How Wes Huff Got The Bible Wrong on Joe Rogan

Summary

Highlights

• Wes Huff's claim regarding the Isaiah text is challenged with over 2,600 variants found, contradicting his assertion of identical texts. 🧐
• The discussion touches on the contested authorship and dating of the Gospels, raising questions about eyewitness reliability. 📅
• O'Connor critiques the notion of Jesus appearing to 500 people, a claim lacking corroborative details in other texts. 🤔
• Non-canonical texts' reliance on earlier texts is debated, highlighting a double standard when examining scriptural authenticity. 📚
• Wes Huff's confident claims are dissected, encouraging a re-evaluation of biblical interpretation on media platforms. 📺

Key Takeaways

• Wes Huff claims the Great Isaiah Scroll is word-for-word identical to the Medieval text, which is contested with over 2,600 variants discovered. 🧐
• Eyewitness accounts in the Gospels and their authorship are heavily debated, questioning the reliability of such records. ✍️
• The supposed appearance of Jesus to 500 people is not documented in detail anywhere else, casting doubt on its validity. 🤔
• Dating and authorship of Gospel texts remain highly disputed, contradicting Wes Huff's confident assertions. 📅
• Non-canonical gospels are criticized for their dependence on earlier texts, yet similar critiques apply to the canonical ones too. 📚

Overview

Chapters

• 00:00 - 00:30: Introduction: Wes Huff on Joe Rogan and The Bible The chapter introduces Wes Huff's appearance on the Joe Rogan show, during which he discusses the Bible and, specifically, the book of Isaiah. It highlights a historical concern over the preservation of the book of Isaiah, which was previously only available in copies dating back to the Middle Ages. This scenario posed challenges regarding the accuracy of its preservation over millennia. The chapter then introduces the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran, dating back around 2,000 years, which included a complete version of the book of Isaiah, providing significant insights into its textual integrity over time.
• 00:30 - 03:30: Dead Sea Scrolls and the Book of Isaiah The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly the Great Isaiah Scroll, provided scholars with a version of the Book of Isaiah that is over a thousand years older than previously known copies from the Medieval period.
• 03:30 - 09:30: The New Testament and the Claims about Jesus The chapter discusses the findings regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly the Isaiah scroll. Scholars were initially shocked to find that it was nearly identical word for word to the Masoretic text of the Bible. However, it turns out that there are indeed textual variants between these two versions, though the exact number is left for the reader to guess.
• 09:30 - 15:00: Resurrection Appearances: Paul's Account of 500 Witnesses The chapter discusses the transcription differences found within biblical texts, specifically focusing on the discrepancies between the Dead Sea Scrolls and later versions of these texts. It highlights the importance of these differences in understanding how certain verses, such as those in Isaiah chapter 2, may have been later additions and not part of the original script. The chapter uses excerpts from the digital Dead Sea Scrolls project by the Israel Museum to illustrate these points.
• 15:00 - 30:00: Authorship and Dating of the Gospels The chapter titled 'Authorship and Dating of the Gospels' discusses the comparison between the Isaiah Scrolls and the traditional Matric or traditional version in medial codices. It notes that while the traditional order of the Hebrew version's 66 chapters is generally confirmed, the ancient scroll contains alternative spellings, scribal errors, corrections, and numerous variant readings. With over 2600 textual variants identified, the discrepancies range from single letters to multiple words, illustrating significant textual differences recorded over time.
• 30:00 - 38:00: Concluding Remarks: Critique of Wes Huff's Claims The chapter critiques Wes Huff's assertions made on the Joe Rogan show about the textual accuracy of ancient scrolls compared to modern texts. Huff claims the scrolls are word-for-word identical to the Matic text, which the author argues is incorrect due to the presence of numerous textual variants, even if many are minor. The discussion specifically touches upon the book of Isaiah, questioning the accuracy of claims regarding its exact preservation over time.

