NB: I do have a correction to make to my video. I said there was a difference from the MT in almost every verse of the book of Isaiah, but the reality is that it's only about 60-75% of the verses that have a variant of some kind. I was thinking of the fact that there are variants from a major manuscript or from other DSS Isaiah manuscripts in almost every single verse of 1QIsa-a, but I only referred to differences from MT, and in doing so I misspoke.
Even Dan McClellan isn’t consistent. Which just kind of exemplifies that when humans try to do something, even with their best efforts, it will be likely imperfect. It’s very difficult to reconcile the idea of God being perfect and these being God‘s words with the idea of it being imperfect words. It doesn’t change the possibility that God could be perfect, but it does serve as a reminder that what the Bible is is a collection that was brought together and it has been changed and adapted by men as Dan McClellan often says
"only about 60- 75%"= More than every second verse. and the Nt authors still used Greek versions which disagree with the highly praised DSS, e.g. Isaiah 7 14 doesnt say virgin/almah but young woman/betulah 🤣
@@scotthannan8669 I agree.. The Word of God is perfect and is like pure water from a rain cloud.. It's pure when it comes from the source.. However as soon as the Word interacts with other medium such an imperfect human.. imperfections are bound to be added just like the rain drop landing on the mountain. And just as the rain water flows down the mountain to the sea, it picks up more and more impurities, so the Word of God picks up more and more imperfections as it's passed from person to person, text to text etc.
The no doctrine differences argument is very questionable given you have two major religions that are fundamentally different - christianity and Judaism - that appeal to Isaiah for doctrine.
Or the fact that Isaiah was written by at least 3 different authors and the fact that we don't even know how the first version looked like, because we have no early manuscripts.
Dan is the audience who _does_ know better :-) Thanks for the guidance. It's usually easy to spot when someone lies: claims of surprise from authority, their polar opposite (the rube) going ‘Waaauuuw!’, that kind of thing; but it is incredibly helpful to learn what exactly the lie constitutes.
Wow this is how you competently criticize if you're a literal Biblical critic: Dan SHOWS examples, walks you through in near-layman terms, gives you further reading then most importantly, inoculates the viewer, who may not know the creator (Wes), against forming wholly negative opinions about him: "I have seen Wes competently engage scholarship before..." That's how you do context.
Or the fact that Isaiah was written by at least 3 different authors and the fact that we don't even know how the first version looked like, because we have no early manuscripts
No man God idol trinity pagan human sacrifice calvary in any Isaiah or DSS. No "Virgin in future tense" in Isaiah 7:14 or "Him" in 53. No Muhammad originally Quran in DSS ... Orthodox Rabbis consider DSS "Shaimos" defective scripture which must be buried.
I'm so glad you did this. I studied Hebrew Bible text criticism a long time ago, and the claim stunk to begin with.... My training was in early christianity, and I was screaming at my phone as I listened to that interview. So many misrepresentations.
Can we conclude that this definitely also refutes claims of hidden messages as proposed by the Bible Codes? Even a small change in the text would invalidate the theory.
Why do apologists feel the need to claim that The Great Isaiah Scroll in particular is identical to the Masoretic Text? Especially here where Wes admits that other scrolls have variants?
Because they can go on Joe Rogan and make the claim knowing he won’t push back to think critically about the claim (he likely doesn’t have the knowledge-base). They know Rogan will just act as a place to push their propaganda.
@@Dave01Rhodes the Nt authors didn't even use the MT. They rather used Lxx versions. So you have Xtians saying the lxx versions are somehow the true God's words, e.g. when it comes to Young woman vs Virgin (Isaiah 7 14). And you have them praising the Mt at the same time while the Mt refutes the Nt.🤣
@Cr-pj8bz the masoretic text is a 10th century ad reconstruction. The catholic church use the Latin vulgate which is a B text of the septuigint. Most bibles use a combination of all three, or some use literal translation. Tabor has a dead sea scroll Bible. There are differences.
@@Swordoftruth289 the MT comes from a tradition way older and is closer to the DSS. The Nt didn't use them, rather the authors preferred man made "translations". The OT was written originally in Hebrew.
I was hoping we could actually see you have an interaction with Wes, but he recently made a video shooting down any debate requests. I am glad tho, you are correcting some of his more evangelical arguments for Christianity… Keep it up please!
@@matthews2243all a debate consists of is two viewpoints clashing, with a flock of followers that are backing their guy. After the debate is done, both sides of followers scream “MAN OUR GUY OWNED THAT OTHER GUY LOLOLOLOL” and almost nothing productive emerges.
You need only watch any presidental debat, or debate with a flat earther to see they are useless as factual quests, and are mostly just mental mast****ion.
@@VeridicusMaximus He holds a BA in sociology from York University, a Master of Theological Studies from Tyndale University, and is currently doing a PhD in New Testament at the University of Toronto’s Wycliffe College. This is from his website, but I'm guessing he's graduated already. He can read Greek, Hebrew, studies manuscripts and etc. Im not a christan but don't discredit him
I had a layman's interest in the DSS, especially when an exhibition came to Glasgow. I quickly discovered there were textual variants yet a 'senior respected leader' of the church I was in confidently told me that the DSS proved that "every word in 'his' [entire] Bible was correct".
The all-wise, all-knowing God could have avoided all these contradictions by simply downloading his "word" directly to our brains. He is, after all, omnipotent.
