Was I Wrong About Wes Huff?

Summary

In a riveting exploration of biblical texts, Alex O'Connor revisits an argument with Wes Huff regarding the fidelity of the Isaiah scrolls compared to the Matic text. Huff's original claim on Joe Rogan's podcast suggested that these texts were identical, but O'Connor points to over 1,930 non-spelling variants. This video delves into the significance of these differences and scrutinizes expert responses, revealing complex layers to what initially seems a simple biblical comparison. The accuracy of ancient texts and the responsibility of scholars in sharing these findings is at the heart of this critical discussion.

Highlights

• Wes Huff initially claimed the Isaiah scroll was word for word identical to the Matic text, a statement contested by over 1,930 variants 📜.
• A deep dive into textual variants shows numerous discrepancies, with even entire verses missing from some texts 🕵️‍♂️.
• Key experts like Dan McLen and Kip Davis weigh in on the importance and nature of these textual differences 📚.
• Gavin Ortlund's responses and interpretations are analyzed, revealing selective citation and goalpost shifting 🚩.
• This discussion underscores that high-fidelity ancient manuscripts are not unique to biblical texts; they are common across historic documents 🌍.

Key Takeaways

• The Dead Sea Scrolls reveal over 1,930 non-spelling textual variants compared to the Matic text, challenging the claim of identicalness 📜.
• Misinterpretations and misquotes can lead to significant misunderstandings, highlighting the importance of precision in scholarly discussions 🎓.
• The concept of textual fidelity in ancient manuscripts is complex, influenced by historical contexts and scholarly interpretations 📚.
• Questions of manuscript accuracy are common in ancient texts, not unique to biblical manuscripts, which challenges sensational claims of perfection 📖.
• Engagement in public scholarship requires accountability for mistakes to maintain trust and credibility, essential for future discourse 🗣.

Overview

In a complex exploration of textual fidelity, Alex O'Connor revisits his debate with Wes Huff concerning the accuracy of biblical scrolls. Initially, Huff's assertion on Joe Rogan's podcast suggested that the Isaiah scrolls paralleled the Matic text word for word. However, O'Connor points out over 1,930 non-spelling textual variants, undermining Huff's claim and spotlighting the intricacies of biblical manuscript studies.

The video dissects expert analyses from scholars like Dan McLen and Kip Davis. They help contextualize these variants, emphasizing that understanding these discrepancies requires a nuanced appreciation of historical and linguistic contexts. The examination highlights the broader implications of such findings, showing how widespread textual variants can alter interpretations and call for sharp scholarly accountability.

Furthermore, the video underscores the broader commonality of non-identical manuscripts in historical texts, thus challenging sensational claims of exceptional accuracy in biblical texts. This nuanced conversation, rich with scholarly insights and robust debate, invites viewers to ponder the significance of manuscript fidelity and the ethical responsibilities of accurately conveying such findings to the public.