How Wes Huff Got The Bible Wrong on Joe Rogan Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 Rising Star Wes Huff was just on Joe Rogan to talk about the Bible and so of course I had to make a response we begin with a claim about the book of Isaiah for a long time our earliest copy of the book of Isaiah dated to the Middle Ages so it was difficult to know if it had been accurately preserved or changed over the thousands of years since it was written but then we discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls a set of ancient manuscripts found in Kuman dating to around 2,000 years ago and amazingly within them we found a complete of the book of Isaiah a
• 00:30 - 01:00 thousand years older than the oldest one that we had until then take a listen so when you say the book of Isaiah is intact how similar is it to the book of Isaiah that's in the Bible so that one is fascinating so this isn't true for all of the Dead Sea Scrolls but when we discovered the great Isaiah scroll previous to that the earliest copy of Isaiah that we had was uh in the Matic text which is in the Middle Ages who yeah so it was literally a thousand years we literally pushed back our
• 01:00 - 01:30 understanding of Isaiah a thousand years and the thing that really shocked Scholars like I said this isn't true for all the Dead Sea Scrolls but one of the things that shocked them about Isaiah was that it was word for word identical to the mastic text word for word word for word wow yeah wow that would be amazing if it were true in fact the Dead Sea version of the Isaiah scroll is not quite identical to the Matic text that is the one that we know from the Bible can you guess how many textual variants there are between the two take a guess
• 01:30 - 02:00 one that Wes forgot about 10 100 try more than 2,600 yeah now most of these variants are small there differences in spelling for example but some of them are more significant for instance in Isaiah chapter 2 the end of verse 9 and all of verse 10 are simply missing from the Dead Sea version they're just not there which tells us that they were a later addition here are some words from the digital Dead Sea Scrolls project by the Israel Museum which houses the Isaiah
• 02:00 - 02:30 scroll the text of the great Isaiah scroll generally confirms the Matic or traditional version codified in medial codices all 66 chapters of the Hebrew version in the same conventional order at the same time however the 2,000-year old scroll contains alternative spellings scribal errors Corrections and most fundamentally many variant readings strictly speaking the number of textual variants is well over 2600 ranging from a single letter sometimes one or more words
• 02:30 - 03:00 to complete variant verse or verses well over 2600 again many of these variants are minor but Wes Huff told Joe Rogan that the scroll is word for word identical with the mastic text it was word for word identical to the Matic text word for word word for word which is simply not true okay moving on to the New Testament was it the book of Isaiah yeah that the same book is exactly the same as like that's a miracle that's pretty
• 03:00 - 03:30 [ __ ] crazy yeah that is crazy if you just imagine the sheer number of illiterate people the the sheer number of days that have to go by where people are telling the story exactly the same and that it's entrusted in the hands of these very few people that are so dedicated to it that they get the exact words right A Thousand Years Later pretty bananas well I mean that is kind of the the crazy thing about Christianity where you have this Jewish itinerate guy who's walking around for
• 03:30 - 04:00 Century Roman occupied Judea he's making some pretty audacious claims claims to be God himself and then he predicts his own death and resurrection and then his disciples are they think it's over like they're like he's dead we're done yeah and then they go from 11 you know scared men because Judas commits suicide they scared men in an upper room to completely overhauling the Roman World in only a couple hundred years because
• 04:00 - 04:30 of this claim that they say they saw Jesus resurrected like there's something different that goes on there that they're like this is a miracle right dead people don't usually rise from the dead there was quite a lot there first Wes says that Jesus was audaciously going around claiming to be God himself I don't think that's true nowhere in Mark Matthew or Luke does Jesus actually claim to be God in his own words at best it's just in John's gospel that divine claims begin to appear I am the father
• 04:30 - 05:00 arean Whoever has seen me has seen the father before Abraham was ego Amy I actually still don't think even these count and we'll explain why in another video but let's just say that they do even if this was Jesus explicitly claiming to be God don't you think it's a bit suspicious that these claims only show up in our latest gospel if Jesus was known to be walking around claiming explicitly to be God himself did the other three gospel authors just not think was relevant a minor unimportant
• 05:00 - 05:30 detail not worth including come on anyway Wes also mentioned how it was amazing that the early church Grew From 11 scared disciples to overhauling the Roman world on this the sociologist Rodney Stark estimates that in its first 300 years Christianity grew at a rate of 40% per decade from a small group in the first century to 3 million in the 4th Century that sounds pretty impressive until you learn that this is the same growth rate experienced by by Mormonism
