Thank you for this. Delivery of the girdles HEREIN, The Strait Gate, narrow way Jesus told us to find, but few find it, most ignore it, and some are unable to enter in, also the Sign of Jonah and so much more, many thanks to our brother Isaiah! God Bless Ya'll
@@DrKippDavis and long story short, although at the time of writing my original comment I've considered myself strongly grounded, I've recently left Christianity behind. This is the stuff that the world needs to know. Let the truth prevail! Keep up the fantastic work! You and Dr. Joshua Bowen are my heroes :)
@@bartosz.holubowiczahhh that's the fruit I was looking for. ROTTEN-FRUIT!! This is clearly put together by Satanists. I won't be listening. For you though, I suggest you get on your knees and ask the Lord to guide you, because it sounds like you're in a VERY dark place spiritually. Time is so short now, and you DO-NOT want to step into eternity in the state you're in as at writing this. I'm saying a prayer and I hope you find your way back to Jesus, where are souls are safe! 🙌
Glad you're doing this. I've known for a long time that apologists are the most dishonest people on the planet. It's good to see them called out for specific lies.
Great stuff. I'm preparing to read Isaiah in depth, as well as about to embark on Dr Tabor's new course "Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls" so i consider this video to be essential prep
Nicely done. Outside of the data your writing/speaking style is wonderful. The information is presented for both laymen and scholars. I like this series so far. Well done.
The stuff about the break between chapters 33 and 34 as evidence for the division between First and Second Isaiah (which I’d always taken to come at 40:1) was 🤯🤯🤯. Amazing stuff!
I came to your channel after seeing you on paulogia's video and I am glad I did. This is very interesting and I look forward to seeing the rest of the videos
That was epic. Looking forward to the next video. About halfway through I started wondering something. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that back then it was forbidden to destroy a manuscript once it had the Tetragrammaton on it, so if that's the case, what would a scribe do to the parchment if he made a mistake?
The modern Jewish practice is to excise that bit of the scroll and bury it in a Genizah. However, there have been instances over the centuries where a scribe made physical corrections to Y-H-V-H and left that little square of the skin intact. Nehemia Gordon wrote his PhD on scrolls containing corrections to the written Tetragrammaton, if you can get a hold of it
Amazing! I attended a “a manuscript analysis” conference put on by Josh McDowell a decade or so ago in Dallas where all of that apologetic bluster was promoted. We did do some cool analysis of mummy mask manuscript strips after someone dissolved them into fragments with dish soap, but it was dubious at best as I recall. Your scholarly appraisal is the kind of thing that evangelicals so badly need to hear.
Wow! I know of him doing this at Baylor. I did not know that he also did other similar events. I made a documentary about McDowell and manuscripts a couple years back that you may be interested in. It is on my channel.
@@DrKippDavis yeah … I just watched it because it popped up after watching 1.2 in the Dead Sea Scrolls video. A couple of clips were from that Dallas meeting. I even smoked cigars with Dan Wallace and others at some pub after one of the meetings. It all seemed legit at the time, but I have since become extremely suspicious of virtually every apologist that I know of. Most of it is just sheer ignorance and disrespect of relevant expertise, but some of it seems like pure deception and they know it. Hard to be sure sometimes.
@@DrKippDavis I was a part-time pastor with an interest in apologetics. It wasn’t long before I realized that what I now like to call the Standard Christian Apologetics Machine (SCAM) was just a massive grifting program of deliberate ignorance. During my PhD, I finally realized the importance of relevant expertise and just how vast the array of specialties are, but I oversimplify here for the sake of brevity. For example, I have forgotten more about the Physics of combustion engines than my auto mechanic will ever know, but you’d be a fool to have me fix your car. We have a dramatic lack of respect for expertise here in America, especially in evangelical circles. Anyway, concerning Wallace, he seemed like a good NT scholar at the time and I thought his program of getting hi-res digital images of all the manuscripts folks would let him see was a grand idea. I think he was going for infra-red images as well because that sometimes shows layers of text even if it was scraped. Ultimately though, as I reflect on that experience, it just seems like the classic apologetic defense of dogma that cherry-picks data for those apologetic goals. Pick enough cherries and the Bible becomes anti-slavery, pro-life, etc. despite the data telling the opposite story.
@@DrKippDavis neither. I was a part time pastor interested in apologetics. That interest faded as the scam became more evident in the years following. Scam is a harsh word because most of it is just deliberate ignorance and disrespect of relevant expertise. Dan Wallace seemed legit though. I thought his project to digitize extant NT manuscripts was a great idea and that was one of his lectures at the event. I forget which year it was a decade or so ago, but it was the year that a blizzard stranded thousands at DFW. DTS brought in a bunch of professors and grad students to shepherd us layfolk at the tables where we got to inspect manuscript fragments and then look up Greek words in some database with a hope to identifying what we just read.
@@DrKippDavis I'm an atheist Ex-Jehovah's Witness. And following a recent argument with my parents about their religion being toxic and having a terrible track record on child abuse. For some reason my Mom decided to try to address my belief in the Bible overall. Of all things she picked Isaiah supposedly prophesying the coming of Cyrus. Which you of course didn't specifically cover here. But the background information on what the book of Isaiah is and how recently it was still in flux is helpful.