Chapters

• 00:00 - 00:30: Introduction The chapter titled 'Introduction' discusses recent responses to the speaker's commentary on Joe Rogan's inaccuracies regarding the Bible. The speaker notes that Gavin Ortland has provided a noteworthy response, allegedly refuting the speaker's points. The chapter sets the stage for a detailed examination of topics such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaiahA). Additionally, the speaker promises to address New Testament topics like the divinity of Jesus and the dating of John in a subsequent part.
• 00:30 - 05:00: Textual Variants Clarification The chapter discusses the textual variants between the Dead Sea version of the Isaiah scroll and the traditional Masoretic text. Despite some beliefs or claims that they are identical, the two versions actually differ significantly. The text highlights the number of these differences, revealing that there are more than 2,600 textual variants between the two versions.
• 09:30 - 10:30: Gavin's Misleading Quote This chapter delves into the nuances of spelling discrepancies among different versions of texts. It particularly focuses on orthographic variations - differences in the conventional spelling system of a language. The text compares American and British English spellings, using 'color' (US) and 'colour' (UK) as an example. The great Isaiah scroll is highlighted as it contains various such spelling variations, illustrating how minor these discrepancies often are. The chapter underscores that these are not errors per se, but rather distinct conventions in spelling.
• 15:00 - 21:00: Misleading Editing and Omissions The chapter 'Misleading Editing and Omissions' discusses the potential issues with using direct quotes or figures out of context. It highlights how the phrase 'word for word' doesn’t mandate identical spelling or phrasing, which can lead to misconceptions, especially with numerical data. The example given is the '2600 variants,' which might be misunderstood as a complete list when it actually omits spelling or orthographic differences. This reflects on broader issues of historical context and accuracy in reporting or referencing figures.
• 25:30 - 39:30: Wes Huff's Response Analysis The chapter focuses on a response analysis by Wes Huff regarding orthographic and textual variants in biblical texts. It discusses the existence of over 2600 textual variants, which are differences in the meanings of words or sentences rather than just spelling differences. Wes Huff references insights from biblical scholar Dan McLen, clarifying a common misconception that the majority of these differences are merely spelling variations. McLen asserts that neither the majority nor a minority of these variations are spelling-related, but instead impact the textual meaning.
• 43:00 - 50:00: Biblical Text Fidelity Comparison The chapter titled 'Biblical Text Fidelity Comparison' discusses the comparison of biblical text variants found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, focusing on its critical editions. It specifically mentions the 1Q Isaiah A scroll from volume 32 of the series 'Discoveries in the Judean Desert,' which is the official series for the publication of these critical editions. The chapter highlights the speaker's experience working with this scroll and notes the counting of 2,771 variants, none of which were determined to be clear differences merely due to spelling.