• 05:30 - 06:00 since its foundation in the 19th century so if the rate of Christianity's growth is good evidence of its truth Mormonism just became a whole lot more plausible by the way we actually have 11 eyewitnesses to the Mormon Golden Plates whose names and written testimonies we still have today three of those Witnesses say that they saw the angel Moroni give Joseph Smith the plates with their own eyes and even when they fell out with Joseph Smith and left the church they still continued to assert that they had witnessed these events
• 06:00 - 06:30 we don't have anything like this kind of extan written testimony for the resurrection of Jesus which we're about to get on to but I just thought it was worth a mention it's very difficult for anybody who thinks of themselves as an intelligent person who's secular to even entertain the possibility that someone died and come back to life and I get that um but we've already talked about the fact that we don't think that the only thing that exists is matter in motion we as in you and I right like we believe that there's something else going on in this world that's a little bit crazy there's something else and and
• 06:30 - 07:00 that to I think exclude that I think excludes something that that you're kind of putting blinders on for and you do have I mean you're right in terms of all of the these ancient conventions and the ways that things were spread around and but the gospels are written in the lifetime of the eyewitnesses and they're written in this period of time where you have groups of individuals who could have fact checked those things okay it gets a bit speculative here scholarly consens is that the earliest gospel Mark
• 07:00 - 07:30 was written around 70 AD this is some 40 years after Jesus died and likely after the death of most of the eyewitnesses given life expectancy in the ancient world but even if it were written earlier even if it were written by Mark himself we're talking about the resurrection here and notice that the earliest version of Mark's gospel does not contain any descriptions of post-resurrection appearances it ends with the empty tomb and a disappeared Jesus and suggests that he will appear appear to people but it doesn't record
• 07:30 - 08:00 those appearances so even if it's written by an eyewitness it doesn't report anything about the resurrected Jesus the most numerous and detailed post-resurrection appearances of Jesus are in the fourth gospel the Gospel of John scholarly consensus States this to somewhere between 90 and 100 AD Wes Huff suggests an earlier dating based on an ancient fragment of the Gospel of John called p52 here's what he says so you were talking about like what is our oldest manuscript evidence so this guy is p-52 John ryland's 457 so that is so
• 08:00 - 08:30 that's a genuine Egyptian papy that I I made I cut it out for you and then I transcribed the text on that manuscript so when we're talking about what is potentially our oldest evidence for the New Testament this manuscript that most likely comes from Ox rinkus Egypt um is the one that usually is universally accepted as our oldest one and uh that contains John 18 where Jesus is on trial before Pilate
• 08:30 - 09:00 and yeah so that's the one it's in the John rylands library in Manchester England the reason I bring this up is because before this was discovered by CH Roberts in the 1940s the convention was because of a guy named um CH Bower that the Gospel of John was 2 Century CH Roberts is you know literally going through these piles of manuscripts in these drawers that are being like stashed away and he finds this guy and he sees that it's written on both sides which is almost exclusively a Christian
• 09:00 - 09:30 convention because in the ancient world they used Scrolls and the Christians for reasons were not entirely clear on they start to make codices books and so they write on both sides and so he says okay this is written on both sides it's probably a Christian manuscript so he sends it off to the leading uh paleographers or guys who date manuscripts and they all say this is the beginning of the the second century and so there's still debate about the dating
• 09:30 - 10:00 of this but the unanimous consensus is that it's comfortably second century second century potentially the beginning of the second century which means that this is found in Egypt John is probably writing his gospel in Ephesus so it has to be written by John spread around find his way to Egypt be copied and then end up in this manuscript which means that at minimum you've already pushed the Gospel of John back into the first century comfortably and potentially even like most likely into the lifetime of
• 10:00 - 10:30 the eyewitnesses of these events and so all of the literature up until that point from the scholarly consensus about the dating of the Gospel of John gets totally Rewritten wow he correctly points out that there is dispute in the dating here but notice that while Wes places p-52 in the second century it's comfortably second century he pushes John's gospel itself at minimum and comfortably back into the first century which means that at minimum you've already pushed the Gospel of John back
• 10:30 - 11:00 into the first century comfortably why well because of the time it would take after John wrote the Gospel in Ephesus for it to travel to Egypt and be copied written by John spread around find his way to Egypt be copied and then end up in this manuscript a few problems with this first Wes assumes that the fourth gospel really was written by John the Apostle in Ephesus this is to say the least heavily contested by New Testament Scholars but even so Egypt just is isn't all that far away from Ephesus reachable