Wow. Thank you for sharing. I will be talking a whole lot more about Isaiah on @Captain Dadpool's show, "Nerds + Heresy," tomorrow night: Sunday, 29 January @1800 PT. You should seriously tune in.
Hey kipp question, what's your favorite scroll found in qumran and why? Second thank you for this series!!! As someone that has little time to do anything bc school sucks this is rlly helpful for learning about something I have no time to study!!! Can't wait for part 3 :)
Thanks for speaking slow enough for me to follow 😅 English is my native tongue, but dang, it takes me awhile to follow when it comes to heavy subjects. 🙏
Great video! You brought some good data to bare. I also find it interesting how, while this text supports the 1-2 Isaiah divide, the specifics of where that divide is are different from what scholars have suggested prior.
Yeah, I also find that very interesting, and my suspicion is that the divide was not fixed. The material between chs 32-36 is more malleable, and may have been earlier additions to the original work, prior to when the Servant Songs were written. The narrative in chs 36-39 is pulled straight out of 2 Kings-it's almost verbatim. So, I think "First Isaiah" proper probably ends near this point in ch 32 or 33, and that the stuff between this and the narrative section are pre-Exilic additions. There likely would have been a variety of ways in which to divide the material after Second and Third Isaiah were included.
@@DrKippDavis Those are some fascinating suggestions! I normally assumed Isaiah 36-39 was the source for Kings, but maybe they both derive from a common source, or perhaps Kings was the source for Isaiah. Source Criticism fascinates me, however I lack conviction for many of the theories until there is tangible manuscript evidence like with this case. I think here it bolsters an already very strong case for 1-2 Isaiah. In my mind 1Q Isaiah a went from being just the apologist’s scroll, to an actually fascinating Biblical manuscript.
@@carlknaack1019 I don't think there is any question that Kings was the source for Isa 36-39, and the reason for this is that the texts fits seamlessly within the larger work of the Deuteronomistic History ((Dtr.). It is very similar to what happened with Jeremiah-where texts from Dtr. were added to provide biography for the events of Jeremiah's life. It seems possible to me that this is something that likely happened in or around the same time, and was undertaken by the same people.
@@DrKippDavis That is a good point. I am not a Kings expert, but if the transitions are seamless that does lean in favor of Dtr as the source. Dan’el Kahn wrote “The Question of the Priority of Isaiah 36-37 vs. 2 Kings 18:13-19:37” in his book “Sennacherib’s Campaign against Judah” which argues for the Isaiahan primacy of that passage, however I am not an expert on the intricacies of his argument. If Isaiah 36-39 is a part of the Exilic/Post-Exilic layers of the text, and most/all of the sources of Dtr are completed by the Exile, then that is further evidence in favor of Dtr’s primacy.
It also starts with the opening riff to "Groovy" by Scatterd Few, but both Brian Holger and Circle of Dust are credited at the end of the video. The YT algorithm adds the music credits to the video description, and obviously missed the CoD bit.
Your ending question: "What is the biblical text anyway?" is related I assume to the concept of an original autograph and if there ever really was commonly such a thing as has been assumed in the past.
Given the dating of the DSS Isaiah scroll, what do you make of Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12? Do you think the Essenes wrote Isaiah and then fabricated the Gospels and the NT?
No, certainly not. Prior to the emergence of Christianity the vast majority of Jewish communities did not associate the Servant Songs of Second Isaiah with future predictions of the messiah. Some may have, but this was certainly not a majority opinion. Traditionally, the "Servant" in these texts is understood to be a personification of Israel, or a personification of the Babylonian remnant through which the "true" Israel would survive the exile. Joseph Baumgartner had once suggested that the servant in Isaiah 52-53 was actually the leader of the same community who wrote these texts, but not many scholars have adopted that view. It seems pretty clear that the people who wrote and collected the Dead Sea Scrolls attached no messianic expectations on these texts at all. The Yaḥad Essenes were certainly steeped in an apocalyptic worldview, and had vivid projections of who the messiah would be, and yet Isaiah 52-53 never did factor into any of their eschatology.
I'm sorry for the question not related to the topic of the video, but what are your thoughts on Dr Falk's video response to your article on Amateur exegete about Deuteronomy 32?
I have answered this a few times in the past. First off, I think he had some fair criticisms about my nitpicking on trivial matters, like his insistence on the distinctions between "higher/lower criticisms." Unfortunately, this was the shallow, maximum depth of his entire critique. It is important to note that the basis of the article in the first place was to demonstrate how flatly, dead wrong Falk was in his handling of Deuteronomy 32, and then also to show how foolish it was of him to double-down on his ridiculous interpretation of the text, and his terrible handling of the text-critical, sociological and historical issues. He never even remotely, adequately responded to any of the real issues, which is that he continues to pass on bad scholarship-most of it just floating around in his head-and then fails to perform any consultation with ongoing scholarly discussions. And then to top it off, Falk also had the temerity to attempt to denigrate my scholarly reputation by setting focus on the fact that one of my publications was retracted, but then is clearly oblivious about the very highly publicized story of my involvement with Dead Sea Scrolls forgeries. (You should know, that my standing in academia has not suffered at all, and this precisely because my colleagues recognise the ongoing, consistent quality of my work, and no one has ever even heard of David A Falk.) I have chosen not to respond, precisely because his rejoinder was so laughably feeble. In effect, there is nothing there for me to clarify or correct, since he has not even bothered to resolve the primary issues in the first place, stemming from his deplorable handling of the text.