Was I Wrong About Wes Huff? Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 last week I responded to Wes Huff on Joe Rogan accusing him of getting some things wrong about the Bible since then I've had a lot of responses most notably from Gavin ortland who I keep getting told has refuted me so I thought we could take a look in this video we'll look at the Dead Sea Scrolls and the great Isaiah scroll also known as 1q Isaiah a in a later part two I'll address the New Testament topics I covered like Jesus's Divinity the dating of John and so on so let's get into it here's Gavin this isn't true for all the deadsy Scrolls but one of the things that shocked them about Isaiah was that
• 00:30 - 01:00 it was word for word identical to the Matic 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 one that Wes forgot about 10 100 try more than 2,600
• 01:00 - 01:30 but it needs to be emphasized that the majority of these discrepancies are about tiny issues like spelling not even necessarily errors of spelling just differences one scholar notes that these variations are mostly occasioned by considerations of orthography orthography is the conventional spelling system of a particular language kind of like how Americans might use this spelling color c o l o r but the British people weirdly put a u in that word um the great Isaiah scroll it's under discussion here contains spellings that
• 01:30 - 02:00 reflect its own historical context so that wouldn't affect the word forword claim that Wes made word for word doesn't necessarily mean word for identically spelled word so the 2,600 figure here is uh potentially very misleading for onlookers so this is actually just Flatout incorrect it turns out that those more than 2600 variants I brought up actually don't include spelling or orthographic variants there's a whole separate list of
• 02:00 - 02:30 orthographic variants on top of the more than 2600 textual variants all of which are variants in the meaning of words or sentences it was biblical scholar Dan mclen who pointed this out in his own video so I spoke with him about where this number came from that is a a widespread piece of misinformation that the majority of these differences are spelling differences and it's not the majority it's not a minority it's none this list of 2600 variant is found in uh
• 02:30 - 03:00 volume 32 of a series called discoveries in the Judean desert which is the official series for the publication of the critical editions of the Dead Sea Scrolls I've worked for quite some time with 1q Isaiah a and I knew there are all kinds of variants so I went and dug out my DJ d32 and counted up all the variants they're 2,771 of them and I don't remember any that were clear differences of just spelling and so I I went through the
• 03:00 - 03:30 volume and found the editor's own description of what they were doing with the the list of textual variants the editors clearly specify as you can see that this list of variants only counts those which differ quote in more than mere orthography or meaning neutral morphology though ambiguous cases are included I want to make it clear I made this mistake as well I also thought that the variants were mostly spelling related but in trying to correct me Gavin has reiterated this false claim arguing that most of these variants are
• 03:30 - 04:00 orthographic or spelling related when in fact none of them are and as you can see this mistake has provoked quite a lot of enthusiastic comments and many popular channels have also leaned on this incorrect point from Gavin's video like russan KD orthography is a conventional spelling system of a particular language kind of like how Americans might use this spelling color and daily dose of wisdom but the British people weirdly put a u in that word Wes himself even shared Gavin's video on Instagram and so seems to endorse it but it is simply
• 04:00 - 04:30 incorrect to say that most of the variants are orthographic and I made another mistake as well that more than 2600 figure actually includes textual variants across a variety of texts not just the two that we're interested in so how many textual variants are there between just the Isaiah scroll and the mastic text well Dan mclen counted all of them one by one what I did is I went through every single one of the variants and if the M was on the other side of
• 04:30 - 05:00 the closed bracket that meant that one Q Isaiah a differed from the Matic text and I I literally just counted them one by one and how many variants did you find between Isa the Isaiah scroll in the DC Scrolls and the mastic text 1,930 and just to be CLE I may be off by one or two but it's it's in that ballpark so hopefully that's clarified now 1,930 non-spell related textual variance
• 05:00 - 05:30 between the Isaiah scroll and the mastic text Wes Huff said that these texts were word for word identical he was mistaken and he's admitted that he was mistaken but he's also since made a video himself in which he says that he did know there were variants he just didn't say so clearly at that point in the podcast and please hear me out here I do not think there aren't textual variant in the Isaiah Dead Sea scroll texts I don't in fact later on in my conversation with
• 05:30 - 06:00 Rogan I specifically say ancient Hebrew doesn't have a vowel system in its writing that's overly comprehensive and so in the Middle Ages when you have uh these groups of Jews who are copying these Hebrew scriptures who aren't speaking it as much as they're reading it you got to figure out how to pronounce it as because because vowels make a difference but if if you took all the vowels out of English if you a natural English reader you could