I knew this wasn't true before Dan even said it. Every biblical scholar looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls has pointed out differences with the MT, yet others continue to go on social media and falsely assert that these differences don't exist.
The claim by this apologist that Isaiah is "word for word identical" between the DSS and the Masoretic text really saddens me. Either he doesn't know what he is saying is rubbish (in which case he is an incredibly poor student of his chosen subject and his own bible says teachers will be judged more severely James 3:1 and I fear for him) or he is simply lying (doesn't he know that his own Bible says that all liars end up in the fiery lake of burning sulphur Revelation 21:8). Maybe he thinks if he gets converts this way then he gets a free pass from Rev 21:8 as the ends justify the means ?? Thanks Dan as always a great video with real scholarship.
Yes, it matches word for word, so long as "matches word for word" means "barely matches at all and tons of stuff was changed all over the place" (I read his correction but still, it's close to 3/4 is changed so yeah, it's changed). Apologists make up definitions and use words in weird ways all the time (*cough* Kind *cough*). Golly, it's almost like they totally forget about that commandment about bearing false witness.
Why do people want so badly for Isaiah to have never changed? When I was a believer, Isaiah was important to me, but I was also aware how different the Dead Sea scrolls were. I also don't get the "It's 1000 years older" thing this guy is saying. We know 2 Isaiah was written later than 1 Isaiah, but only by centuries. Isaiah says who's king at the time. He dates himself, so it couldn't be 1000 years older. This statement is so baffling. Does he think archeologists date Isaiah after Christianity?
I find Dan's compliment of this guy's abilities as more damning than if he had simply written him off. The fact that he does have the ability to engage with scholars shows that he's not like the typical apologist who just uncritically and unknowingly repeats false information he either heard elsewhere or misheard (which is bad enough). This shows that he's KNOWINGLY spreading false information with the intent to deceive audiences. Lying for God.
When you were first going through the beginning of Isaiah 53, it appeared that most of the circled differences were near or at the end of the lines. Is there any significance to this?
Joe said he would love to see somone on the podcast with Wes but somone who disagrees with him. Would be interesting to see you both talk through things, though I doubt it will happen.
I caught Ruslan’s live. It was pretty lame response, i don’t think he looked up Isaiah 2:9, 2:10 or 2:11. His basic critique is what you said does not change the theology between IQIsa and the MT.
@@Cr-pj8bz Great. Is the earliest text of Isaiah the "Dead sea Scroll" text? And is that the text that says Young woman or is there a text that is earlier than that that is available to review online? Thanks for your time. Best regards.
The earliest text of Isaiah 7:14 is in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is in Hebrew and that has young woman not virgin. Greek manuscripts with virgin do not date prior to the Christian era, and I believe can be found in Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus.
While it is wildly inaccurate to say that 1QIsa'a matches the MT word for word, it is also wildly inaccurate to say that "1QIsa'a differs from the MT in almost every single verse of the book of Isaiah." It's easy enough to check this claim. While many the differences vary in terms of their impact on the meaning of the verses in question, differences only occur every 3 or 4 verses. Not every single verse. I completely agree with you that there are many differences, I don't know why people say they are identical. The apologetic approach easily creates motivation to stretch details to establish points.
You're right to correct me. For some reason I had in my head any variant from any major manuscript rather than just MT, however, after counting up MT variants in several chapters from 1QIsa-a, the proportion comes out to about 75% of the verses having a variant of some kind from MT. It's not just every 3 or 4 verses, but it's not quite "almost every verse." I'll post a comment correcting that.
@@jaredmatthews1561 75% of the verses have differences which is huge and the Nt didn't even use the MT but rather Lxx versions. Eg. Isaiah 7 14 in the Nt says Virgin while the MT and Dss say young woman
@@Cr-pj8bz I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly what your point is by saying that, or what your conclusion is. I agree, it is a pretty big deal that there are differences, and that's why these manuscripts are so important. A large amount of the verses are indeed different! However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that 70% of the verses meanings are altered by these differences. The vast majority of these differences are either spelling differences, or scribal errors that don't radically change what the verse says. However, there are certainly verses that have meanings that are altered by the differences. I'm not sure exactly why this is a problem. I love textual criticism and am excited that now we have discovered what might be what the text originally said, and we can thereby now understand the text better! I see this as deepening our understanding of Isaiah, rather than a problem for anyone (except of course those who claim that the text is perfectly preserved).
Dan in 1000 years finds a tomb from today with someone wearing a cross necklace. He concludes the cross was being used for magical purposes. Overextension of theories that is so typical in this field.
The Great Isaiah Scroll matches the Masoretic text word for word - except for the thousands of words where it doesn't. This is why I prefer the term "excusegist" to "apologist." Apologist try to explain or contextualize; excusegists just straight-up lie.
After looking at the text, it seems like it is a bit of speculation to claim that they were for sure magical amulets meant to ward off evil. It's better to present speculation as speculation.
@@pigetstuck Yes, they explicitly say to protect and guard them from evil. It is also common among other cultures in this region. The Bible has magical (as we would understand it) practices in it. It's more of a matter of which magic is sanctioned or not - not whether it actually existed as such. Ps.12:6-9 is a foundational : _The utterance of YHWH are pure utterances, silver refined in a furnace in the earth, purified seven times. You O YHWH, will guard them; you will protect him from this generation forever. On every side the wicked prowl, a vileness is exalted among humankind._ These silver amulets put verses on them as way to invoke (utter the words of YHWH ) the deities protection!