Thanks for the answer! I really wondered why you didn't make some sort of rebuttal. I also strongly wanted to ask about the little controversy between you, Dr Josh and Inspiring Philosophy. Do you and Dr Josh have a different opinion about the Genesis 1 now? I apologize if this starts to look like an interview, but still.. 😅
@@sebastianlappalainen no worries. No, not at all. Josh and I are still strongly committed to our original position, that is, that Michael Jones-for all his intentions-leaves the clear impression from his video that there is no "borrowing" or "intertextuality" thing place in Genesis. I think the problem is that that is not his own position, so it is actually a very poorly presented video if that is our first impression. So, I still have a script for Part 2 on my computer, that Josh and I have just never gotten around to filming and producing. Truth be told, given how much of a petulant, mortally wounded victim Michael resembled in his response, it has given both Josh and I considerable pause in pursuing this project. By this point, time has made it feel irrelevant, which I think is also unfortunate, since it provides an opportunity to teach more broadly about the Bible. But, before I let you go, I would be interested to know your thoughts: did you find Falk's response to me convincing? If so, why?
Hey Kipp! Love your Videos, but the intro/outro music is way loud, and not just compared to the rest of the video, but compared to your average youtube video, and by quite a bit too.
Read your text of the example Isaiah verses along with those of the NRSVUE (a recent revision of the NRSV), they seem aware of some of the verses not found in the DDS as they mark such text in double brackets with a footnote pointing it out. It's the first Bible translation I've come across that puts double brackets around texts suspected to be later additions in the Old Testament, before than it was limited to the books of the New Testament towards verses that are almost universally agreed upon by scholars to be later additions (like the Pericope Adulterae of John 7:53-8:11). Also I personally think (I'm sure some certain scholars have good arguments otherwise and I as a laymen will by no means challenge them) Isaiah 39 was one of the texts later added to the book, the part especially where Isaiah prophecies to King Hezekiah how "your house and that which your ancestors have stored up until this day shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left," comes off as exilic at the earliest.
@@DrKippDavis No probs. Great video as usually, although I had to rewatch parts of it to better understand. Not pointing out a flaw on your part, I think I've been suffering from a short attention span as of late and I want to try and combat that.
19:10 Could this explain how 1st and 2nd Isaiah were (mistakenly?) combined into one? That is, could an early copyist have placed a space between 1st and 2nd Isaiah, and then someone, copying the earlier copyist, did not notice the space separating the two works?
This presupposes that we know what constitutes genuine ancient dead sea scroll text if we're ascerting how they're fake. Is that discussed during this segment?
I am not a scholar, but I do not see any significant theological difference in doctrine. 2,600 approx variants, but only 7 instance of what you said were significant variations. In your opinion, do any of these changes change the message of Isaiah. With a genrally accepted vie that the 1QISA and the MT are 95% similiar. So far as I can tell, no changes in doctrine.
Different words can have different meanings to different people. Perhaps "virtually identical" means less than 2,500 textual differences to a Christian apologist. Why just last week a Christian apologist told me that apples were "virtually identical" to oranges.
I don’t really see how this is that different from the apologists argument. A scribe accidentally skipping a line, different scribes contributing to longer pieces of text, and additions from memory seem reasonable. It’s really interesting to think about a community having two different scrolls of Isaiah.
Apologist: All scripture is inspired by God! Thinking Person(picks up variant copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls): What about these? Apologist: All scripture is inspired by God! Thinking Person(picks up Nag Hammadi Scriptures): What about these? Apologist: All Scripture is... Wait! What!?!
I wonder if McDowell would think the lack of consistency (if he could be convinced it isn’t consistent, that is) is evidence against the Bible being true. It seems like if it’s such compelling evidence for the reliability in the way that he understands it, we might expect the counter factual to be true as well.
Even if somehow it would have been found that the DSS were identical in every tittle and jot it would only be evidence that the text had not changed from the time that the DSS were written which is long after many of the events that they purport to describe transpired. And, of course, the hypothetical does not even adhere to reality much like Junior McDowell.