• 06:00 - 06:30 probably figure out what was what if you're looking at the page um and so in the Middle Ages the Matic scribes come up with these vowel pointing systems and that's what you see when you like look at a Hebrew Bible today is you see these these vowels what I'm pointing out there is that there is an entire vowel system with the manuscripts of the later medieval text that are completely absent from the ancient Hebrew copies that we have like that of the Dead Sea Scrolls that means that there are going to be
• 06:30 - 07:00 variants that are counted and included that have to do with vowels absent from ancient manuscripts that are present in medieval ones I'm not saying that those are all of them or even most of them but that even that statement to Rogan is a tcid admission that there are of course differences so if there are differences and Wes knew that why then did he say that the texts are word for word identical well the idea is something like this although there are thousands of textual variants they're all basically insignificant and don't affect
• 07:00 - 07:30 the general reading of the text so when Wes says their word for word identical he did misspeak but he's still essentially correct because despite all of those differences they're still extremely similar and things like adding V pointing into Hebrew words don't change that here's Wes if Rogan had done what I did to Billy and asked do you mind if I ask a clarifying question and press me on what I meant by word for word I would have actually outlined the fact that no two handwritten documents
• 07:30 - 08:00 ever match exactly but that the overwhelming agreement between the Isaiah scroll and the later Matic text is shocking despite orthographic and minor scribal differences we've already separated the orthographic variants so are the rest really all Quote minor scribal differences this seems to be the big question and so for an answer I wanted to ask someone who really knows what they're talking about Kip Davis who are you I'm a Biblical scholar uh scholar of the Hebrew Bible and a
• 08:00 - 08:30 specialist in early Judaism and the Dead Sea Scrolls and those long long long variant lists for one Q Isaiah a that Dan mclen showed on the screen in his videos I I'm the guy who wrote those okay we found our man so are the textual variants really all minor scribal differences and nothing more to that end among these textual variants are what
• 08:30 - 09:00 the editors of this manuscript have identified also as isolated insertions the term denotes complete thoughts that learned scribes occasionally inserted into the text they were copying when they considered it appropriate there's a total actually of what they identify as two deviations larger sense deviations from the mtic text which agree with the te with the septu agent but then there's seven more that deviate from the m sertic texts that don't align with
• 09:00 - 09:30 anything so it's not all insignificant at least not textually speaking sometimes entire verses are altered and even if some missing verses don't much affect your theological interpretation of Isaiah textually speaking and we are doing textual analysis of a manuscript here is it not significant when entire verses are missing this is much more than just the addition of vow pointing into Hebrew words well let's hear Gavin's explanation you may recall an example I gave in my original video but
• 09:30 - 10:00 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 he proceeds to quote from the digital Dead Sea Scrolls project to butress this point and he's correct about the scroll in question however there are multiple Scrolls of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in these different Caves at kumran and one scroll is nearly complete that's the great Isaiah scroll but there's many any other fragmentary texts the same website
• 10:00 - 10:30 that Alex quotes from to get the 2,600 figure also notes around 20 additional copies of the book of Isaiah were found there and in other manuscripts that part of Isaiah 29 and Isaiah 210 are included and that again is noted uh at from the same website that Alex quoted from this was also a popular comment on my video once again Wes is essentially correct but hold on let's look again at the quote that Gavin just put on screen
• 10:30 - 11:00 because there's something suspicious about it he quotes here a whole paragraph from the digital Dead Sea Scrolls except Gavin has actually left out a sentence if you look at the source for this quote you'll notice that it's exactly the same except Gavin has left out the final sentence of the paragraph that he showed on screen let's read the sentence he left out this confirms that these verses although early enough were a late addition to the ancient and more original version reflected in the great
• 11:00 - 11:30 Isaiah scroll yeah that's right the full quote confirms that these verses are a later addition why would Gavin leave that sentence out you know the sentence which agrees with the argument I was making it is incredibly misleading and at best a big mistake from Gavin and in Gavin's response he actually Cuts me off a bit short his where he cuts me off the end of verse 9 and all of verse 10 are simply missing from the Dead Sea version they're just not there he proceeds to
• 11:30 - 12:00 quote from the digital Dead Sea Scrolls but look at the very next thing I said are simply missing from the Dead Sea version they're just not there which tells us that they were a later Edition which tells us that they were a later Edition that's the conclusion of my point that's why I brought it up Gavin may not know this but those other texts containing those missing verses are dated later than the Isaiah scroll itself that's one reason why on the website it says that this shows that these verses are a later Edition but
