I would forgive you for not knowing about the new Christian apologist Wes Huff. Until recently few people knew of him; his YouTube channel remained unpopular even into late last year. However, very recently he gained popularity and notoriety for successfully debating a fringe thought conspiracy theory loon, parlaying that into appearing on the (unfortunately) well-known Joe Rogan podcast within a year. Since that time he has been struggling to outrun the consequences of the many errors he has made in his presentations on both platforms, seeking to obscure or understate the severity of his mistakes.
The manner in which the online Christian community has endorsed their latest apologist has confirmed something I’ve only recently realized about apologists. For much of my twenties and thirties I assumed the apologetic world was interested in debating the authenticity of Biblical claims, fighting for the rational view of Christian culture, endorsing the authority of sacred texts or rituals within Christianity, and overall attempting to make Christianity more understandable, relatable, and unassailable to skeptics. I assumed the goals of apologists were evangelistic, with messaging intended for an external audience. However, as time has progressed and I now am in my forties, I see that apologists are entirely focused on their internal audience, with messaging purposely tailored for the goal of building confidence among existing adherents. Apologists are almost entirely uninterested in evangelism: even their outward-facing messaging is a performance for their already-convinced audience. Their goal is not to get people in, it’s to keep people in.
Wes Huff performed well against an incredibly easy mark. His remarkable interest in manuscripts offered him plenty of opportunities to embarrass his debate opponent, and they were incredibly fulfilling moments to watch. Observing a learned individual excitedly discuss their field of work is almost universally entertaining regardless of the field being discussed, and Wes Huff was no exception.
YouTube was filled with both criticism and support for Wes Huff’s performance in the Billy Carson debate. Of interest to me is the criticism, because “winning” a debate against someone like Billy Carson does not appear to be that difficult, outside of keeping patience while silly claim after silly claim is lobbed without evidence. I feel bad for everyone involved because it doesn’t seem like it was ever a fair fight. I tend to be fairly disinterested with debates, but this one was particularly boring.
But most of Wes’ errors during the Carson debate were outshone by his performance some time later on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. Here Wes fully leans into his apologetics, speaking to a dubious listener even less studied than Carson, which gave Wes the opportunity to take some severe liberties with facts in order to weave a magical story of textual consistency and extended lore factuality. YouTube users @Paulogia and @AlexOConnor provided some excellent commentary highlighting the problems in Wes’ comments.
Paulogia
Christian Debate Hero Stumbles on Joe Rogan on Resurrection (Wes Huff Response)
What happens when a rising star in Christian apologetics faces one of the toughest platforms in modern discourse? On the Joe Rogan Experience, @WesHuff dazzled with his knowledge of ancient manuscripts and historical nuance—until the wheels came off. From bold claims about the resurrection to moments that felt more like apologetic overreach than scholarship, Huff’s appearance left both skeptics and Christians asking hard questions. Did he solidify his place as Christianity’s new champion, or did he fall into the very traps that often haunt apologists? Dive into this fascinating breakdown of Wes Huff’s viral conversation, the resurrection argument that left Rogan skeptical, and what it means for faith, doubt, and the battle for credibility in the age of podcasts.
Alex O’Connor
How Wes Huff Got the Bible Wrong on Joe Rogan
Wesley Huff was recently on the Joe Rogan Podcast bringing biblical scholarship — from the Dead Sea Scrolls to resurrection apologetics — into the mainstream. Happy as I am to see this, I think he made a few important errors.
Of note in the Alex O’Connor video is that Alex misunderstood the textual data of the Dead Sea Scrolls, citing lists of discrepancies without fully understanding the types that these lists were referencing. This set off a few more videos where scholars and apologists stepped up to correct Alex to varying degrees of success. A positive outcome of these commentaries is that Alex was able to speak with the knowledgable Dr. Kipp Davis, whose work I first experienced while I was employed as a front-end designer at the Museum of the Bible, publishing online the results of the study into their embarrassing purchase and display of fraudulent Dead Sea Scroll fragments. I hope for Alex’s sake that he finds opportunities to make use of Dr. Kipp’s deep knowledge of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Alex O’Connor
Was I Wrong About Wes Huff?
Last week, I responded to Wes Huff’s appearance on Joe Rogan. I’ve had a lot of negative feedback, and today I respond.
The content being produced about Wes’ failures to remain scholarly continues to be released, but I think I’ve seen enough to reach a conclusion about the man and Christian apologetics in general. A major part of what drew me to apologists years ago was their promise of answers and certainty in the face of doubt or questions related to Christianity. What I believed they were going to offer me were rational and logical answers to the questions I carried with me for years, but I quickly found myself dissatisfied with what they shared. Apologists could record hours of footage explaining their convoluted reasoning but couldn’t seem to answer the simple question “What if you’re wrong?” There always hung the presupposition that their basic reasoning had to be correct and was therefore unassailable, which confounded me because no truth should be feared to face questioning.
But that’s when it finally made sense: it’s not about obtaining truth, it’s about confirming biases. An apologist exists to tell you what you already believe is definitely correct and doesn’t need to be questioned, probed, or considered anew. The viewers aren’t supposed to be probing for answers. Viewers are sheep, a flock waiting to be told what to think. An apologist can’t be proven wrong because that leads viewers to lose confidence in them, which might in turn mean they won’t be as willing to accept whatever is said by that apologist. Sure, the apologist should be presented as knowledgable, but their skillset should be less in scholarly methods and more in persuasion. Wes Huff was appreciated by his fans because he showcased himself as a scholar in a way that lent him credibility, but the words he used were those of an apologist presenting church tradition as truth.
That’s why I’ve turned to the critics. The goal of a skeptic is to seek out the truth wherever it leads, to ask the question “What if I’m wrong?” and accept the answers that come from that introspection. There has been something very fulfilling to find a profoundly helpful answer under the rock the apologists were screaming should not be moved. Christian culture claims truth as the bedrock to their traditions, but members of the community seem profoundly adverse to seeking it out. Christian apologists have said that good deconstruction is the kind that always returns to back to the place where you started. That doesn’t sound very truth-oriented, does it?