I usually don't trust people who make poor choices with their facial hair, but this is REALLY good information! I wish people like yourself would have a conversation with myself or someone else who has lived supernatural good and evil. I would think I could appeal to your intellectual side by arguing we need to separate "Is the Christian God real", from "Does man's ancient records of God" prove God exists? There's clearly a distinction between God's existence being real, and arguing for a perfect manuscript thousands of years later. I feel terrible for anyone like yourself who doubts the true and living God because one day, you will know you were wrong! Ironically, it may be after you die when that divine love still spares you, and welcomes you to the kingdom of heaven. Obviously, your heart is only known by God. Regardless, you are not doing yourself any favors conflating God’s existence with man's remaining ancient manuscripts. I'm not saying God’s word isn't within the writings of the modern day Bible either, I'm just saying we all understand the battles of having 1 perfect infallible manuscript to attack as not being from God. Considering we don't have that 1 perfect manuscript, I'm suprised anyone confuses disproving the Bible, with is God real. I guess some see God’s rules as a reason to rebel. I guess others see God’s divine plan as not how they would personally go about it. So on, and so on. Choosing to attack God for a living isn't wise though. You are not telling the truth. I know this for a fact because I have lived good and evil. The devil is real too. So, either you are Masonic or wicked and serve evil knowingly. Or, one day you will be calling for aid from the devil, and you will be calling to God! So, you might want to at least start saying "I don't know, I can't disprove God’s existence. I'm just attacking the idea of a one perfect infallible manuscript concept. God's word is most likely in these writings, and other writings on earth." Honestly, that realm of an answer, would be an investment in your soul that you would not regret. The alternative of going allin against God, is not wise. Anyways, my name has "747" because God showed me a sign that he was real, using those numbers on my digital clock. I've seen God’s nature being light, numbers, etc. This is the Christian God too. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Jesus/Holy Spirit. You don't want to know what all those ancient idols are (or maybe you do know, and have chosen evil). Regardless, you must stop lying about God's nature and/or existence if you want to invest in your own eternal soul. I know you will probably have a good excuse to judge me or ignore me, but I don't judge you. I actually fear for you! A wise man who dedicated himself to error, is always a tragedy of wasted talent! Anyways, evaluate what you are doing because it's a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!
I somehow want Chop Suey... WAKE UP! In all this makes a case the origins of the Bible is expression of polished story telling, making their way in a crazy world. or God did it this way on purpose to test faith. Well done Dr Kipp
It's a bit like Wikipedia, with lots of people adding what they think of as an improvement, and sometimes they're even right. I wouldn't use the word "polished".
@@KaiHenningsen preachers polished their tropes on this stuff, stuff written by men using supernatural authority figures to give it the appropriate penance. I’d call it evolution in writing, practiced and polished over centuries.
I admit that most of that went over my head, but I think I got the gist: the Great Isaiah scroll is older and has more variance from the Masoretic text, the variance does include mostly minor spelling and word choice differences but does include later insertions of blocks of text, the scroll is segmented to show different secrtions, one half is from a completely different source scroll and scribe than the other. That about sum it up? Kudos in any case.
Well, we all know how biblical texts can be mistranslated. Like the old joke about the monk going back to the original texts... and ripping his hair out. 'No... it says celeBRATE!'
Hey did you figure out if they are actually fake or not I do get it now why you are resisting so hard cause you have spent time studying these thingsAnd you will have wasted your time studyingForgeries
Oh, good lord. There are only about 150 fake fragments out of a total of over 10,000. I-along with the entire scholarly community-am extremely confident about which are which.
@@DrKippDavis Oh good Lord you have over 10000 fragments that haven't been tested yet It said that in the article too They were never tested to See if they were Good And obviously you don't have any of that kind of information Otherwise you would give it to me
Psa 66:6 - He turned the sea into dry land: they went through the flood on foot: there did we rejoice in him. Psa 99:9 - Exalt the LORD our God, and worship at his holy hill; for the LORD our God is holy.
Exactly. And really, consistency or lack thereof proves nothing about whether religious fiction has any connection to reality. After all, we've got L Ron Hubbard's notes showing the early inconsistencies with the xenu stories, the completed texts are reproduced without copying errors, and we know without a doubt that the stories are fictional. But the world still suffers from infestations of both christianity and scientology. Religion has always been about power and profits, about fleecing the gullible and controlling their lives.
This series is going great! I can't wait for number 3 Dr. Kipp!
Love you guys
Thank you for this. Delivery of the girdles HEREIN, The Strait Gate, narrow way Jesus told us to find, but few find it, most ignore it, and some are unable to enter in, also the Sign of Jonah and so much more, many thanks to our brother Isaiah! God Bless Ya'll
As a Christian, I find this content of immense value, it's so fascinating! Loving the honest presentation. Thank you for your work, Dr. Kipp!
Thank you!
@@DrKippDavis and long story short, although at the time of writing my original comment I've considered myself strongly grounded, I've recently left Christianity behind. This is the stuff that the world needs to know. Let the truth prevail! Keep up the fantastic work! You and Dr. Joshua Bowen are my heroes :)
@@bartosz.holubowiczso happy to see this and thanks for the update.
@@bartosz.holubowiczahhh that's the fruit I was looking for. ROTTEN-FRUIT!! This is clearly put together by Satanists. I won't be listening.
For you though, I suggest you get on your knees and ask the Lord to guide you, because it sounds like you're in a VERY dark place spiritually.
Time is so short now, and you DO-NOT want to step into eternity in the state you're in as at writing this.
I'm saying a prayer and I hope you find your way back to Jesus, where are souls are safe! 🙌
High quality, expert analysis, clear presentation…yeah, business as usual on this channel.
This channel deserves more subs
Glad you're doing this. I've known for a long time that apologists are the most dishonest people on the planet. It's good to see them called out for specific lies.
Simply phenomenal. As much as I like fatty cuts of beef, this series is all meat and no fat and I appreciate that.