• 12:00 - 12:30 while Gavin shows a quote on screen explaining that well those missing verses are found in other texts nearby he cuts out the sentence explaining that this shows that these verses are a later Edition why would he do that but besides even without this mistake Gavin's point is still a non sequitor anyway Wes Huff said that the Isaiah scroll specifically is identical to the mastic text so what if other later separate texts contain those missing verses this is a clear
• 12:30 - 13:00 moving of the goalposts and there's more while Gavin mentioned that there are 20 other copies of the book of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls only two of them retain the missing verses that we're looking for 4 q Isaiah a and 4 q Isiah B but both of those manuscripts which again are later than the Isaiah scroll anyway are also fragmentary and so crucially don't even contain the missing verses in their entirety they only contain fragments and even in those fragments the words still don't quite
• 13:00 - 13:30 match the mastic text to be specific both forq Isaiah a and for Q Isaiah B preserved the first word of the missing part of verse 9 and that word is different to the mastic version although they do basically mean the same thing and do not for Q Isaiah B preserves the last four words of verse 10 and these do seem to match the mastic text and foru Isaiah a contains part of the second word of verse 9 the word forgive and
• 13:30 - 14:00 this seems to match the Matic text as well as one other tiny bit of another word from verse 10 which seems to match but as you can see it's quite unclear we don't have any of the rest of the missing passage no other Dead Sea scroll fragments preserve this part of Isaiah so even if we do include other manuscripts even if we include all of the manuscripts found near kumran in our reconstruction of Isaiah which is already a broadening of the goalposts we still don't find the missing verses in
• 14:00 - 14:30 their entirety and the parts that we do get as well as being later than the Isaiah scroll which is the one that we're interested in still also vary slightly from the mastic text the Dead Sea Scrolls if you just want them to be evidence that the Bible hasn't changed you lose like you can characterize them and you can squint at them and you can try to come up with fuzzy rhic but if you are taking a hard critical look at the data it what it shows is that there
• 14:30 - 15:00 is still quite a bit of textual fluidity and we're seeing the developmental accretion of text to the Bible and Isaiah 29b through1 is a perfect example of that that is something and and it doesn't surprise me that that kind of thing would be omitted from a quotation because it would be phenomenally unhelpful for his rhetorical goals to uh to have that in there because that's going to raise more questions than it's going to answer one more thing I said that Gavin has moved the goalposts by
• 15:00 - 15:30 talking about these other texts but Gavin disputes this now if I heard him correctly Wes seemed to acknowledge that not all of the Dead Sea Scrolls have the same degree of accuracy so perhaps he was talking about the overall information yielded from the Dead Sea Scrolls as a collection of texts rather than just one manuscript among them because he's certainly aware of the diversity of manuscripts that we have but no Wes was not talking about the whole library of the Dead Sea rolls and what we can yield from it as a whole
• 15:30 - 16:00 that seems to me just a blatant misrepresentation he was quite clearly talking about a specific singular manuscript the Isaiah scroll as separated from the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls seriously listen to what he says 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 was uh in the Matic text which is in the Middle Ages
• 16:00 - 16:30 wa yeah so it was literally a thousand years we literally pushed back our 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 Matic text word for word word for word I'll just repeat that this isn't true of all of the Dead Sea Scrolls but what shocked Scholars about the Isaiah scroll is that it was word for word identical but Gavin thinks that maybe he
• 16:30 - 17:00 was talking about all of the Dead Sea Scrolls and not one manuscript in particular I have no idea how he's arrived at this suggestion once again compare Gavin so perhaps he was talking about the overall information yielded from the Dead Sea Scrolls as a collection of texts rather than just one manuscript among them with West so this isn't true for all of the Dead Sea Scrolls but when we discovered the great Isaiah scroll I'll leave it to you to decide what to make of that continues so I'm not 100% sure what Wes meant by word
• 17:00 - 17:30 for word I'll leave that for him to clarify okay I get that we're trying to be charitable but there's being charitable when someone gets something wrong and being so charitable that we don't admit that they got something wrong given everything we've covered was I supposed to think that by word for word identical what Wes might have meant was that the Isaiah scroll is mostly similar to the mastic text except for separate to the list of orthographic variants thousands of textual variants except where entire verses are missing
• 17:30 - 18:00 all together in which case if you collect other manuscripts of Isaiah from the Dead Sea Scrolls you'll find two later incomplete fragments of those missing verses and if you put all of that together you end up with a text which is about 93% similar to the Matic text I don't think that's what he meant I think he just got it wrong maybe the texts are still really similar and that's really cool but they're not word for word identical in any sense I'd really like to know what Gavin makes of everything I've covered here seriously
