence - i.e. pass the evidence through a standard set of criteria using a consistent methodology that can be applied to ALL ancient events. So, using criteria such as (but not limited to)...
1. Eyewitness attestation
2. Early attestation (the earlier the better - written during the lifetime of possible eyewitnesses is preferred)
3. Multiple independent attestation (independent does not mean non-Christian, but rather independent from other sources)
4. Enemy or neutral source attestation
5. The Principle of Embarrassment (If it's embarrassing or harmful to the case it is very likely that it is authentic or actually happened. It's very unlikely to have been propaganda simply “made up”)

I agree with 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. I don't think 6 is very strong. Perhaps if we consider all things equal, we can use it as a tie breaker. I think some comparison to other contemporary writings would help. Both in style and content.

That's fine. Though I don't think there was a 6. Perhaps a typo. You probably meant 5.

Shall we start with #1? I think it's a pretty good one. Who was an eyewitness of Jesus and Tut (not at the same time, obviously )?

Sure, but we need to establish how we are going to determine authorship. Shall we go with external and internal evidence using let's say Caesar's Gallic/Civil Wars as a baseline? It's believed to be an eyewitness account written by Caesar himself. As for Tut. I don't see how we can know the authorship of the inscriptions on the wall. To be honest, I think Tut is a really poor example to use. There's just so little evidence to work with. Want to use someone else as a comparison? Someone for which we have more evidence? You can if you wish. Pick any one from around the time of Christ. Let's say with in a hundred years either way. Perhaps that would help make it more interesting.

How about one that seems to have gone through some mythmaking himself, although it appears that he did exist? Caligula

[daedalus 2.0]

How about Alexander the Great?

[Goose]

How about Alexander the Great?

Sure. There is currently a thread in progress about this, however. "Reasonable evidence cerca 0 CE"
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7862

We still need to sort out how we determine authorship.

[daedalus 2.0]

IN what way? I imagine many ancient texts were written by unknown authors.
Are we determining if they actually existed? How do we prove that? Surely, we can't find authors of books on the authors of books, etc...

I expect that we need to determine whether the author was present, and if they are relatively honest. What can we expect them to know and understand for the times, etc. We also can determine if one author wrote a book, but certain parts were written by another author - this has become rather sophisticated nowadays. If there is interpolation, we can't trust the interloper's passage.

I imagine this gets quite subjective. For example, I wouldn't accept that an author is telling the truth if he mentions of water parting to allow an army through (as is the tale of AtG). Well, let me re-phrase, I think there may have been some tides involved, maybe a freak event - but most likely, it is a tale that resonates with the listener. It is good story-telling. It is powerful imagery and in an age of superstition, it would be something people could believe quite readily.


BTW, I was reading over the other thread. I think we may be treading on similar ground.

In what way can we make this a separate, but supporting thread?

Perhaps just about authorship? Keep it to the question of "Who was the Who who wrote the passage?
That is, what can we say about the author?

[Goose]

I've been busy for the last couple of weeks. Sorry for leaving you hanging. At any rate, we can continue if you are still interested.

IN what way? I imagine many ancient texts were written by unknown authors.
Are we determining if they actually existed? How do we prove that? Surely, we can't find authors of books on the authors of books, etc...

Well, this is important because it leads to the possibility of eyewitness attestation. You acknowledged the importance of this when you said:

Shall we start with #1[eyewitness attestation]? I think it's a pretty good one. Who was an eyewitness of Jesus and Tut (not at the same time, obviously )?

I imagine this gets quite subjective. For example, I wouldn't accept that an author is telling the truth if he mentions of water parting to allow an army through (as is the tale of AtG). Well, let me re-phrase, I think there may have been some tides involved, maybe a freak event - but most likely, it is a tale that resonates with the listener. It is good story-telling. It is powerful imagery and in an age of superstition, it would be something people could believe quite readily.

The best way to keep our subjective biases in check is with transparent methods. We've got a some working methods now.

Perhaps just about authorship? Keep it to the question of "Who was the Who who wrote the passage?
That is, what can we say about the author?

I started a thread about this a few weeks ago called "Are the Gospels hoplessly anonymous?" It didn't get much response. Perhaps you'll bring back to life.

[daedalus 2.0]

I really don't know how to approach this topic.

I think eyewitness testimony is a great topic, but I wonder what we can discover. There were numerous witnesses to many well-documneted events and you get vastly different accounts. The Kennedy Assasination, 9/11, etc.

Hell, I can show you a YouTube video of a "ghost" and half the people will say they see one, the other half will say it is just an illusion.

The problem I see:
Let's assume the gospel accounts are direct and unadulterated from real eyewitnesses. How can we be sure they didn't witness a magic trick - not a man walking on water?

Houdini was regularly called an agent a Satan for his slight of hand. That is, people still thought it real magic, just evil.

It comes down to this: Regardless of who the eyewitness was, or the account says, what can we reasonably expect as a reasonable account of events.

PLus, I do think the Gospels are hopelessy anonymous.

[East of Eden]

We have the body for one.

You can't prove it was Tut. All we have is hearsay evidence from promoters of the Tut-myth.

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

The alleged body of Tut probably belonged to another family member.

[JoeyKnothead]

We have the body for one.

You can't prove it was Tut. All we have is hearsay evidence from promoters of the Tut-myth.

That's one more body than we have for the "Christ myth".

[Goat]

We have the body for one.

You can't prove it was Tut. All we have is hearsay evidence from promoters of the Tut-myth.

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

The alleged body of Tut probably belonged to another family member.

Let me guess. it was another family member by the SAME NAME.

We have a body, we have DNA analysis that shows the body was in the immediate family of the person reputed to be the mother. The facial reconstruction of how the the mummy in the sarcophagus looked matches facial features of the statues that were supposed to be of King Tut.

That makes a convergence of forensic evidence.


There is also the vast resources it took to create the tomb, and the huge amount of very valuable items that were in with the body that identified the body as King Tut. The cost effectiveness of using that amount of resources for a hoax is extremely small.

Now, the whole King Tut fiasco was trying to claim there is a double standard when it comes to the evaluating historical events.

Where is the forensic evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed. What physical artifacts can we investigate?

[Flail]

I can live with the idea that both the legends of King Tut and Jesus resurrection are either fabricated or erroneous. However, it would take less evidence for me to believe the Tut stories since I don't have much stake in them...they matter little to anyone. On the other hand, I would require a much higher burden of proofs for the Resurrection story since it attempts to explain a supernatural event never before or since known to have occurred and which is a violation of the laws of nature...and which I do have a stake in since so much is done in the name of Christianity... much of which is harmful and most of which makes no sense whatsoever.