So, Wes KNOWS that his answers are false, but he makes them anyway. For me, this is conclusive proof that an apologist will happily lie in order to promote their religion.
Dan explains in detail and he is also somewhat gentle in his criticism. But let's be plain. This apologist is a liar. He absolutely knows better but he was not telling the truth. And Joe Rogan is just the person to go to if you want to spread lies. The man is so dumb he will believe anything he is told by anyone he considers to be authoritative.
Isn’t Wes a PhD student studying to be a NT scholar? I don’t understand why someone would go through years of school and make such an elementary mistake.
@VeridicusMaximus If you ever wish to judge fairly Catholicism vs. all brands of Protestantism , to include Mormonism, then you will see all of the issues within Protestant beliefs. Faith is a belief. I have no reason to believe that monotheism evolved from polytheism.. Regardless of evolutionists Dan's Apologetics claims about it... All you need during the polytheism times before Moses is just one person at or during that time that only one God exists. Dan knows that he is the same Species as his father god. Good for him. He is a Joseph Smith believer so he cannot claim that he does not believe this... There is a reason why Mormons believe in Mormonism. It is not because of historical facts....kolob is not heaven...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that it's the shorter Qumran Isaiah scroll that closely matches the Masoretic, not the great Isaiah scroll. Is that correct?
Not a scholar myself, but a Smithsonian article (search for "Smithsonian" and "The Dead Sea Scrolls: Isaiah Scroll, Manuscript B") says, inter alia, "The text of this Isaiah scroll is close to the fixed Masoretic text of medieval codices, but not as close as appeared at first."
@johnmcgimpsey1825 yeah, I asked Dr Kipp and he confirmed this (he also has a pretty good RUclips series in the DSS where I first heard it a bit over a year ago I think)
@zevsero9170 Verify.. Only Yemen has one extra letter which doesn't change meaning of Hebrew word in their Tanakh . Yemenite Jews were never exposed to Christianity missionaries
Instead of saying "he's using hyperbole," or "he's over-exaggerating," or even "he's sincerely mistaken," the default assumption for you guys is "he's lying." interesting.
@@d__w295 that would be a big no Mr. Psychologist. This is a common phenomenon. He is clearly lying based on the evidence he has provided elsewhere that he actually has knowledge on the subject. He is lying. He knows he is lying. He is lying with purpose. You and he can call it whatever you like while you try to dance around the fact he said what he said. What he said is preposterous for ANYONE who has remotely looked into the subject. Now, someone like Joe Rogan will eat up like there's no tomorrow and that is exactly why he lied to Joe Rogan. He wouldn't say it if he was talking to anyone knowledgeable on the subject. Hyperbole. You're a comedian. 🤣
Why would they be? It'd be mindblowing if we got a scroll from the 8th or 7th or 6th century BCE that was identical to the MT, but not this. Nobody was arguing for corruption by the 100s BCE.
Leading biblical archaeologist and scholar WF Albright said they were “the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times” in 1947. Millar Burrows thought they were pretty important too. Maybe I’m totally wrong and they were actually all pretty disgusted by the differences.
@@JohnGrapes the Mt wasn't even used by Xtians. So I don't know how this would help them. XTIANS rather used Greek translations which contradict the MT/DSS. E.g. the Nt says Virgin while the DSS and Mt say young woman
What’s funny is that Dan isn’t pushing people to deconstruct. He wants people to read and celebrate the Bible. He just wants them to celebrate the Bible for what it actually is, not what we want it to be.
@@billcook4768 they aren't even reliable. E.g. the Gospels don't go back to Jesus and are theology of groups rather than history. Isaiah was written by different authors. And the Nt claims the Hebrew books are God's word. The Ot makes the same claims.
@@ChaZ-cp6qwFound the pedantic English major. I guess you know that sometimes people who are already famous go on Rogan? Wes (as far as I know) doesn't fit that category
So this man is lying. Plain and simple. He knows there are numerous and significant differences, and yet he’s lying and claiming there aren’t because he would rather lie about gods word than spread it truthfully. Sounds kind of like a false profit to me
I’m a liberal Christian but can’t help but notice Dan always seems to have an axe to grind with Christians. Maybe the guy on Rogan misspoke a little and could have been more clear in his claims, but for Dan to act like there are huge differences between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic text is also, to use his term, “wildly inaccurate”. It’s amazing that they are as close and well-preserved as what it is, spanning 1000 years. You can acknowledge that without calling yourself a “Bible-toting Christian”. Dan never has anything charitable to say toward Christians or the Christian faith, just constantly attacking.
There are many differences (about 60-75% of the verses have differences) and different versions of that book in the scrolls. And Isaiah was written by at least three different authors at different times and we don't even know how the first version looked like,because we have no early manuscripts of that book. And Dan is a biblical scholar. If you can't handle the truth, it's your problem
I disagree that Dan is saying there is a “huge” difference. The argument is clearly stated the “word-for-word” claim is more apology speaking than scholarship. Dan’s channel has been specific in its purpose to give the public access to scholarly consensus on biblical matters. It is not for pushing faith promotion. That’s not the purpose. You will notice that nearly every video is about correcting people, no matter their creed. As far as I’ve seen, he doesn’t say anything about Christians or the religion, just against those who use the Bible to spread disinformation or establish power dynamics for purposes of identity politics. As opposed to “constantly attacking”, I believe the purpose of the channel is to constantly correct misinformation where it is found. It just happens that small portions of those who subscribe to the Christian faith tend to be a large portion of the perpetrators of the misinformation.
