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?

[Nec Spe Nec Metu]

Lol. Just when I thought your stretching of truth and use of fallacious argument was offensive, you go and pull this. Now I just think you've trolled us. Kudos, sir; you're good.

Or tried to show you where your reasoning is faulty.

I'm sorry, it took me a bit long to re-edit my post. Try again please.

[Goat]

Lol. Just when I thought your stretching of truth and use of fallacious argument was offensive, you go and pull this. Now I just think you've trolled us. Kudos, sir; you're good.

Or tried to show you where your reasoning is faulty.

And were spectacularly unsuccessful at it , IMO. It comes right down to 'denial of the evidence vs lack of evidence.'

And it being quite obvious you put more ncredulence in lack of evidence for truth.

[Goose]

And were spectacularly unsuccessful at it , IMO.

Your opinion is noted and filed. Did you hear the flush?

It comes right down to 'denial of the evidence vs lack of evidence.'

Yes there is an enormous amount of that going on in this forum.

And it being quite obvious you put more ncredulence in lack of evidence for truth.

Funny you say that when I have been using the methods of sceptics to deny the existence of King Tut.

[Cmass]

OK Goose. No King Tut. Now what?
Does this mean your assertions that the Jesus character existed and came back to life and flew around should carry more weight? Does your showing weakness in the Tut argument strengthen yours?

You are attempting to validate your myth by demonstrating that people make assumptions about the existence of other things they have little evidence for. If they do they do it, then it should be OK for you to do it as well - especially in regards to ghosts, devils and God. I think this is the basis of your argument. Am I wrong?

The consequences of misnaming the mummy as Tut are trivial compared to attributing supernatural phenomenon to him and then forming an entire religion around it. ...only to find out it was bunk.
It does not defy any known laws of physics for researchers to name the mummy Tut. Whether they are correct or not, it is only a naming issue. Nor would it destroy anyone's world view if these researchers later found it was indeed just the janitor. No churches would fall no laws of physics would be mended.

BTW: Has anyone here actually seen the King Tut exhibit? I got a chance to see it when it came through Seattle many years ago and found it absolutely fascinating. There is an enormous amount of information regarding him and how they determined who he is. I would be surprised if someone walked away from the exhibit not interested in the topic. It's worth seeing.

[bernee51]

BTW: Has anyone here actually seen the King Tut exhibit? I got a chance to see it when it came through Seattle many years ago and found it absolutely fascinating. There is an enormous amount of information regarding him and how they determined who he is. I would be surprised if someone walked away from the exhibit not interested in the topic. It's worth seeing.

I saw the Tut exhibition in the Cairo Museum - fascinating. As was the Valley of the Kings.

Funny thing is - I went looking for Jesus' tomb when last in Israel - could not find it. The guide book setting out his life and death was no help at all.

[Cmass]

OK Goose, you WIN!

Thank you. Now I only require 12 easy payments of $99.98 to go to the next level. I take all major credit cards.

I no longer believe the mummy that was found is King Tut. It is just a mummy. I no longer believe any of the interpretations of the artifacts surrounding it are correct - it was all a fraud perpetrated by people trying to gain power and influence.

I know you are joking around but the reality is that people are swayed by arguments and explanations like the one in my OP for the existence of King Tut when applied to Christianity. The problem arises primarily because people have a hard time distinguishing between a strong argument backed by evidence and sound reasoning and a weak argument backed by wishful thinking. Combined, of course, with an anti-supernatural bias.

Here is your formula:
[strike]"Lack of evidence for body is Tut's = theory NOT true"
Therefore,
"Lack of evidence for Jesus resurrection = story IS true"[/strike]

Nope. That's just how you are perceiving this thread.

Yes, it is how I am perceiving this thread. Please tell me where I wrong

[bernee51]

I no longer believe the mummy that was found is King Tut. It is just a mummy. I no longer believe any of the interpretations of the artifacts surrounding it are correct - it was all a fraud perpetrated by people trying to gain power and influence.

I know you are joking around but the reality is that people are swayed by arguments and explanations like the one in my OP for the existence of King Tut when applied to Christianity. The probelm arises primarily because people have a hard time distinguishing between a strong argument backed by evidence and sound reasoning and a weak argument backed by wishful thinking. Combined, of course, with an anti-supernatural bias.

Goose - occasionally you come up with some really perceptive comments. The one bolded above beautifully sums up your position regarding the resurrection.

Wishful thinking and weak arguments are all there are in favor of the resurrection being an historical event. That combined with faith in the existence of the supernatural.

[Goose]

BTW: Has anyone here actually seen the King Tut exhibit? I got a chance to see it when it came through Seattle many years ago and found it absolutely fascinating. There is an enormous amount of information regarding him and how they determined who he is. I would be surprised if someone walked away from the exhibit not interested in the topic. It's worth seeing.

I saw the Tut exhibition in the Cairo Museum - fascinating. As was the Valley of the Kings.

You guys should be sharing all your abundant knowledge about King Tut instead of rambling off topic. Tell us the evidence there that would confirm King Tut existed. I'd really like to know. I've seen plenty of Egyptian mummies at the British Museum, they all look pretty much the same to me.

Yes, it is how I am perceiving this thread. Please tell me where I wrong

Cmass, let me make it simple for you. Let's start with one of the questions from the OP.
3. What methods do sceptics (of Christianity) use to prove the existence of historical people or the truth of a historical event?

Wishful thinking and weak arguments are all there are in favor of the resurrection being an historical event. That combined with faith in the existence of the supernatural.

I gotta tell ya bernee, "Performative Utterances" ranks right up there on the all time top ten. Every time I see that one it gives me good chuckle.

[bernee51]

Wishful thinking and weak arguments are all there are in favor of the resurrection being an historical event. That combined with faith in the existence of the supernatural.

I gotta tell ya bernee, "Performative Utterances" ranks right up there on the all time top ten. Every time I see that one it gives me good chuckle.

Thanks Goose. As you are probably aware one of my goals in life is to be mindful of the happiness and well being of all. That i have brought you a 'good chuckle' is very fulfilling to me.

OTOH I am not yet aware of how performative utterances have been discounted as a probable answer to the origins of the Jesus myth. In the words so oft used by apologists - prove that they are not.

[daedalus 2.0]

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.

(Kind of like the absurd first cause argument: "Everything has a first cause... except something).

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.

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.

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.