• 11:00 - 11:30 in a few weeks for an ancient traveler maybe a bit longer originally p-52 was thought to date between 100 and 150 ad split the difference at 125 even if this early dating is correct that still gives us 25 years for the gospel to have traveled from Ephesus to Egypt and still have been written within the 2 Century but of course even this dating is disputed in 2012 professor of early Christianity Brent Nong wrote to paper in the Harvard theological review
• 11:30 - 12:00 dispelling this very use of p52 to date The Gospel of John called the use and abuse of p-52 here's what he says what I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for p52 must include dates in the later 2 and early 3rd centuries thus p52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence or non-existence of the Gospel of John in the first half of the 2 Century the John
• 12:00 - 12:30 rylands Library itself the library in Manchester which holds p-52 says that recent research points to a date nearer to 200 ad this would give the gospel a century to travel to Egypt and still have been written in the second century but West Huff thinks based on his confidence that p52 is from the 2 Century that we can again at minimum and comfortably place the Gospel of John in the first century once again as with the Isaiah scroll I think he's just speaking way too confidently and to be clear I'm
• 12:30 - 13:00 not claiming that John was written late for all I know it could have been written the day after Jesus ascended the point is that the authorship of the gospels is a hotly contested issue what Wes Huff is leaving out is just how absolutely disputed almost everything he's saying is I also want to mention here something that Wes talks about much later there are dozens of non-canonical gospels gospels that were written but didn't make it into the New Testament for all kinds of different reasons listen to what Wes Huff has to say about these goels and so these books that were
• 13:00 - 13:30 not included are any of them interesting I mean are they're all interesting but is does any of it seem like it belongs in the New Testament well so part of the problem with some of these other books is they appear to be almost completely reliant on the other books so you do have and some of them have an agenda to them like what I'm just going to underline that he just said of the non-canonical gospels part of the problem with some of these other books as they appear to be almost completely
• 13:30 - 14:00 reliant on the other books the problem here is with basically the first thing that anybody learns about the New Testament Scholars think that Mark was written first then Matthew and Luke were written later why because Matthew and Luke are reliant on Mark and not just a little bit more than 90% of Mark's gospel is also in Matthew's gospel Mark has 660 verses in total over 600 of them are also in Matthew often copied
• 14:00 - 14:30 verbatim it is Undisputed that there is a literary dependence between Matthew and Luke and Mark and almost everyone agrees that it's Matthew and Luke relying on Mark I genuinely think I must have just misunderstood Wes here because if heavily relying on an earlier gospel is reason to suspect it then this would completely undermine the gospels of Matthew and Luke he also says that another problem with these non-canonical gospels is that some of them appear to have an agenda and some of them have an agenda to them but one of the most discussed topics in New Testament
• 14:30 - 15:00 scholarship is the agendas of the canonical gospels Matthew's presentation of Jesus as the Fulfillment of Jewish prophecy Luke's concern for the poor and the marginalized John's gospel seems to contain polemical material such as strongly emphasizing that John the Baptist is not the Messiah probably because there were people around at the time who believed that he was so when Wes Huff says part of the problem with some of these other books is they appear to be almost completely reliant on the other books so you do have and some of them have an
• 15:00 - 15:30 agenda to them he's just told us that he's got a problem with the New Testament okay moving on after mentioning the gospels Wes goes on to talk about Paul whenever the gospels were written and by whomever we know that Paul is the earliest source of the New Testament dating squarely from the middle of the first century and we think that he actually did write at least seven of the letters attributed to him and so it's to him that we now turn so how do you fact check someone coming back from the dead well if you how many
• 15:30 - 16:00 people saw his body right well Paul says that 400 people saw him all at once 400 people saw the crucifixion no saw the resurrect resurrected Jesus yeah 1 Corinthians 15 Paul says that Jesus appeared to the disciples and then he appeared to 400 people all at once Wes gets this slightly wrong as Paul actually says that Jesus appeared to 500 not 400 people at one time but this only makes it all the more amazing 500 people witnessing the physically resurrected