Dan uses his platform to debunk videos that misinform people on biblical scholarship. Unfortunately, most of those claims are coming from Christians. But he has also debunked many non-Chrstians along the way. I think you are seeing through your hurt emotions, as opposed to puzzling this out logically. Notice how even now you are trying to defend the Bible as if Dan attacked it. He did not. He rightly point out that the vast majority of verses differ from the two manuscripts. That is all. He did not say anything else. He simply cleared up where this person misspoke. This was hardly a hit piece or a slander. If anything Dan showed great respect while correcting misinformation, be it misspoken or misinformed.
Hit dogs will holler. If you perceive an attack, when the entire purpose of the channel is to increase knowledge and education about the Bible and to decrease misinformation, then one has to assume that you are recognizing some of the dishonesty Dan points to from other people within yourself.
NB: I do have a correction to make to my video. I said there was a difference from the MT in almost every verse of the book of Isaiah, but the reality is that it's only about 60-75% of the verses that have a variant of some kind. I was thinking of the fact that there are variants from a major manuscript or from other DSS Isaiah manuscripts in almost every single verse of 1QIsa-a, but I only referred to differences from MT, and in doing so I misspoke.
Even Dan McClellan isn’t consistent. Which just kind of exemplifies that when humans try to do something, even with their best efforts, it will be likely imperfect. It’s very difficult to reconcile the idea of God being perfect and these being God‘s words with the idea of it being imperfect words.
It doesn’t change the possibility that God could be perfect, but it does serve as a reminder that what the Bible is is a collection that was brought together and it has been changed and adapted by men as Dan McClellan often says
"only about 60- 75%"= More than every second verse. and the Nt authors still used Greek versions which disagree with the highly praised DSS, e.g. Isaiah 7 14 doesnt say virgin/almah but young woman/betulah 🤣
Thanks for correcting
@@scotthannan8669 I agree.. The Word of God is perfect and is like pure water from a rain cloud.. It's pure when it comes from the source.. However as soon as the Word interacts with other medium such an imperfect human.. imperfections are bound to be added just like the rain drop landing on the mountain. And just as the rain water flows down the mountain to the sea, it picks up more and more impurities, so the Word of God picks up more and more imperfections as it's passed from person to person, text to text etc.
I'm curious, what is the percent if we don't consider clear copy mistakes and misspellings? How much of the wording is different?
I heard Wes make this claim and it boggled my mind. This video is very helpful for folks, Dan.
Interesting. Wondering what you thought of the interview Joel. Fan of your content!
@khanburger3610 It was fine in many ways and there were probably 10-15 major mistakes (IMO) that should have been avoided.
@@JoelKorytko mistakes regarding scholarship?
The no doctrine differences argument is very questionable given you have two major religions that are fundamentally different - christianity and Judaism - that appeal to Isaiah for doctrine.
Or the fact that Isaiah was written by at least 3 different authors and the fact that we don't even know how the first version looked like, because we have no early manuscripts.
Dan is the audience who _does_ know better :-) Thanks for the guidance.
It's usually easy to spot when someone lies: claims of surprise from authority, their polar opposite (the rube) going ‘Waaauuuw!’, that kind of thing; but it is incredibly helpful to learn what exactly the lie constitutes.
It’s shockingly accurate…if you ignore all the errors
They're not theological difference, tho.
Wow this is how you competently criticize if you're a literal Biblical critic:
Dan SHOWS examples, walks you through in near-layman terms, gives you further reading then most importantly, inoculates the viewer, who may not know the creator (Wes), against forming wholly negative opinions about him: "I have seen Wes competently engage scholarship before..."
That's how you do context.
Apologists bring of the Great Isaiah Scroll but never bring up the fact they found other Isaiah Scrolls at Qumran.
Sure, some don’t but Wes brought this up in the podcast.
Or the fact that Isaiah was written by at least 3 different authors and the fact that we don't even know how the first version looked like, because we have no early manuscripts
No man God idol trinity pagan human sacrifice calvary in any Isaiah or DSS.
No "Virgin in future tense" in Isaiah 7:14 or "Him" in 53.
No Muhammad originally Quran in DSS ...
Orthodox Rabbis consider DSS "Shaimos" defective scripture which must be buried.
@@Nudnik1"No Mohammed originally Quran in dss".
????
@bristolrovers27 joking
"I've seen Wes engage competently with scholarship but this is not an example of that." LOL
I'm so glad you did this. I studied Hebrew Bible text criticism a long time ago, and the claim stunk to begin with.... My training was in early christianity, and I was screaming at my phone as I listened to that interview. So many misrepresentations.
Can we conclude that this definitely also refutes claims of hidden messages as proposed by the Bible Codes? Even a small change in the text would invalidate the theory.
Why do apologists feel the need to claim that The Great Isaiah Scroll in particular is identical to the Masoretic Text? Especially here where Wes admits that other scrolls have variants?
Because they can go on Joe Rogan and make the claim knowing he won’t push back to think critically about the claim (he likely doesn’t have the knowledge-base). They know Rogan will just act as a place to push their propaganda.
I’m saying that I’ve heard apologists make this claim about Isaiah specifically several times before, not just on Rogan.