Great stuff. I'm preparing to read Isaiah in depth, as well as about to embark on Dr Tabor's new course "Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls" so i consider this video to be essential prep
Kipp, once again you provide a scholarly but clear explanation f0or how complex this history is
Nicely done. Outside of the data your writing/speaking style is wonderful. The information is presented for both laymen and scholars. I like this series so far. Well done.
Really awesome. I came for the music and stayed for the crushing of the apologist souls!
I LOVE your introduction, Dr. Kipp Davis! Keep up the good work!
What an awesome video! Can't wait for the next part. Everyone should get over the Patreon so you can get early access!
Glad you're posting again!
The stuff about the break between chapters 33 and 34 as evidence for the division between First and Second Isaiah (which I’d always taken to come at 40:1) was 🤯🤯🤯. Amazing stuff!
Awesome. I am happy you found this informative.
SO FASCINATING! I love this series Dr. Kill! Keep up the interesting work
Loved it..Thanks for taking the time to make thess videos Dr Davis. I find the subject matter fascinating
I appreciate your work and commentary. I look forward to hearing more, much more. 🙏
You pack so much information into your videos. I love this series! I can't wait for the next one!
I've always wondered about the break in the middle of the Isaiah scroll. What you said makes a lot of sense.
I came to your channel after seeing you on paulogia's video and I am glad I did. This is very interesting and I look forward to seeing the rest of the videos
That was epic. Looking forward to the next video. About halfway through I started wondering something. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that back then it was forbidden to destroy a manuscript once it had the Tetragrammaton on it, so if that's the case, what would a scribe do to the parchment if he made a mistake?
The modern Jewish practice is to excise that bit of the scroll and bury it in a Genizah. However, there have been instances over the centuries where a scribe made physical corrections to Y-H-V-H and left that little square of the skin intact. Nehemia Gordon wrote his PhD on scrolls containing corrections to the written Tetragrammaton, if you can get a hold of it
@@Vishanti I will definitely look into that, thank you!
My favorite variants and scroll issues in the DSS and LXX are all the Book of Job. The text of Job has been through the ringer lol.
*wringer
Just finished watching you live
Amazing! I attended a “a manuscript analysis” conference put on by Josh McDowell a decade or so ago in Dallas where all of that apologetic bluster was promoted. We did do some cool analysis of mummy mask manuscript strips after someone dissolved them into fragments with dish soap, but it was dubious at best as I recall. Your scholarly appraisal is the kind of thing that evangelicals so badly need to hear.
Wow! I know of him doing this at Baylor. I did not know that he also did other similar events.
I made a documentary about McDowell and manuscripts a couple years back that you may be interested in. It is on my channel.
@@DrKippDavis yeah … I just watched it because it popped up after watching 1.2 in the Dead Sea Scrolls video. A couple of clips were from that Dallas meeting. I even smoked cigars with Dan Wallace and others at some pub after one of the meetings. It all seemed legit at the time, but I have since become extremely suspicious of virtually every apologist that I know of. Most of it is just sheer ignorance and disrespect of relevant expertise, but some of it seems like pure deception and they know it. Hard to be sure sometimes.
We're you a student or faculty at DTS? What is your sense of Wallace's part in this mess?
@@DrKippDavis I was a part-time pastor with an interest in apologetics. It wasn’t long before I realized that what I now like to call the Standard Christian Apologetics Machine (SCAM) was just a massive grifting program of deliberate ignorance. During my PhD, I finally realized the importance of relevant expertise and just how vast the array of specialties are, but I oversimplify here for the sake of brevity. For example, I have forgotten more about the Physics of combustion engines than my auto mechanic will ever know, but you’d be a fool to have me fix your car. We have a dramatic lack of respect for expertise here in America, especially in evangelical circles.
Anyway, concerning Wallace, he seemed like a good NT scholar at the time and I thought his program of getting hi-res digital images of all the manuscripts folks would let him see was a grand idea. I think he was going for infra-red images as well because that sometimes shows layers of text even if it was scraped. Ultimately though, as I reflect on that experience, it just seems like the classic apologetic defense of dogma that cherry-picks data for those apologetic goals. Pick enough cherries and the Bible becomes anti-slavery, pro-life, etc. despite the data telling the opposite story.
@@DrKippDavis neither. I was a part time pastor interested in apologetics. That interest faded as the scam became more evident in the years following. Scam is a harsh word because most of it is just deliberate ignorance and disrespect of relevant expertise.
Dan Wallace seemed legit though. I thought his project to digitize extant NT manuscripts was a great idea and that was one of his lectures at the event. I forget which year it was a decade or so ago, but it was the year that a blizzard stranded thousands at DFW.
DTS brought in a bunch of professors and grad students to shepherd us layfolk at the tables where we got to inspect manuscript fragments and then look up Greek words in some database with a hope to identifying what we just read.
utterly fascinating.
Awesome work. Very fascinating!
This is great, thanks! And coincidentally useful in my life at the moment it came out.
I have to know. How on earth is this useful?
@@DrKippDavis I'm an atheist Ex-Jehovah's Witness. And following a recent argument with my parents about their religion being toxic and having a terrible track record on child abuse. For some reason my Mom decided to try to address my belief in the Bible overall. Of all things she picked Isaiah supposedly prophesying the coming of Cyrus. Which you of course didn't specifically cover here. But the background information on what the book of Isaiah is and how recently it was still in flux is helpful.