• 16:00 - 16:30 Jesus would be an amazing proof of his resurrection unfortunately 1 Corinthians chapter 15 is the only mention we have of this event anywhere it's not in the gospels nor in Acts nor in any other historical source so what do we learn about this event from First Corinthians nothing nothing at all Paul does write that quote he appeared to more than 500 Brothers at one time but that's it we're not told who these people are or why they were gathered or
• 16:30 - 17:00 when this occurred or how Paul learned about it or how he knows the number of people involved Paul himself wasn't there is this just something that he heard about from whom when we're not told anything about this extraordinary event and also even if Jesus did appear to 500 people how many of them actually believed what they saw again we're not told maybe there was an appearance but only some of them believed it remember Matthew's gospel tells us that even when Jesus appeared right in front of his 11
• 17:00 - 17:30 disciples some of them doubted they'd lived with Jesus and he was standing right in front of them but they didn't believe many people ask me why would the disciples have believed in the Risen Christ if they didn't actually see him in response I point to this verse in Matthew and ask the reverse how could the disciples have seen him and then not believed with the 500 we're not told how many of them believed that they saw Jesus if some of the discip doubted that it was him why would we
• 17:30 - 18:00 trust an unnamed mass of strangers mentioned briefly in One Source by a man who wasn't there but heard that they'd seen him and even if all of the 500 people did believe that it was Jesus how would Paul know this even if he was there which he wasn't did he interview them was there a show of hands for anyone who doubted before the crowd dispersed there was no easy way even for Paul to know what these people believed which makes it impossible for us to know what they believed and even if the 500
• 18:00 - 18:30 people did all believe it was Jesus how many of them were already predisposed to think this remember sometimes groups do claim to see Visions such as various apparitions of Mary or the Roman Emperor Constantine's vision of a cross of light in the sky which may have been seen by his whole Army as well the source isn't clear look at this image this is a picture of a crowd in fattima Portugal in 1917 this crowd many more than 500 in number will witness to to the so-called Miracle of the Sun a prophecy by three
• 18:30 - 19:00 Shepherd children said that the Virgin Mary would perform a miracle on the 13th of October causing this large crowd to gather on that day and the miracle happened testimonies from the members in the crowd were published in the newspaper they claimed to have seen the sun Dancing in the Sky zigzagging around and even advancing towards the Earth all for 10 minutes so a large crowd witnessing a prophesied miracle and we actually know who saw it and precisely what they saw we even have their direct
• 19:00 - 19:30 testimony does Wes Huff believe in this Catholic Miracle do you and if not why not but Alex how do you explain this then if it didn't actually happen why would there even be this rumor of 500 people seeing Jesus well I'm glad you asked I want to share an idea that I learned from the Christian biblical scholar Dale Allison in his glorious book on the resurrection of Jesus think about this for a moment how could quote more than 500 people all see the man
• 19:30 - 20:00 Jesus quote at one time that's a pretty large group of people how closely could they have examined him how could they all have got a good view at one time imagine a celebrity like Justin Bieber being surrounded by 500 people in the street how well would you be able to make him out could you even be certain that it was him here's where it gets really interesting let's take a look at what Paul says in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 but in the original Greek in which Paul was writing here's Paul talking
• 20:00 - 20:30 about the appearances he appeared to sephus that's Peter and then to the 12 then he appeared to the 500 but notice that in between the words appeared and 500 we have this word excuse my pronunciation EPO this word is typically translated here as more than hence Jesus appeared to more than 500 Brothers but let's investigate this word EPO every other time it appears in the New Testament it's translated differently the word epino means not more than but
• 20:30 - 21:00 over or above or upon the only place in the whole new testament where this word is translated to mean more than is you guessed it 1 Corinthians chapter 15 that's why by the way interestingly if you look at the King James version of this verse you'll read the following after that he was seen of above 500 Brethren at once above it's interesting right so looking at the Greek it seems plausible that Jesus did not appear to
• 21:00 - 21:30 more than 500 people but rather he appeared above 500 people yes above do you see what I'm getting at it was a vision in the sky just like the sun Miracle above Fatima or the cross of Light Above Constantine's Army it happened above the crowd now of course that word epino does appear here before a number 500 so it could well mean over or above 500 as in more than 500 but
• 21:30 - 22:00 then again in Luke chapter 19 during the parable of the 10 meaners Jesus has a man say to one of his servants take charge of 10 cities and to his other servant you take charge of five cities if you read the English Standard Version the translation is you shall have authority over 10 cities or you are to be over five cities why well because the word there is you guessed it EPO over so