@@Dave01Rhodes the Nt authors didn't even use the MT. They rather used Lxx versions. So you have Xtians saying the lxx versions are somehow the true God's words, e.g. when it comes to Young woman vs Virgin (Isaiah 7 14). And you have them praising the Mt at the same time while the Mt refutes the Nt.🤣
@Cr-pj8bz the masoretic text is a 10th century ad reconstruction.
The catholic church use the Latin vulgate which is a B text of the septuigint.
Most bibles use a combination of all three, or some use literal translation.
Tabor has a dead sea scroll Bible. There are differences.
@@Swordoftruth289 the MT comes from a tradition way older and is closer to the DSS. The Nt didn't use them, rather the authors preferred man made "translations". The OT was written originally in Hebrew.
Wes got his five minutes of fame and is now dodging any and all critiques. Sad
They have to make the book magical,
so you will do,
what they say it says to do
I saw this short today and I subconsciously knew Dan will respond
3:58 Parablepsis. It's on Ehrman's final exam.
I was hoping we could actually see you have an interaction with Wes, but he recently made a video shooting down any debate requests.
I am glad tho, you are correcting some of his more evangelical arguments for Christianity…
Keep it up please!
Facts
Yeah, Dan has said he's not interested in debates either. Debating doesn't really do much to establish truth, it's just entertainment.
@@matthews2243all a debate consists of is two viewpoints clashing, with a flock of followers that are backing their guy.
After the debate is done, both sides of followers scream “MAN OUR GUY OWNED THAT OTHER GUY LOLOLOLOL” and almost nothing productive emerges.
Dan doesnt debate
You need only watch any presidental debat, or debate with a flat earther to see they are useless as factual quests, and are mostly just mental mast****ion.
Joe Rogan Podcast - what do you expect though 😊
I think what Dan’s saying is that we shouldn’t expect scholarly discussion on Joe Rogan’s show :)
You definitely shouldn't expect facts from Rogan or his guests
Maybe Dan could be on Joe Rogan’s podcast
Your Hebrew and Greek are so good that you see no reason to mention that you are discussing a book that presupposes fluent Hebrew and Greek.
I knew Dan would comb through that. It was dreadfully boring and that Canadian accent was dreadful. Joe should have had Dan on
Mocking someone's accent, how edgy and cool.
@lavieestlenfer let me guess you are Canadian?
Even fellow scholars like Wess isn't safe from Dan
😂
He is an apologist. His views are only minority views
He's not even a scholar.
@@VeridicusMaximus He holds a BA in sociology from York University, a Master of Theological Studies from Tyndale University, and is currently doing a PhD in New Testament at the University of Toronto’s Wycliffe College. This is from his website, but I'm guessing he's graduated already. He can read Greek, Hebrew, studies manuscripts and etc. Im not a christan but don't discredit him
@@maxmccarrick5671 Well, he still only represents a minority view, because he of his evangelical bias
I had a layman's interest in the DSS, especially when an exhibition came to Glasgow. I quickly discovered there were textual variants yet a 'senior respected leader' of the church I was in confidently told me that the DSS proved that "every word in 'his' [entire] Bible was correct".
The all-wise, all-knowing God could have avoided all these contradictions by simply downloading his "word" directly to our brains. He is, after all, omnipotent.
Wait, you don't have a head copy? I guess you wouldn't believe me if I said I did. You are doubtless the doubting type.
😂
And being god, there could be no issues of translation, cause being god, he would make sure your brain understood it exactly.
It always amuses me when athiests have stupider, more superstitious ideas than fundies.
@@byrondickensSarcasm much?
'Word-for-word"?! Really?!
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
I knew this wasn't true before Dan even said it. Every biblical scholar looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls has pointed out differences with the MT, yet others continue to go on social media and falsely assert that these differences don't exist.
The claim by this apologist that Isaiah is "word for word identical" between the DSS and the Masoretic text really saddens me. Either he doesn't know what he is saying is rubbish (in which case he is an incredibly poor student of his chosen subject and his own bible says teachers will be judged more severely James 3:1 and I fear for him) or he is simply lying (doesn't he know that his own Bible says that all liars end up in the fiery lake of burning sulphur Revelation 21:8). Maybe he thinks if he gets converts this way then he gets a free pass from Rev 21:8 as the ends justify the means ?? Thanks Dan as always a great video with real scholarship.
Yes, it matches word for word, so long as "matches word for word" means "barely matches at all and tons of stuff was changed all over the place" (I read his correction but still, it's close to 3/4 is changed so yeah, it's changed).
Apologists make up definitions and use words in weird ways all the time (*cough* Kind *cough*). Golly, it's almost like they totally forget about that commandment about bearing false witness.
Litterally came here to see if Dan responded to Wes Joe
Why do people want so badly for Isaiah to have never changed? When I was a believer, Isaiah was important to me, but I was also aware how different the Dead Sea scrolls were. I also don't get the "It's 1000 years older" thing this guy is saying. We know 2 Isaiah was written later than 1 Isaiah, but only by centuries. Isaiah says who's king at the time. He dates himself, so it couldn't be 1000 years older. This statement is so baffling. Does he think archeologists date Isaiah after Christianity?
Thank you. I appreciate your shared knowledge so much.
