Huff also mentioned he had misspoken when he’d attributed an idea to Ignatius of of Antioch (he had meant to say Irenaeus) and when he said that the oils in people’s hands are more abrasive than latex gloves (in that case, Rogan actually caught his mistake).
“I hope you can give me a break for these obvious and clear missteps,” said Huff, pointing out that he made them in a three-hour, “non-linear conversation” where he had no notes and the topics were not planned ahead of time.
Nevertheless, Huff spent a little more time correcting a statement he had made about the Great Isaiah Scroll, which is one of the Dead Sea Scrolls. During the interview, he had said that “it is word for word identical to the later Masoretic texts.”
“This was admittedly a hyperbolic statement that I should have been much more careful on,” said Huff, noting, “My area of expertise when it comes to manuscripts is almost exclusively New Testament,” although he does some work on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
RELATED: ‘Nobody Dies for a Lie’—Mel Gibson Discusses Jesus’ Resurrection With Joe Rogan
Huff explained what was going on in the back of his mind to lead him to use the phrase “word for word.”
He then explained, “What I should have said to Rogan is what I said to Billy Carson when he brought up his statement about Codex Sinaiticus,” said Huff, referring to a point of disagreement he had with Carson in their debate, “that Sinaiticus is nearly identical to modern Greek critical text that we use to produce translations today. Rogan’s reaction to the correction of wording should be exactly the same: It is a wow moment.”
Rogan said “wow” numerous times during his conversation with Huff.
I give you the @joeroganhq “wow” counter from the @WesleyLHuff interview pic.twitter.com/x742s1yHF6
— Honest Youth Pastor (@HonestYPTweets) January 10, 2025
“Please hear me out here,” Huff said. “I do not think there aren’t textual variants in the Isaiah Dead Sea Scroll texts.” He went on to summarize later parts of the conversation with Rogan that show Huff understands there are slight variations among manuscripts, including the fact that later medieval texts use a vowel system that is not present in ancient Hebrew texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Also, “there are multiple textual variants between Sinaiticus and the medieval copies and then the modern critical text we use to make English translations today,” said Huff. “However, the vast majority of these are almost completely inconsequential.” They “have no bearing on when we translate them into English and don’t impact any essential Christian doctrine that could not be derived from other texts absent of textual complexity throughout the manuscript traditions.”
