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?

[Zzyzx]

.

All we have is hearsay evidence from promoters of the Tut-myth.

Correction: There is a tomb, artifacts, inscriptions.

Are there any of those things available to support the "Jesus as son of god myth", or is there nothing but hearsay evidence from promoters of the religion?

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

Probably? What is the evidence to suggest that hypothesis -- or is it mere conjecture?

I am not surprised that people who accept the "divinity of Jesus" based on unverified tales in a book whose writers cannot be identified would reject actual research and studies regarding King Tut. A person who accepts one proposal without reason is likely to reject another without reason -- since reasoning is not involved.

People believe what they want to believe -- often regardless of the evidence.


Those who have no evidence to support their claims and stories can resort to attempting to discredit other claims and stories -- as though doing so somehow bolstered their "argument" or excused their inability to substantiate their claims and stories.

[Flail]

.

All we have is hearsay evidence from promoters of the Tut-myth.

Are you claiming we have something more than that from the Bible as to the resurrection? How can you honestly deny the one and absolutely believe the other...nonsense.

[flitzerbiest]

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?

There is DNA evidence to link 3 generations of Egyptian royalty together, extracted from 7 mummies. This evidence proves that the body in the tomb of Tut was:

1. The grandson of Amenhotep III.
2. The son of Akhenaten and Tiye

This fascinating DNA analysis (which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association--JAMA--one of the finest peer-reviewed references in the world) corroborates that which was already known from tomb and other inscriptions.

Bottom line: the existence of Tut, his lineage, and even some of his health history (clubbed feet, bone necrosis) is known beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.

I see I am late to this party. Is someone truly trying to maintain that the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is as strong as the evidence for Tut? Please...

[Zzyzx]

.

There is DNA evidence to link 3 generations of Egyptian royalty together, extracted from 7 mummies. This evidence proves that the body in the tomb of Tut was:

1. The grandson of Amenhotep III.
2. The son of Akhenaten and Tiye

This fascinating DNA analysis (which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association--JAMA--one of the finest peer-reviewed references in the world) corroborates that which was already known from tomb and other inscriptions.

Bottom line: the existence of Tut, his lineage, and even some of his health history (clubbed feet, bone necrosis) is known beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt.

Don't confuse Biblicists with facts, their mind is made up.

I see I am late to this party. Is someone truly trying to maintain that the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is as strong as the evidence for Tut? Please...

The ongoing "argument" seems to be something along the lines of "If you accept that the mummy is King Tut you should (or must) accept that Jesus came back to life after being dead for days" or "If you accept other historical information, you should (or must) accept mine".

[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.

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

That's because Christ rose from the dead, Joey.

[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.

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

That's because Christ rose from the dead, Joey.

Please provide evidence for the claim that 'Christ rose from the dead', beyond religious belief, opinion or conjecture..

[East of Eden]

Don't confuse Biblicists with facts, their mind is made up.

Exactly what I say about promoters of the Tut-myth.

The ongoing "argument" seems to be something along the lines of "If you accept that the mummy is King Tut you should (or must) accept that Jesus came back to life after being dead for days" or "If you accept other historical information, you should (or must) accept mine".

The ongoing argument is that there is a complete double standard in regards to historical accounts when the New Testament accounts are involved. If the same hyper-critical standards were applied consistently we would have to discard much of what we know about ancient history.

[Goat]

Don't confuse Biblicists with facts, their mind is made up.

Exactly what I say about promoters of the Tut-myth.

The ongoing "argument" seems to be something along the lines of "If you accept that the mummy is King Tut you should (or must) accept that Jesus came back to life after being dead for days" or "If you accept other historical information, you should (or must) accept mine".

The ongoing argument is that there is a complete double standard in regards to historical accounts when the New Testament accounts are involved. If the same hyper-critical standards were applied consistently we would have to discard much of what we know about ancient history.

And you don't understand the requirement for accepting the history of King Tut is exactly the same as accepting the stories written in the Gospels?

We have a ton of forensic evidence for King Tut. We have a body , we have an elaborate tomb with his name, we have DNA evidence.

What do have for the stories in the Gospels?

Where is the forensic evidence for the Gospel stories.

[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.

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

That's because Christ rose from the dead, Joey.

Please provide evidence for the claim that 'Christ rose from the dead', beyond religious belief, opinion or conjecture..

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/eas ... josh2.html

[East of Eden]

Correction: There is a tomb, artifacts, inscriptions.

Are there any of those things available to support the "Jesus as son of god myth", or is there nothing but hearsay evidence from promoters of the religion?

If there was a tomb of Jesus there would be no Christianity. Strange there is not even a tradition of shrine or final burial place.

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

Probably? What is the evidence to suggest that hypothesis -- or is it mere conjecture?

EXACTLY. You guys come up with unbelievable alternate conspiracy theories to explain the Gospel events and have no evidence to back them up. You complain there is only written testimony for the Gospel events and yet you don't even have that for your alternate theories.

I am not surprised that people who accept the "divinity of Jesus" based on unverified tales in a book whose writers cannot be identified

We have a very good idea of who wrote the Gospels.