❤❤❤❤❤❤thanks Dan
I find Dan's compliment of this guy's abilities as more damning than if he had simply written him off. The fact that he does have the ability to engage with scholars shows that he's not like the typical apologist who just uncritically and unknowingly repeats false information he either heard elsewhere or misheard (which is bad enough). This shows that he's KNOWINGLY spreading false information with the intent to deceive audiences. Lying for God.
i don't know why i hadn't thought of this before, but these sorts of apotropeic amulets are akin to portable mezuzot.
So, does this mean that Stryper has to change its band name?
Is that the band that used to have Ted Cruz as lead singer?
Dear Saint of Don't Go Down that Rabbit Hole, thank you for your intervention...again.
When you were first going through the beginning of Isaiah 53, it appeared that most of the circled differences were near or at the end of the lines. Is there any significance to this?
Please do a critical breakdown of the Book of Mormom. I love to see scholarly criticism on *all* versions!
Dan would have been a great surgeon. He cuts rapidly with absolute precision time after time.
Joe said he would love to see somone on the podcast with Wes but somone who disagrees with him. Would be interesting to see you both talk through things, though I doubt it will happen.
I mean, the entire MT is the headlining act of one giant apologetics road tour 😆.
Sounds like he's 'wespiring huffosophy'.
Sheesh, lmao
what texts were used to create the Masoretic version of the Hebrew bible?
@@danielbeck2414 a tradition which is closer to the DSs than any texts the Nt used
@@Cr-pj8bz Dead Sea Scroll hadn't been discovered when the Masoretic Bible was created.
We don’t know.
I caught Ruslan’s live. It was pretty lame response, i don’t think he looked up Isaiah 2:9, 2:10 or 2:11. His basic critique is what you said does not change the theology between IQIsa and the MT.
6:54 ... that's always the statrting point for apologetics...
Lying, in other words.
Bearing false witness. Also known as lying for Jesus.
‘Word for word identical’ in apologetics probably means around 70% identical.
So in your opinion what is the earlier/first rendering of Is. 7:14 Virgin or young woman? Best regards.
@@CoryMartz the earliest text say YOUNG WOMAN. There is no pre Xtian manuscript which says Virgin.
@@Cr-pj8bz Great. Is the earliest text of Isaiah the "Dead sea Scroll" text? And is that the text that says Young woman or is there a text that is earlier than that that is available to review online? Thanks for your time. Best regards.
@@CoryMartz as far as I know the DSS is the oldest text witness for young woman instead virgin.
The earliest text of Isaiah 7:14 is in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is in Hebrew and that has young woman not virgin. Greek manuscripts with virgin do not date prior to the Christian era, and I believe can be found in Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus.
While it is wildly inaccurate to say that 1QIsa'a matches the MT word for word, it is also wildly inaccurate to say that "1QIsa'a differs from the MT in almost every single verse of the book of Isaiah." It's easy enough to check this claim. While many the differences vary in terms of their impact on the meaning of the verses in question, differences only occur every 3 or 4 verses. Not every single verse. I completely agree with you that there are many differences, I don't know why people say they are identical. The apologetic approach easily creates motivation to stretch details to establish points.
You're right to correct me. For some reason I had in my head any variant from any major manuscript rather than just MT, however, after counting up MT variants in several chapters from 1QIsa-a, the proportion comes out to about 75% of the verses having a variant of some kind from MT. It's not just every 3 or 4 verses, but it's not quite "almost every verse." I'll post a comment correcting that.
@@maklelan Thanks Dan! I have a lot of respect for your willingness to make corrections! Thank your for your work!
@@jaredmatthews1561 75% of the verses have differences which is huge and the Nt didn't even use the MT but rather Lxx versions. Eg. Isaiah 7 14 in the Nt says Virgin while the MT and Dss say young woman
@@jaredmatthews1561 only about 70% of the versions are different🤣
@@Cr-pj8bz I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly what your point is by saying that, or what your conclusion is. I agree, it is a pretty big deal that there are differences, and that's why these manuscripts are so important. A large amount of the verses are indeed different! However, I wouldn't go so far as to say that 70% of the verses meanings are altered by these differences. The vast majority of these differences are either spelling differences, or scribal errors that don't radically change what the verse says.
However, there are certainly verses that have meanings that are altered by the differences. I'm not sure exactly why this is a problem. I love textual criticism and am excited that now we have discovered what might be what the text originally said, and we can thereby now understand the text better! I see this as deepening our understanding of Isaiah, rather than a problem for anyone (except of course those who claim that the text is perfectly preserved).
I think you should wear some supreme sorcerer outfit with this magic mastery
At least a pointy hat
With "WIZZARD" on it and a bunch of sequins
So apologists don't believe in telling the truth? Or do they have an earlier reading of those passages that allow them to.
Dan and Wes should have a chat..epic wouldn't even be the Word for it
Would you ever go on Rogan's podcast if invited?
Dan in 1000 years finds a tomb from today with someone wearing a cross necklace. He concludes the cross was being used for magical purposes. Overextension of theories that is so typical in this field.
The Great Isaiah Scroll matches the Masoretic text word for word - except for the thousands of words where it doesn't.
This is why I prefer the term "excusegist" to "apologist." Apologist try to explain or contextualize; excusegists just straight-up lie.
We need Dan on the Joe Rogan show!
Biblically accurate Bible.
I hope you get to be on Joe show up against Wes.
Also the putative Shapiro scroll, missing in action.
How do we know it was used as an apotropaic amulet?
It will usually say something to the effect of protection form some evil or force etc.
@@VeridicusMaximus So those silver ones said that?