• 22:00 - 22:30 even in front of a number this can still mean over rather than more that and even without this linguistic evidence what do you think is the most likely explanation for a group of 500 people all seeing Jesus at one time especially considering Paul's own conversion on the road to Damascus Christians say that this involved him meeting the Risen Christ but acts tells us that he simply saw a flash of light and heard a voice that that was it that was the nature of
• 22:30 - 23:00 Paul's meeting with Jesus a flash of light was the appearance to the 500 of a similar form we simply do not know whatever we believe about this strange verse it's hardly evidence enough to balance the resurrection upon here are the words of Dale Allison on this appearance to the 500 in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 it is little more than a tease a tantalizing hint about something that barring the discovery of a new source will forever provoke questions without answers or at least without robust support it is important to
• 23:00 - 23:30 emphasize this because many Christians continue to appeal to the appearance to the 500 as though it carries great apologetical weight yet we really know nothing about this ostensibly stupendous event we have only a brief assertion from someone who was not there that it happened and we cannot name a single individual who was involved okay what's next Paul says that Jesus appeared to the disciples and then he appeared to 400 people out once I mean if we read
• 23:30 - 24:00 the Gospel of Luke and the gospel of um or Gospel of Luke and acts so same author wrote These both documents uh he says that Jesus was walking around teaching them for 40 days after he was resurrected from the dead and so these are written within a time period when you have people who would have seen Jesus's Ministry who were there say at something like the feeding of the 5000 who could have been able to verify or um debunk some of these things that are being said
• 24:00 - 24:30 again Wes appears to be assuming a radically early date for the gospel of Luke's composition most Scholars suggest an early EST state of between 80 and 90 ad in part because of its literary dependence on Mark's gospel but even if Luke was earlier than this any eyewitnesses would have been elderly or dead and besides Luke's gospel only recounts Jesus appearing to two disciples on the road to Emmas then the rest of the disciples in Jerusalem before ascending into heaven the book of Acts implies that he appeared to a few more people some named some not but it's
• 24:30 - 25:00 not like we've got a huge list of names that people could find and interrogate especially since most of them would probably have been dead by then anyway also some Scholars are beginning to suggest that Luke acts might have been written much later with some thinking that it displays a knowledge of the writings of Josephus from the '90s this is a minority view but one held by some major players in the field whatever the case the point is again that we simply cannot have any certainty on this stuff most of it is educated guesswork for West to say with confidence that the
• 25:00 - 25:30 gospels can be dated to within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses and especially to say this of all of them is I think again just too optimistic we're going to jump forward a bit here now Wes is arguing that Jesus definitely died on the cross which I think I agree with but he then says this atheist agnostic Christian Scholars they will say if we can know anything about Jesus like they'll cast a doubt on a lot of the things that we read about in the gospels in terms of the actual historical Jesus of Nazareth they'll say one thing we can be sure of is that he died by crucifixion under pontious pilot because
• 25:30 - 26:00 we have not just multiple attested documents that we refer to as the New Testament but Roman and Greek and Jewish writers refer to that claim afterwards and talk about the fact that you have this guy and it's mocked within earliest Christianity so one of our earliest in fact not one of the earliest depiction of Jesus on the cross is called the Alexa Manos grafo and it's probably from the the end of the first century and
• 26:00 - 26:30 it's a uh it it depicts a an individual with their arms raised in an act of worship worshiping a man with a donkey's head who's being crucified and right beside it it says Alexa menos worships his God in Greek who and it's mocking the Alex aminos graphito is really cool and indeed perhaps the earliest surviving depiction of Jesus I think the so-called magical gemstone in the British library is tied for this spot West says that it's quote probably from the end of the first century and it's
• 26:30 - 27:00 probably from the the end of the first century but again dating it is difficult and most experts date it to the late 2 or 3D Century some think it could be earlier sure but again I think Wes is just speaking with a little bit too much confidence here just like with the Gospel of John I think Wes is dragging things into the first century that don't necessarily belong there without properly underscoring that all of his datings are highly contested anyway let's jump forward again then 400 people people saw him afterwards that's the claim that that Paul makes Paul makes