Wow. Thank you for sharing. I will be talking a whole lot more about Isaiah on @Captain Dadpool's show, "Nerds + Heresy," tomorrow night: Sunday, 29 January @1800 PT. You should seriously tune in.
@@DrKippDavis I caught it and greatly enjoyed it.
Loving this series
There’s so much deceit in this world that Lucy is in control of. I just don’t trust anyone or anything anymore! Ty for your expertise ❤
Hey kipp question, what's your favorite scroll found in qumran and why?
Second thank you for this series!!! As someone that has little time to do anything bc school sucks this is rlly helpful for learning about something I have no time to study!!! Can't wait for part 3 :)
Thanks for speaking slow enough for me to follow 😅 English is my native tongue, but dang, it takes me awhile to follow when it comes to heavy subjects. 🙏
Very informative.
Well done brother
Great video! You brought some good data to bare. I also find it interesting how, while this text supports the 1-2 Isaiah divide, the specifics of where that divide is are different from what scholars have suggested prior.
Yeah, I also find that very interesting, and my suspicion is that the divide was not fixed. The material between chs 32-36 is more malleable, and may have been earlier additions to the original work, prior to when the Servant Songs were written. The narrative in chs 36-39 is pulled straight out of 2 Kings-it's almost verbatim.
So, I think "First Isaiah" proper probably ends near this point in ch 32 or 33, and that the stuff between this and the narrative section are pre-Exilic additions. There likely would have been a variety of ways in which to divide the material after Second and Third Isaiah were included.
@@DrKippDavis Those are some fascinating suggestions! I normally assumed Isaiah 36-39 was the source for Kings, but maybe they both derive from a common source, or perhaps Kings was the source for Isaiah.
Source Criticism fascinates me, however I lack conviction for many of the theories until there is tangible manuscript evidence like with this case. I think here it bolsters an already very strong case for 1-2 Isaiah.
In my mind 1Q Isaiah a went from being just the apologist’s scroll, to an actually fascinating Biblical manuscript.
@@carlknaack1019 I don't think there is any question that Kings was the source for Isa 36-39, and the reason for this is that the texts fits seamlessly within the larger work of the Deuteronomistic History ((Dtr.). It is very similar to what happened with Jeremiah-where texts from Dtr. were added to provide biography for the events of Jeremiah's life. It seems possible to me that this is something that likely happened in or around the same time, and was undertaken by the same people.
@@DrKippDavis That is a good point. I am not a Kings expert, but if the transitions are seamless that does lean in favor of Dtr as the source.
Dan’el Kahn wrote “The Question of the Priority of Isaiah 36-37 vs. 2 Kings 18:13-19:37” in his book “Sennacherib’s Campaign against Judah” which argues for the Isaiahan primacy of that passage, however I am not an expert on the intricacies of his argument.
If Isaiah 36-39 is a part of the Exilic/Post-Exilic layers of the text, and most/all of the sources of Dtr are completed by the Exile, then that is further evidence in favor of Dtr’s primacy.
Breakdown of Isaiah @20:31
Very nice video once again, however the bass boosted and sometimes even clipping music is quite distracting hah.
You are ........ AWESOME !😎🤘
Thank you.
I love this so much.
Intro music reminded me a bit of the old school Starcraft soundtrack.
Interesting stuff, Dr. Kipp! Curious, are you currently teaching at any institution?
The intro music begins with Brian Holger's "Black Mass" and then transitions to Circle of Dust's "Pale Reflection," which is not credited.
It also starts with the opening riff to "Groovy" by Scatterd Few, but both Brian Holger and Circle of Dust are credited at the end of the video. The YT algorithm adds the music credits to the video description, and obviously missed the CoD bit.
awesome
Were prophets a common feature of other cultures, nations or communities in the area besides the Israelites?
Your ending question: "What is the biblical text anyway?" is related I assume to the concept of an original autograph and if there ever really was commonly such a thing as has been assumed in the past.
Given the dating of the DSS Isaiah scroll, what do you make of Isaiah 52:13 to Isaiah 53:12? Do you think the Essenes wrote Isaiah and then fabricated the Gospels and the NT?
No, certainly not. Prior to the emergence of Christianity the vast majority of Jewish communities did not associate the Servant Songs of Second Isaiah with future predictions of the messiah. Some may have, but this was certainly not a majority opinion. Traditionally, the "Servant" in these texts is understood to be a personification of Israel, or a personification of the Babylonian remnant through which the "true" Israel would survive the exile. Joseph Baumgartner had once suggested that the servant in Isaiah 52-53 was actually the leader of the same community who wrote these texts, but not many scholars have adopted that view.
It seems pretty clear that the people who wrote and collected the Dead Sea Scrolls attached no messianic expectations on these texts at all. The Yaḥad Essenes were certainly steeped in an apocalyptic worldview, and had vivid projections of who the messiah would be, and yet Isaiah 52-53 never did factor into any of their eschatology.
I'm sorry for the question not related to the topic of the video, but what are your thoughts on Dr Falk's video response to your article on Amateur exegete about Deuteronomy 32?