After looking at the text, it seems like it is a bit of speculation to claim that they were for sure magical amulets meant to ward off evil. It's better to present speculation as speculation.
@@VeridicusMaximus did those silver scrolls say that explicitly?
@@pigetstuck Yes, they explicitly say to protect and guard them from evil. It is also common among other cultures in this region. The Bible has magical (as we would understand it) practices in it. It's more of a matter of which magic is sanctioned or not - not whether it actually existed as such. Ps.12:6-9 is a foundational :
_The utterance of YHWH are pure utterances, silver refined in a furnace in the earth, purified seven times. You O YHWH, will guard them; you will protect him from this generation forever. On every side the wicked prowl, a vileness is exalted among humankind._
These silver amulets put verses on them as way to invoke (utter the words of YHWH ) the deities protection!
Like he says, word for word. 🤪
Who is the guy being interviewed?
Wes Huff. He has a RUclips channel focused on Christianity, I believe he is a PhD student or something
Apologists lying, that seems to be their only defense for their religion.
So, Wes KNOWS that his answers are false, but he makes them anyway. For me, this is conclusive proof that an apologist will happily lie in order to promote their religion.
Dan explains in detail and he is also somewhat gentle in his criticism. But let's be plain. This apologist is a liar. He absolutely knows better but he was not telling the truth.
And Joe Rogan is just the person to go to if you want to spread lies. The man is so dumb he will believe anything he is told by anyone he considers to be authoritative.
His cult is going to be brigading your social media profiles. The guy goes to Wycliffe college which is an evangelical school.
Isn’t Wes a PhD student studying to be a NT scholar? I don’t understand why someone would go through years of school and make such an elementary mistake.
Because he probably at some Xtian university being indoctrinated on how to BS his way to saving people.
Obviously it wasn’t a mistake, it was on purpose.
istg it really bothered me when he said this
Once again, Joe Rogan makes clear that he is out of his depth any time his guests talk about anything other than MMA.
Excusagism at its finest.
If this guy is a fundamentalist then this is a problem with his Protestant Apologetics.
As opposed to Catholic apologetics. LMAO!
@VeridicusMaximus The Catholic Church does not believe or teach bible only / sola scriptura.
Yeah, you missed the whole point the point is that any apologetics is bullshit! You made it sound as if only Protestant apologetics has some issues.
@VeridicusMaximus If you ever wish to judge fairly Catholicism vs. all brands of Protestantism , to include Mormonism, then you will see all of the issues within Protestant beliefs. Faith is a belief. I have no reason to believe that monotheism evolved from polytheism.. Regardless of evolutionists Dan's Apologetics claims about it... All you need during the polytheism times before Moses is just one person at or during that time that only one God exists. Dan knows that he is the same Species as his father god. Good for him. He is a Joseph Smith believer so he cannot claim that he does not believe this... There is a reason why Mormons believe in Mormonism. It is not because of historical facts....kolob is not heaven...
@@frogmanvc Thanks for the irrelevancies!
This kid heard this garbage from his pastor who heard from an apologist. Liars obe and all, as usual. Jesus hates liars.
BTW I still am bewildered by people claiming Joe Rogan is a good interviewer. His credulity seems juvenile to me.
His fans are both
It depends on the meaning of “good interviewer”. I guess Rogan is the poster child of American intellectual level.
oh boy. Joe Rogan. I'm feeling dumber already
Misinformation on the JR show? Say it ain’t so.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that it's the shorter Qumran Isaiah scroll that closely matches the Masoretic, not the great Isaiah scroll. Is that correct?
Not a scholar myself, but a Smithsonian article (search for "Smithsonian" and "The Dead Sea Scrolls: Isaiah Scroll, Manuscript B") says, inter alia, "The text of this Isaiah scroll is close to the fixed Masoretic text of medieval codices, but not as close as appeared at first."
@johnmcgimpsey1825 yeah, I asked Dr Kipp and he confirmed this (he also has a pretty good RUclips series in the DSS where I first heard it a bit over a year ago I think)
There is only one Orthodox Tankah bible in history all match word for word from Yemen to Russia verify that.
This is not actually true. The uniform text only came about after printing, when everyone corrected their manuscripts to match the printed version.
@zevsero9170 Verify.. Only Yemen has one extra letter which doesn't change meaning of Hebrew word in their Tanakh .
Yemenite Jews were never exposed to Christianity missionaries
There is no sugar coating it. Good old Wes is lying. He knows it and we know it.
Instead of saying "he's using hyperbole," or "he's over-exaggerating," or even "he's sincerely mistaken," the default assumption for you guys is "he's lying." interesting.
@@d__w295 apologists do this
@@Cr-pj8bz "all apologists are liars. Wes is an apologist. therefore, Wes is a liar" is a faulty generalization fallacy.
@d__w295 Well, less non true statements and people won't call them that
@@d__w295 that would be a big no Mr. Psychologist. This is a common phenomenon. He is clearly lying based on the evidence he has provided elsewhere that he actually has knowledge on the subject. He is lying. He knows he is lying. He is lying with purpose.
You and he can call it whatever you like while you try to dance around the fact he said what he said. What he said is preposterous for ANYONE who has remotely looked into the subject.
Now, someone like Joe Rogan will eat up like there's no tomorrow and that is exactly why he lied to Joe Rogan.
He wouldn't say it if he was talking to anyone knowledgeable on the subject.