• 27:00 - 27:30 this yeah yeah yeah and how many different people um have some sort of a recollection or a writing or or something that's attribute to them of being witness to his resurrection way of Peter Paul Jude James and Matthew Mark and Luke okay let's break this down Wes just mentioned seven names including some gospel authors we'll start with the non-sp sources Peter Paul James Peter Paul Jude and James remember we're
• 27:30 - 28:00 looking for people who wrote about witnessing the resurrection although interestingly Rogan actually only asked about who has been attributed as writing about witnessing the resurrection not necessarily who actually did write about it or something that's attribute to them but even then there are problems so first is Peter there are two Epistles in the New Testament attributed to this Apostle first and second Peter importantly most Scholars do not think that Peter actually wrote both of these texts especially second Peter which is
• 28:00 - 28:30 one of the most disputed texts in the New Testament they're still early texts but probably not both written by Peter at least one of them is likely a forgery there are Scholars who defend the petrine authorship of both Epistles of course but the consensus is against them second is Paul there are 13 Epistles in the New Testament attributed to Paul but many of these are also believed not to have actually been written by him the consensus is that seven of them are Undisputed his whereas the rest are
• 28:30 - 29:00 contested some like first and second Timothy and Titus are firmly believed to be pseudonymous written by somebody else but even if Paul wrote all of these letters remember what we're looking for here remember what Rogan asked some sort of a recollection or a writing or or something that's attribute to them of being witness to his resurrection Paul never claims to have encountered the physically resurrected Jesus even his conversion story in Acts just describes him see a flash of light and hearing the voice of Christ while on the road to
• 29:00 - 29:30 Damascus he never even claimed to meet the Risen Jesus In the Flesh which I think is what Rogan is looking for here our third name is Jude there's one short epistle in the New Testament which claims to be written by Jude the brother of James James being James the brother of Jesus surprise surprise This is highly disputed but whatever the case it doesn't actually matter because the real problem is this judee's epistle doesn't even mention the resurrection it's not
• 29:30 - 30:00 in there so Wes is wrong even just to say that a written witness to the resurrection has been attributed to Jude let alone actually written by him Rogan is looking here for accounts of the Resurrection written by those who witnessed it Jude simply doesn't count even if he did write that epistle because he simply doesn't write about the resurrection in it and there's a similar problem with the fourth name that Wes mentions James whose epistle in the New Testament again with some dispute over the the authorship also simply does not recount his witness to
• 30:00 - 30:30 the resurrection Wes is wrong to bring him up as well so asked by Joe Rogan for people who wrote about the resurrection Wes Huff is choosing people who have letters attributed to them but either didn't actually write them or didn't even claim in those letters to have seen the resurrected Jesus Wes then talks about the gospel authors way of Peter Paul Jude James and Matthew Mark and Luke the thing with Matthew Mark and Luke is that Matthew and Luke or Matthew and John are attributed to direct
• 30:30 - 31:00 Disciples of Jesus uh Luke and Mark are not so they are not eyewitnesses within the Jesus community in fact Luke prefaces his gospel by saying that just a point of clarification here where Wes says that the gospels of Matthew and John are attributed to the apostles Matthew and John they're not attributed by the texts themselves the gospels do not anywhere identify their own authors they don't even claim to be written by anyone in particular it's later Christian tradition which Associates
• 31:00 - 31:30 those names Matthew Mark Luke and John with the gospels I'm not saying that Wes claimed that the gospels do identify their own authors by the way I just think it might have been unclear for somebody listening so just pointing it out but some people and I don't know if Wes is one of them do think that John's gospel does identify its author does tell us who wrote it but he doesn't do this by saying my name's John and I wrote this gospel instead throughout the gospel a disciple is mentioned who's only ever identified as the one whom Jesus loved here's an example from John
• 31:30 - 32:00 chapter 19 the crucifixion of Jesus when Jesus saw his mother there and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby he said to Heroman here is your son and to the disciple here is your mother from that time on the disciple took her into his home so the Beloved disciple is quite an important figure seemingly the person who looks after Mary the Mother of God after Jesus dies later in that same chapter the text says the man who saw it has given testimony and his
• 32:00 - 32:30 testimony is true he knows that he tells the truth and he testifies so that you also May believe and it looks implied here that the man being spoken about is the Beloved disciple who's mentioned just a moment earlier in John chapter 21 Jesus is talking about the Beloved disciple and then the text says this is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down we know that his testimony is true he's the one that wrote them down now the Beloved disciple is often identified with John
