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]

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?

We have the body for one. We have the tomb, with the inscriptions describing who
he was. We have facial reconstructions that show his features are similar to other
mummies of the royal family we found.

[Nec Spe Nec Metu]

Thank goodness a Christian posted this; it really goes to show how far one has to stretch in order to defend Christianity's origins.

[Zzyzx]

.

Thank goodness a Christian posted this; it really goes to show how far one has to stretch in order to defend Christianity's origins.

Amen . . . . err, I mean I agree.

The OP demonstrates the lengths to which some will go in a misguided attempt to “defend Christianity”. Perhaps the attempt to “win a point” (or stroke an ego) causes one to lose sight of the objective in discussing ideas in public (presenting ideas to readers). I specifically disavow any claim of “winning” a debate but only aspire to present ideas and to challenge ideas at the LEVEL of ideas when possible.

Mr. Goose was asked in a Head to Head debate to show evidence to support his claim that a dead body came back to life. He cited stories told by religious people claiming a “resurrection” of their favorite godman – tales of an “empty tomb” and “witnesses” and a formerly dead person supposedly “appearing to disciples”, and “multiple attestations” (tales), and “the principle of embarrassment -- and nothing beyond stories of a “resurrected Christ”. Instead of evidence to support these stories he attempted to focus on “methodology” of historical research by placing GREAT emphasis on “Prove King Tut existed”.

The tactic was/is an abortive attempt to excuse the lack of evidence for what should have been the most important event in history – the grand finale of a thirty year visit to Earth by “our creator” (according to the tale) – a demonstration of divinity -- the BASIS of Christianity. If the “resurrection” story is not true, Christianity is, in my opinion, a fraud.

I feel no need to “Prove that King Tut existed”. That task has been undertaken by other, much more qualified people. My disagreement with the resurrection tale is based upon the lack of evidence for the claim – NOT upon whether or not King Tut existed. I am comfortable allowing readers to decide on the Tut issue based upon what evidence THEY deem appropriate (Internet searches yield a wealth of information for anyone interested).

Attempting to discredit anything known about a REAL body, found in a REAL tomb calls attention to the obvious LACK of evidence to support stories about a “MISSING” body and an UNKNOWN (or non-existent) tomb supported by NOTHING more than hearsay tales told by religious people in religious literature (and reinforced by religious dogma).

When I mentioned King Tut as an example of an historic figure for which there IS evidence of existence, I had no idea that anyone would be foolish enough or desperate enough to base their “argument” on questioning the existence of such a well known example.

[Goose]

We have the body for one.

We do? How can you be so sure? Can you "verify" that? Did you personally witness his death and burial?

We have the tomb, with the inscriptions describing who
he was.

How do you know those inscriptions are describing the mummy in the tomb? How do you know it actually was his tomb?

Let me get this straight. You accept anonymous inscriptions in a tomb that are thousands of years old and could have been inscribed by ANYBODY. Do you believe every inscription you read on a wall? Some people would call that gullible.

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

How do you know the other mummies were from the Royal family? Can you "verify" that? Maybe the similarities are purely coincidental. Or more likely the similarities are due to common ethnic origins.

I'm guessing you believe that King Tut existed based on the evidence provided.

[Goose]

Thank goodness a Christian posted this; it really goes to show how far one has to stretch in order to defend Christianity's origins.

You've missed the point of the thread. I'm guessing you perceive my position on King Tut is irrational, yes?

Do you believe King Tut existed? If so, why?

[bernee51]

We have the body for one.

We do? How can you be so sure? Can you "verify" that? Did you personally witness his death and burial?

Wher's the body of Jesus? Oh that's right - goddidit. He took himself back to sit at his own right hand.

We have the tomb, with the inscriptions describing who
he was.

How do you know those inscriptions are describing the mummy in the tomb? How do you know it actually was his tomb?

Where is the tomb of Jesus? Was there one? The Romans thought he was a criminal. He probably ended up in the same place as was common for executed criminals - wild dog faeces.

Let me get this straight. You accept anonymous inscriptions in a tomb that are thousands of years old and could have been inscribed by ANYBODY. Do you believe every inscription you read on a wall? Some people would call that gullible.

Let me get this straight - you accept 2000 year old writings as proof there was a tomb?

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

How do you know the other mummies were from the Royal family? Can you "verify" that? Maybe the similarities are purely coincidental. Or more likely the similarities are due to common ethnic origins.

What did Jesus look like? Did he look like his dad? Invisible?

I'm guessing you believe that King Tut existed based on the evidence provided.

I'm guessing you really believe in the resurrection of Jesus based on wishful thinking - sorry 'faith'. It can only be be that - given there is no evidence.

[Goose]

.

Thank goodness a Christian posted this; it really goes to show how far one has to stretch in order to defend Christianity's origins.

Amen . . . . err, I mean I agree.

The OP demonstrates the lengths to which some will go in a misguided attempt to “defend Christianity”

<...Blah, blah, blah...>

Zzyzx ignores the OP and questions for debate and goes into another typical off-topic rant. That, in and of itself, speaks such volumes it's deafening.

...Instead of evidence to support these stories he attempted to focus on “methodology” of historical research by placing GREAT emphasis on “Prove King Tut existed”.

Actually, you brought up the whole thing about there being better evidence for King Tut as evidenced by the quotes in the OP to this thread that you ignored. The ironic thing is you couldn't show your own belief in King Tut to be "verified" by the same criteria you requested of the Rez.