Hyperbole. You're a comedian. 🤣
I’m not saying the texts were exactly the same, but weren’t scholars really blown away by how similar the Dead Sea Scrolls were to the Masoretic Text?
Really now. Name some examples of scholars who were not apologists.
Why would they be? It'd be mindblowing if we got a scroll from the 8th or 7th or 6th century BCE that was identical to the MT, but not this. Nobody was arguing for corruption by the 100s BCE.
Leading biblical archaeologist and scholar WF Albright said they were “the greatest manuscript discovery of modern times” in 1947.
Millar Burrows thought they were pretty important too.
Maybe I’m totally wrong and they were actually all pretty disgusted by the differences.
@@JohnGrapes the Mt wasn't even used by Xtians. So I don't know how this would help them. XTIANS rather used Greek translations which contradict the MT/DSS. E.g. the Nt says Virgin while the DSS and Mt say young woman
@@Cr-pj8bz I am not trying to argue any apologetics. I had read misinformation that said that the Dead Sea Scrolls were a big deal.
7:29-7:50 Oh i doubt he cares.
I watched about 15 seconds of that interview. Worst. Apologist. Evar.
I mean it was on Joe Rogan's podcast; so, it must be true 🙄
They've got to stop lying for the lord! Every fib is a brick in the foundation of someone's deconstruction 😹
What’s funny is that Dan isn’t pushing people to deconstruct. He wants people to read and celebrate the Bible. He just wants them to celebrate the Bible for what it actually is, not what we want it to be.
And lies make baby jesus cry
@@billcook4768 but he criticises false claims of the Bible. So the Bibles as we have them are not reliable
@@Cr-pj8bz But the Bible doesn’t have to be perfect.
@@billcook4768 they aren't even reliable. E.g. the Gospels don't go back to Jesus and are theology of groups rather than history. Isaiah was written by different authors. And the Nt claims the Hebrew books are God's word. The Ot makes the same claims.
#MaklelanonJRE #MaklelanJoeRogan
Holy shit, you mean someone on Joe Rogan was full of shit? WHUT?
Love Wes, love the truth more. Thanks Dan.
You'd think apologists would know that lies make baby jesus cry
I would love to see a Dan/Wes discussion. It seems Wes has kinda blown up recently
It seems? He was on Joe Rogan.
@@creamwobblyPopular is what i had in mind. Never seen the phrase used to mean someone became untrustworthy
@@ChaZ-cp6qwFound the pedantic English major. I guess you know that sometimes people who are already famous go on Rogan? Wes (as far as I know) doesn't fit that category
@@creamwobblyI meant popular. I've never seen the phrase used to mean "to become untrustworthy"
@@creamwobblyBecome popular. I've never seen the phrase used to mean "become untrustworthy"
So this man is lying. Plain and simple. He knows there are numerous and significant differences, and yet he’s lying and claiming there aren’t because he would rather lie about gods word than spread it truthfully. Sounds kind of like a false profit to me
So, more or less the same?
But, all about nonsense.
I’m a liberal Christian but can’t help but notice Dan always seems to have an axe to grind with Christians. Maybe the guy on Rogan misspoke a little and could have been more clear in his claims, but for Dan to act like there are huge differences between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the Masoretic text is also, to use his term, “wildly inaccurate”. It’s amazing that they are as close and well-preserved as what it is, spanning 1000 years. You can acknowledge that without calling yourself a “Bible-toting Christian”. Dan never has anything charitable to say toward Christians or the Christian faith, just constantly attacking.
There are many differences (about 60-75% of the verses have differences) and different versions of that book in the scrolls. And Isaiah was written by at least three different authors at different times and we don't even know how the first version looked like,because we have no early manuscripts of that book. And Dan is a biblical scholar. If you can't handle the truth, it's your problem
I disagree that Dan is saying there is a “huge” difference. The argument is clearly stated the “word-for-word” claim is more apology speaking than scholarship.
Dan’s channel has been specific in its purpose to give the public access to scholarly consensus on biblical matters. It is not for pushing faith promotion. That’s not the purpose.
You will notice that nearly every video is about correcting people, no matter their creed. As far as I’ve seen, he doesn’t say anything about Christians or the religion, just against those who use the Bible to spread disinformation or establish power dynamics for purposes of identity politics.
As opposed to “constantly attacking”, I believe the purpose of the channel is to constantly correct misinformation where it is found. It just happens that small portions of those who subscribe to the Christian faith tend to be a large portion of the perpetrators of the misinformation.
@Adam-to9gp. I'm not a Christian at all, and I couldn't agree with you more. I find Dan arrogant.
Dan uses his platform to debunk videos that misinform people on biblical scholarship. Unfortunately, most of those claims are coming from Christians. But he has also debunked many non-Chrstians along the way. I think you are seeing through your hurt emotions, as opposed to puzzling this out logically.
Notice how even now you are trying to defend the Bible as if Dan attacked it. He did not. He rightly point out that the vast majority of verses differ from the two manuscripts. That is all. He did not say anything else. He simply cleared up where this person misspoke.
This was hardly a hit piece or a slander. If anything Dan showed great respect while correcting misinformation, be it misspoken or misinformed.
Hit dogs will holler.
If you perceive an attack, when the entire purpose of the channel is to increase knowledge and education about the Bible and to decrease misinformation, then one has to assume that you are recognizing some of the dishonesty Dan points to from other people within yourself.