• 32:30 - 33:00 the son of zebede that is the Apostle John and since we're told here that it's him who wrote it all down John is the author of this gospel that is why some people claim that John's gospel identifies its author but there are a few problems with this first the Beloved disciple is never explicitly named as John nobody knows who it is he's mentioned six times in total only in the Gospel of John but is never named some people think that it might be Lazarus for example some people even think that it might be Mary Magdalene but I think
• 33:00 - 33:30 that's a bit tenuous but suppose we just knew that the Beloved disciple is John fine still notice that the fourth gospel only ever speaks about the Beloved disciple in the third person in John 19 the man who saw it has given testimony and his testimony is true it's not clear that this man is the same man writing down the words that we're reading right now it's not even clear that this man is the Beloved disciple who's mentioned some n verses earlier as standing nearby
• 33:30 - 34:00 the cross with the three Marys he's the only man that's mentioned stood nearby so it might have been him but we don't know we're never explicitly told okay but in John 21 we're told that the Beloved disciple wrote his testimony down fine but again it's in the third person it doesn't say I the Beloved disciple wrote these things down it says this is the disciple who testifies to these things and wrote them down we know that his testimony is true there's a
• 34:00 - 34:30 separation there we know that his testimony is true and even if the Gospel of John is based on the written testimony of the Beloved disciple it's unclear if we're now reading the words that the Beloved disciple used and how much was changed or added later and we actually know that some parts of John's gospel were changed and added to later for example in John chapters 7 and 8 we find the story of the adulterous woman where Jesus says let he who is without sin cast the first stone but this story
• 34:30 - 35:00 isn't in our earliest manuscripts of John and so is believed to be a later interpolation that is added on at a later date also just take the whole of John's final chapter chapter 21 which is also thought by many scholars to have been written much later than the rest of John's gospel and added on at some point in the future why do some people think this well here are some reasons identified by Evan Powell in the unfinished gospel first John 21 uses 20 unique Greek terms not found in any of
• 35:00 - 35:30 the other chapters of John's gospel some of these words are subject specific like the word breakfast but others like the verb to turn epistane are not this word is not found anywhere else in John but it is found in the synoptic gospels second John 21 mentions that the disciples are fishermen for the first time in the whole of John's gospel John 1 through 20 doesn't seem to know that their Fisher at all again though of course the synoptic gospels are well
• 35:30 - 36:00 aware of their occupation third John 21 also just seems generally discordant with the end of John 20 which already sounds like it could be the end of the Gospel look at the end of John chapter 20 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples which are not recorded in this book but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah the Son of God and that by believing you may have life in his name doesn't that sound like it kind of could be the end of the gospel maybe maybe not not a particularly strong
• 36:00 - 36:30 piece of evidence but consider this in John Chapter 20 The Disciples meet the Risen Jesus and they receive the Holy Spirit and are sent out into the world to forgive people's sins and in the next chapter they're fishing in Galilee even though Jesus just commanded them to go out and spread the word and forgive people's sins they decide to just go back to business as usual I suppose it seems a little bit strange the upshot is that many scholars think that John 21
• 36:30 - 37:00 was added much later than the composition of the rest of John's gospel and added by somebody who'd read the synoptic gospels now importantly we don't have any manuscript evidence for this we don't have any early manuscripts that are missing John chapter 21 for example but our earliest complete manuscript of John's gospel only dates from the 4th Century so we just don't have any really early manuscripts of John at all we don't know whether the earliest complete manuscripts of John contained chapter 21 or not but anyway we've gone a little bit off track do you
• 37:00 - 37:30 remember the verse that we were discussing the one which claims that the Beloved disciple wrote down his testimony do you remember where that comes from John chapter 21 look all of this is of course as with everything in this field a matter of dispute but the main thing is that Wes Huff is making confident claims about who wrote the gospels and when and about attestations to Jesus's resurrection in ways which I think require more clarification at at least and which run against the scholarly consensus he's welcome to make
• 37:30 - 38:00 these claims of course but I would just like to see either a bit more lenience in his claims about the dating and authorship of these texts or more defense of the dates and the authors that he believes in but okay that's it Wes if you're watching you are of course welcome to come on my podcast anytime support my work by subscribing to my substack at Alex o con.com thanks for watching and I'll see you in the next one