I have answered this a few times in the past.
First off, I think he had some fair criticisms about my nitpicking on trivial matters, like his insistence on the distinctions between "higher/lower criticisms." Unfortunately, this was the shallow, maximum depth of his entire critique.
It is important to note that the basis of the article in the first place was to demonstrate how flatly, dead wrong Falk was in his handling of Deuteronomy 32, and then also to show how foolish it was of him to double-down on his ridiculous interpretation of the text, and his terrible handling of the text-critical, sociological and historical issues. He never even remotely, adequately responded to any of the real issues, which is that he continues to pass on bad scholarship-most of it just floating around in his head-and then fails to perform any consultation with ongoing scholarly discussions.
And then to top it off, Falk also had the temerity to attempt to denigrate my scholarly reputation by setting focus on the fact that one of my publications was retracted, but then is clearly oblivious about the very highly publicized story of my involvement with Dead Sea Scrolls forgeries. (You should know, that my standing in academia has not suffered at all, and this precisely because my colleagues recognise the ongoing, consistent quality of my work, and no one has ever even heard of David A Falk.)
I have chosen not to respond, precisely because his rejoinder was so laughably feeble. In effect, there is nothing there for me to clarify or correct, since he has not even bothered to resolve the primary issues in the first place, stemming from his deplorable handling of the text.
Thanks for the answer! I really wondered why you didn't make some sort of rebuttal. I also strongly wanted to ask about the little controversy between you, Dr Josh and Inspiring Philosophy. Do you and Dr Josh have a different opinion about the Genesis 1 now? I apologize if this starts to look like an interview, but still.. 😅
@@sebastianlappalainen no worries.
No, not at all. Josh and I are still strongly committed to our original position, that is, that Michael Jones-for all his intentions-leaves the clear impression from his video that there is no "borrowing" or "intertextuality" thing place in Genesis. I think the problem is that that is not his own position, so it is actually a very poorly presented video if that is our first impression.
So, I still have a script for Part 2 on my computer, that Josh and I have just never gotten around to filming and producing. Truth be told, given how much of a petulant, mortally wounded victim Michael resembled in his response, it has given both Josh and I considerable pause in pursuing this project. By this point, time has made it feel irrelevant, which I think is also unfortunate, since it provides an opportunity to teach more broadly about the Bible.
But, before I let you go, I would be interested to know your thoughts: did you find Falk's response to me convincing? If so, why?
Kipp ftw!!
Hey Kipp! Love your Videos, but the intro/outro music is way loud, and not just compared to the rest of the video, but compared to your average youtube video, and by quite a bit too.
Great Job.
Read your text of the example Isaiah verses along with those of the NRSVUE (a recent revision of the NRSV), they seem aware of some of the verses not found in the DDS as they mark such text in double brackets with a footnote pointing it out. It's the first Bible translation I've come across that puts double brackets around texts suspected to be later additions in the Old Testament, before than it was limited to the books of the New Testament towards verses that are almost universally agreed upon by scholars to be later additions (like the Pericope Adulterae of John 7:53-8:11).
Also I personally think (I'm sure some certain scholars have good arguments otherwise and I as a laymen will by no means challenge them) Isaiah 39 was one of the texts later added to the book, the part especially where Isaiah prophecies to King Hezekiah how "your house and that which your ancestors have stored up until this day shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left," comes off as exilic at the earliest.
Nice! Thanks for that.
@@DrKippDavis
No probs. Great video as usually, although I had to rewatch parts of it to better understand. Not pointing out a flaw on your part, I think I've been suffering from a short attention span as of late and I want to try and combat that.
19:10 Could this explain how 1st and 2nd Isaiah were (mistakenly?) combined into one? That is, could an early copyist have placed a space between 1st and 2nd Isaiah, and then someone, copying the earlier copyist, did not notice the space separating the two works?
This presupposes that we know what constitutes genuine ancient dead sea scroll text if we're ascerting how they're fake. Is that discussed during this segment?
The third video in the playlist goes into some greater detail about forgeries: th-cam.com/video/wRZDDzPw80E/w-d-xo.html
@@DrKippDavis thanks!
I am not a scholar, but I do not see any significant theological difference in doctrine. 2,600 approx variants, but only 7 instance of what you said were significant variations. In your opinion, do any of these changes change the message of Isaiah. With a genrally accepted vie that the 1QISA and the MT are 95% similiar. So far as I can tell, no changes in doctrine.
Agreed.
Different words can have different meanings to different people.
Perhaps "virtually identical" means less than 2,500 textual differences to a Christian apologist.
Why just last week a Christian apologist told me that apples were "virtually identical" to oranges.
I don’t really see how this is that different from the apologists argument. A scribe accidentally skipping a line, different scribes contributing to longer pieces of text, and additions from memory seem reasonable. It’s really interesting to think about a community having two different scrolls of Isaiah.
Wow, you talked a lot to natives from Groningen?
Apologist: All scripture is inspired by God!
Thinking Person(picks up variant copies of the Dead Sea Scrolls): What about these?
Apologist: All scripture is inspired by God!
Thinking Person(picks up Nag Hammadi Scriptures): What about these?