• 18:00 - 18:30 Gavin if you're watching I'd love to hear from you but now let's move on to Wes Huff's own response video in which he explains that he did in fact misspeak about the Isaiah scroll but he also tells us why that happened let's take a look but let me tell you why I said what I said what was going on in the back of my mind was a quote that I was recalling from Old Testament scholar gleon archers a survey of the Old Testament where he talks about the copies of Isaiah found in kumran cave 1 in 1947 that they were a thousand years earlier than the oldest
• 18:30 - 19:00 dated manuscripts previously known proving to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible and more than 95% identical to the mastic text specifically the Leningrad codex calling it almost letter forl with that manuscript also I had only a few months previously to this discussion with Rogan read Old Testament textual critic Emanuel to's textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible where he breaks down the variant of oneq Isaiah B and Compares them to the lri Codex describing the differences with the word minutia
• 19:00 - 19:30 granted both Archer and Tove are talking about one Q Isaiah B and my statement to Rogan was specifically in context to 1q Isaiah a but that is what was going through my mind when I had the conversation so curiously Wes Begins by admitting that he was recalling two quotes both of which are actually talking about a different text one Q Isaiah B and not the isah scroll which is 1q Isaiah a but if you were looking closely you might have seen that even here in his response video he still
• 19:30 - 20:00 misquotes GLE and Archer listen again and I'll jump in they were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscripts previously known proving to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible and more than 95% identical to the mastic text pause it's not word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible and more than 95% identical to the mastic text it's word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95% of that
• 20:00 - 20:30 text of course saying something is identical in 95% of the text just means that it's 95% identical but Wes misquotes Archer separating the word for word comment from the 95% comment proving to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible and more than 95% identical to the mastic text which for anybody listening is going to make it sound like his word forword statement was correct and separate from the 95% comment in the quote let's keep
• 20:30 - 21:00 listening and more than 95% identical to the Matic text specifically the Leningrad codex calling it almost letter forl with that manuscript pause again Wes was talking about the two copies of Isaiah and their 95% similarity with the mauretic text and then says quote specifically the Leningrad codex calling it almost letter for letter with that manuscript but if you look Archer has actually switched here to speaking exclusively about w q Isaiah B so not
• 21:00 - 21:30 including the Isaiah scroll he even uses the word but but Wes doesn't quote him like that and doesn't make this clear look again read the words that are on screen gleon Archer says that these two copies of Isaiah proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in 95% of the text but in the case of w q Isaiah B this manuscript is almost letter for letter with the Leningrad codex but Wes says out loud that the two copies of Isaiah are word
• 21:30 - 22:00 for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible and more than 95% identical to the Matic text specifically the Leningrad codex Wes has at best paraphrased archer in a really unhelpful way which makes it sound as though an unqualified version of the phrase word for word identical was correct and also that the almost letter foret identical phrase might apply to both manuscripts
• 22:00 - 22:30 rather than just one Q Isaiah B and to preempt some comments you may think that I'm just nitpicking at his words here or being pedantic but remember this is Wes's clarification video his awaited response to the criticism that he got the isah scroll wrong on the biggest podcast in the world and he's not speaking off the cuff this time he's thought out and prepared the exact words he wants to say so I think it's important to point out that even now when showing us the word that he misquoted on Rogan he misqu them again
• 22:30 - 23:00 while reading them out now interestingly Wes does then go on to admit that these quotes are actually mostly talking about the wrong manuscript granted both Archer and Tove are talking about oneq Isaiah B and my statement to Rogan was specifically in context to 1q Isaiah a but that is what was going through my mind when I had the conversation but does this mean that he was wrong what does he say in response to this at the same time I have actually been contact with a number of Old Testament Scholars
• 23:00 - 23:30 even ones who specialize in 1q isaa a itself who have assured me that although there is disagreement across the scholarly Spectrum the statements are equally applied across both documents the statements are equally applied across both documents honestly I'm just not even sure what Wes means here and neither are the experts that I consulted it's totally unclear by the statements I presume he means the quotes that he put on screen maybe that's why he altered