The tactic was/is an abortive attempt to excuse the lack of evidence for what should have been the most important event in history – the grand finale of a thirty year visit to Earth by “our creator” (according to the tale) – a demonstration of divinity -- the BASIS of Christianity. If the “resurrection” story is not true, Christianity is, in my opinion, a fraud.

First, this thread is about Tut, not the Resurrection. Secondly, that is a philosophical defence of your perception that there is a "lack of evidence." Pharaoh's had god-like status. What do we hear about Tut? Crickets.

I feel no need to “Prove that King Tut existed”...

That's because you CAN'T prove Tut existed by your own methods.

Attempting to discredit anything known about a REAL body, found in a REAL tomb...

What is actually KNOWN about the body and tomb? How do you go from there to King Tut existed?

When I mentioned King Tut as an example of an historic figure for which there IS evidence of existence,...

Yes, that was a mistake.

I had no idea that anyone would be foolish enough or desperate enough to base their “argument” on questioning the existence of such a well known example.

The ironic thing is I'm using YOUR methods to question the existence of King Tut. The fact that you deem it "foolish" and "desperate" to use your methods to establish history is all I need to know.

[Goose]

We have the body for one.

We do? How can you be so sure? Can you "verify" that? Did you personally witness his death and burial?

Wher's the body of Jesus? Oh that's right - goddidit. He took himself back to sit at his own right hand.

We have the tomb, with the inscriptions describing who
he was.

How do you know those inscriptions are describing the mummy in the tomb? How do you know it actually was his tomb?

Where is the tomb of Jesus? Was there one? The Romans thought he was a criminal. He probably ended up in the same place as was common for executed criminals - wild dog faeces.

Let me get this straight. You accept anonymous inscriptions in a tomb that are thousands of years old and could have been inscribed by ANYBODY. Do you believe every inscription you read on a wall? Some people would call that gullible.

Let me get this straight - you accept 2000 year old writings as proof there was a tomb?

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

How do you know the other mummies were from the Royal family? Can you "verify" that? Maybe the similarities are purely coincidental. Or more likely the similarities are due to common ethnic origins.

What did Jesus look like? Did he look like his dad? Invisible?

I'm guessing you believe that King Tut existed based on the evidence provided.

I'm guessing you really believe in the resurrection of Jesus based on wishful thinking - sorry 'faith'. It can only be be that - given there is no evidence.

I'm guessing this is going to be another one of those threads where people ignore the OP and questions for debate. Everytime you guys do that, it cripples your credibility. This thread isn't about Jesus or the Resurrection. STAY ON TOPIC, PLEASE (if you can).

[Fisherking]

We have the body for one. We have the tomb, with the inscriptions describing who he was.

Whos body? Whos tomb? Is there any "impartial, independant, verifiable evidence" that the body and tomb were King Tut's? Are the inscriptions impartial and independent of Eygyptians?

Were the stories about King Tut told by

[strike]religious[/strike][Eygyptian] people claiming a [strike]“resurrection”[/strike][body and tomb] of their favorite godman – tales of a [strike]“empty tomb”[/strike][tomb] and[strike] “witnesses”[/strike][mummy] and a [strike]formerly dead person[/strike][dead person] supposedly [strike]“appearing to disciples”, [/strike][known by phantom inscriptionists.]... and nothing beyond [strike]stories[/strike][inscriptions]of a [strike]“resurrected Christ”. [/strike][imaginary King Tut].

([strike]Strikes[/strike] and [brackets] are mine.)

Instead of evidence to support these stories he attempted to focus on “methodology” of historical research by placing GREAT emphasis on “Prove King Tut existed”

Instead of evidence to support your claim that

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 has been an attempt to derail the topic with irrelevant statements,

Thank goodness a Christian posted this; it really goes to show how far one has to stretch in order to defend Christianity's origins

Amen . . . . err, I mean I agree.

The OP demonstrates the lengths to which some will go in a misguided attempt to “defend Christianity”. Perhaps the attempt to “win a point” (or stroke an ego) causes one to lose sight of the objective in discussing ideas in public (presenting ideas to readers). I specifically disavow any claim of “winning” a debate but only aspire to present ideas and to challenge ideas at the LEVEL of ideas when possible....
...... The tactic was/is an abortive attempt to excuse the lack of evidence for what should have been the most important event in history – the grand finale of a thirty year visit to Earth by “our creator” (according to the tale) – a demonstration of divinity -- the BASIS of Christianity. If the “resurrection” story is not true, Christianity is, in my opinion, a fraud.

ad hominems

I had no idea that anyone would be foolish enough or desperate enough to base their “argument” on questioning the existence of such a well known example...

,
and simply refusing to address the OP.

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

Artists can make a facial reconstruction look however they want. Even if it looked like a long lost photograph of King Tut, it does not mean it was King Tut.

Mr. Goose was asked in a Head to Head debate to show evidence to support his claim that a dead body came back to life

-- and has asked you to do the same with your claim that King Tut existed -- His methodology has been open and transparent. Hopefully you could let us in on yours?

I feel no need to “Prove that King Tut existed”.

Is that because you can't or won't, because it would expose the bias you seem to have about historical events that pertain to Christianity?

When I mentioned King Tut as an example of an historic figure for which there IS evidence of existence

Still waiting for some that would be in line with your standard for evidence......