Apologist: All Scripture is... Wait! What!?!
I wonder if McDowell would think the lack of consistency (if he could be convinced it isn’t consistent, that is) is evidence against the Bible being true. It seems like if it’s such compelling evidence for the reliability in the way that he understands it, we might expect the counter factual to be true as well.
Even if somehow it would have been found that the DSS were identical in every tittle and jot it would only be evidence that the text had not changed from the time that the DSS were written which is long after many of the events that they purport to describe transpired. And, of course, the hypothetical does not even adhere to reality much like Junior McDowell.
🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽❤❤❤❤
I usually don't trust people who make poor choices with their facial hair, but this is REALLY good information! I wish people like yourself would have a conversation with myself or someone else who has lived supernatural good and evil. I would think I could appeal to your intellectual side by arguing we need to separate "Is the Christian God real", from "Does man's ancient records of God" prove God exists? There's clearly a distinction between God's existence being real, and arguing for a perfect manuscript thousands of years later. I feel terrible for anyone like yourself who doubts the true and living God because one day, you will know you were wrong! Ironically, it may be after you die when that divine love still spares you, and welcomes you to the kingdom of heaven. Obviously, your heart is only known by God. Regardless, you are not doing yourself any favors conflating God’s existence with man's remaining ancient manuscripts. I'm not saying God’s word isn't within the writings of the modern day Bible either, I'm just saying we all understand the battles of having 1 perfect infallible manuscript to attack as not being from God. Considering we don't have that 1 perfect manuscript, I'm suprised anyone confuses disproving the Bible, with is God real.
I guess some see God’s rules as a reason to rebel. I guess others see God’s divine plan as not how they would personally go about it. So on, and so on. Choosing to attack God for a living isn't wise though. You are not telling the truth. I know this for a fact because I have lived good and evil. The devil is real too. So, either you are Masonic or wicked and serve evil knowingly. Or, one day you will be calling for aid from the devil, and you will be calling to God! So, you might want to at least start saying "I don't know, I can't disprove God’s existence. I'm just attacking the idea of a one perfect infallible manuscript concept. God's word is most likely in these writings, and other writings on earth." Honestly, that realm of an answer, would be an investment in your soul that you would not regret. The alternative of going allin against God, is not wise.
Anyways, my name has "747" because God showed me a sign that he was real, using those numbers on my digital clock. I've seen God’s nature being light, numbers, etc. This is the Christian God too. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Jesus/Holy Spirit. You don't want to know what all those ancient idols are (or maybe you do know, and have chosen evil). Regardless, you must stop lying about God's nature and/or existence if you want to invest in your own eternal soul. I know you will probably have a good excuse to judge me or ignore me, but I don't judge you. I actually fear for you! A wise man who dedicated himself to error, is always a tragedy of wasted talent! Anyways, evaluate what you are doing because it's a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God!
❤❤❤🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👌👌👌👌👌👌👍👍👍👍🖖🖖🖖🖖🖖
I somehow want Chop Suey... WAKE UP!
In all this makes a case the origins of the Bible is expression of polished story telling, making their way in a crazy world. or God did it this way on purpose to test faith. Well done Dr Kipp
It's a bit like Wikipedia, with lots of people adding what they think of as an improvement, and sometimes they're even right. I wouldn't use the word "polished".
@@KaiHenningsen preachers polished their tropes on this stuff, stuff written by men using supernatural authority figures to give it the appropriate penance. I’d call it evolution in writing, practiced and polished over centuries.
I admit that most of that went over my head, but I think I got the gist: the Great Isaiah scroll is older and has more variance from the Masoretic text, the variance does include mostly minor spelling and word choice differences but does include later insertions of blocks of text, the scroll is segmented to show different secrtions, one half is from a completely different source scroll and scribe than the other. That about sum it up? Kudos in any case.
Well, we all know how biblical texts can be mistranslated. Like the old joke about the monk going back to the original texts... and ripping his hair out. 'No... it says celeBRATE!'
Hey did you figure out if they are actually fake or not I do get it now why you are resisting so hard cause you have spent time studying these thingsAnd you will have wasted your time studyingForgeries
Oh, good lord. There are only about 150 fake fragments out of a total of over 10,000. I-along with the entire scholarly community-am extremely confident about which are which.
@@DrKippDavis Oh good Lord you have over 10000 fragments that haven't been tested yet It said that in the article too They were never tested to See if they were Good And obviously you don't have any of that kind of information Otherwise you would give it to me
@@DrKippDavis I think before I did research on something I would find out if it's real or not
66 books is suspicious
Psa 66:6 - He turned the sea into dry land: they went through the flood on foot: there did we rejoice in him.
Psa 99:9 - Exalt the LORD our God, and worship at his holy hill; for the LORD our God is holy.
What are biblical texts?
Religious and political propaganda.
Exactly.
And really, consistency or lack thereof proves nothing about whether religious fiction has any connection to reality. After all, we've got L Ron Hubbard's notes showing the early inconsistencies with the xenu stories, the completed texts are reproduced without copying errors, and we know without a doubt that the stories are fictional. But the world still suffers from infestations of both christianity and scientology.
Religion has always been about power and profits, about fleecing the gullible and controlling their lives.