• 23:30 - 24:00 Archer's quote as he was reading it out because it does make it sound more like it could apply to both documents but what does the statements are applied equally across both documents actually mean does Wes mean that the letter for letter identity that Archer applies to WQ Isaiah B can also be applied to WQ Isaiah a that wouldn't be correct does he mean that the mastic text is 95% the same if you count both WQ Isaiah a A and B that's a totally different claim to
• 24:00 - 24:30 the one he originally made does he mean that Emanuel to's statement which was only about oneq Isaiah B is also true of wonu Isaiah a and so applies equally across both documents in that sense that wouldn't be true either so what does Wes mean by this it's completely unclear and to me doesn't justify The View that despite him misapplying some misquoted statements about an incorrect text and admitting that he did so it's not that
• 24:30 - 25:00 he was wrong exactly but rather just imprecise or hyperbolic this was admittedly a hyperbolic statement that I should have been much more careful on should I have been more careful in my statement on Rogan about the great Isaiah scroll and used much more precise language something to the effect of nearly identical rather than word for word identical in order to not bring unnecessary and unfortunate scrutiny upon my discussion with him yes but I hope hope you can see why I said what I
• 25:00 - 25:30 said and forgive me for my lack of precision and to be clear the problem is obviously not that Wes got this wrong we all do that especially in high press unscripted environments the problem is with the response is it perfectly understandable that he misremembered something because he was commenting on something that he was not particularly well informed about and was not his specialization and we should give people Grace for that 100% I'm totally in line with that that happens to everybody who is is engaged in this kind of public scholarship where we have to try to be
• 25:30 - 26:00 generalists and sometimes we find ourselves commenting on things that we don't know incredibly well and sometimes we misspeak sometimes we misremember that happens but how you take accountability for it I think says an awful lot about what what your priorities are and what your ultimate goals are and I don't think accountability has been adequately taken here uh I think the attempt is still to salvage the apologetic goal of reassuring the audience that their dogmas are safe but okay just one more thing to finish this video off even if
• 26:00 - 26:30 the Isaiah scroll is not word for word identical with the mastic text isn't it still just amazing to find a possibly 92.5% Fidelity between the two texts remember the overwhelming agreement between the Isaiah scroll and the later Matic text is shocking despite orthographic and minor scribble differences isn't it still a wow moment Rogan's reaction to the correction of wording should be EXA L the same it is a
• 26:30 - 27:00 wow moment isn't it still just amazing and unheard of for an ancient text to be so well preserved but here's the thing there's nothing special about 1q Isaiah a or any biblical manuscripts in terms of their Fidelity or how close they are to later copies of the Old Testament you could do the same thing with manuscripts of pretty much anything from Antiquity so why are we so so shocked and so excited when the Bible when biblical
• 27:00 - 27:30 manuscripts basically just look like all other ancient manuscripts that's why by the way it would be amazing if the Isaiah scroll was different from other texts in being actually word for word with no variance yeah and if if you you want something that if you want something that approaches that kind of textual Fidelity we have you know manuscripts for that too they just all happen to be manuscripts of the now there are
• 27:30 - 28:00 reasons why that is the case uh that are not miraculous either it's just the nature of how the kumran was was transmitted and preserved which is quite different the circumstances behind that are quite different from anything in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament or or the GRE or Roman world but you know that's where those manuscripts are and this brought to mind an interesting hypothetical imagine for a moment that a Muslim went on Joe Rogan and claimed
• 28:00 - 28:30 that they'd found some thousand year old Quran that was word for word identical with the Quran we have today and imagine this really impressed Joe Rogan as well if it then transpired that there were in fact thousands of textual variants in that Quran including entire verses missing all together how charitable do you think the Christian Community would be to that muslim's mistake especially if it also transpired that he made this mistake because he misremembered a quote
• 28:30 - 29:00 about the wrong document that's a genuine question anyway I want to note that I don't make these arguments in some attempt to validate atheism I do not think that variants in the Isaiah scroll disprove Christianity or even mean that we can't trust the book of Isaiah in a broad sense I was simply calling out Wes Huff for mistakenly saying that the two texts are word for word identical and I'm now pointing out some mistakes that I think I've found in some of the respons answers that I've received so sorry this was such a long
• 29:00 - 29:30 video though if you think this was long Kip Davis actually just hosted a 3-hour live stream on this topic a link is of course in the description I just wanted to comprehensively cover this especially because people keep referring me to Gavin's video in particular hopefully you can now see why I think his response misses the mark whatever the case look out for part two at some point where I'll respond to the New Testament topics but for now thanks for watching and I'll see you in the next one