Hi Andrew
Thanks for your question. Yes the WH/BC "debate" was very frustrating to watch. I don't think any of the three participants shone on that occasion, nor in their respective post-debate responses. It's all been a bit ugly. I do know that Billy was very ill at that time having just been discharged from hospital with pneumonia, which he contracted while in Turkiye. You only had to look at him to see he was not well for that recording. It would probably have been better if Billy had deferred for another date, or if his friend the moderator had rescheduled. It's a mistake. I have made myself. Early on for The 5th Kind I recorded an interview when I was under the weather and I feel I let the guest and the channel down - and our loyal T5K subscribers weren't slow to point that out. So lesson learned! Billy was exceptionally low energy in the conversation and I think there were two points where Billy couldn't recall the specific sources for what he was saying, which was certainly embarrassing. Other than that he was on point from what I could see, but very low energy and unable to press his points. I feel that the moderator did not facilitate well in my opinion so Billy and Wes were both making valid points but talking at cross purposes.
As a Christian apologist Wes is clearly interested in the dating and authorship of sources (mainly with a view to dispensing with those sources which do not support the orthodoxy he is contending for. (I say this as a recovering apologist myself!) So while he was on top of some sources he was dismissive of those relating to the heterodox topics Billy was interested in discussing. For instance I would have liked to have heard Billy and Wes discuss the topic of Jesus' possible relationshiop with and marriage to Mary Magdalene. To me it is interesting that there were early Christian communities who believed that this relationship was a thing and evidently had no problem with it. Why then did it become a problem for orthodoxy? That's a conversation I would have enjoyed. Unfortunately when Billy cited the new fragment known as "The Gospel of Jesus' Wife," at first Wes claimed not to know what text Billy was talking about. Then when it became clear it was the Karen King fragment he brushed it aside saying that it had been debunked. Wes may have read that it had been debunked but that is in fact not the case. Harvard Professor, Karen King's work was backed up by Harvard's analysis of the fragment and review and by Professor Roger Bagnall (I think his name is) at Yale. No evidence of fakery or forgery was found.
But whether or not you accept the Karen King fragment, the fact is that the "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" only goes a degree further than what we already have in other extra-canonical texts such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of Philip and Pistis Sophia, all of which describe an intimate, romantic relationship between Jesus and Mary (Magdalene) and a bit of conflict between Peter and Mary, with the former being jealous of the latter's access to more privileged information. I find that interesting. Not from the point of view of proving anything, but out of an interest in the early Christians (those sources are from the 20sCE) and their widespread comfort with a picture in which Jesus had a girlfriend or even wife. Even if it was a genuine mistake on Wes's part regarding the Karen King fragment, he must have known about the validity of the question even if he couldn't name the sources, ie the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Gospel of Philip and Pistis Sophia. Wes seemed on top of his other sources so it surprised me that he didn't appear to know about them and the legitimacy of Billy's point. So I guess everyone fell down there. Billy didn't name the other sources, Wes either didn't know them or didn't want to discuss them and the moderator failed to move the conversation forward onto the actual topic. I think it is interesting that orthodoxy has such a huge problem with even the idea of Jesus in a relationship. I find that odd. It in no way impacts my value of Jesus' person or teaching. But for some it certainly seems to be hot potato. As, NT scholar Bart Ehrman said the other day, "Does it really matter?" I would have liked to have heard that discussed by Billy and Wes but unfortunately the point got lost because the moderator lost the point in all the to and fro over the fragment's authenticity, which was a shame.
I would also like to have heard Billy and Wes talk about the question of early Christian communities, such as those which produced Thomas, Q and the original form of Mark's Gospel to be found in the Codex Sinaiticus, popularly referreed to as the Sinai Bible, which had a theology variously absent of resurrection, resurrection appearances, crucifixion and ascension narratives. How were those themes not important to these Christian writers / communities? Initially Wes Huff claimed not to know what Billy meant by the Sinai Bible. However, once the point was clarified again the moderator didn't move the conversation forward onto the actual question, which was a shame because I would have liked to hear a conversation on that topic. My interest in Christian sources is slightly different to that of an apologist like Wes Huff in that I like to go back and give a "second listen" to the full kaleidoscope of primitive and early Christianity before its imperialisation and orthodoxisation. I am more of a radical that way! I would also have liked to have heard Wes' response to the problem of lack of eyewitness or contemporaneous reportage of Jesus, which was one of Billy's strongest points, however Wes' feed seemed to cut out at that point and once again the moderator didn't bring the conversation back to that point in question, which is a shame because I think that would have been an interesting conversation too.
Personally, I am interested in the overlap of Billy's conclusions regarding human origins and human potential and my own, each of us having arrived at those conclusions from quite different start points, me through my work in hermeneutics and the History of Christian Thought (in which I trained pastors over a 15 year period) and Billy from his reading of hermetic texts. Where we overlap is in our reading of the Mesopotamian Cuneiforms. We are probably about 80% agreed on the hermeneutics of those texts, enough to make for some interesting conversations. Much of my own work flows from the connections between the cuneiform narratives and the narratives of the Bible and other world mythologies, indigenous narratives and ancestral stories. I have recorded with Billy on the topic of the Bible and how we relate to it and I recently presented a five-hour long joint workshop with Billy, THE ANUNNAKI ENIGMA, about the Mesopotamian cuneiforms and how they have reframed religious belief, and I could not in any way fault his contribution to those conversations.
I think in the debate Wes Huff was misleading concerning the dependence of the Bible on the Mesopotamian cuneiforms. It has been well established since the 1800s and in public conversation since the 1870s when Assyriologist George Smith publised "The Chaldean Account of Genesis." Some of the correlations are in matters of considerable detail. In the academic community this is in no way a controversial point. In fact, my next video on the Paul Wallis Channel is on this very topic. Any pastor with a Bachelors Degree in Theology has to study this dependence as part of their degree. I dont know what Wes Huff's first degree is in but I was surprised that he challenged the idea of that dependence. I found that very odd. Unfortunately the moderator was not in a position to probe those questions further. Again very frustrating to watch.
I think the reaction among some conservative Christian podcasters has been out of proportion to what actually happened in the conversation. Certainly Billy fumbled over his sources, but to be fair and accurate, Wes was also off regarding his marshalling of sources. That said, if you see the conversation as a debate there's no question that Wes appeared to win. In fact Billy tapped out and went home and asked his friend not to air the conversation because he felt he had not done himself justice. The "friend" however ignored Billy's requests and put it to air anyway, that is until Billy hand-delivered a formal cease and desist. To me that's a pretty sad and unnecessary scenario. Aside from the ethics of that if you don't have a release from your guest you can find yourself in a legal minefield by publishing. When the friend took it down Wes Huff then put the video up on his channel and that's how it got picked up by other conservative Christian and christian apologetics channels who I guess could cite "fair use" as reaction videos, so I am assuming they are potentially in a different boat, legally. Speaking personally, if a guest came onto my show at my invitation, and was ill, and underperformed and was unhappy about the interview, I wouldn't publish it against that person's will. Why would I do that to a guest? If I have a guest it is to give them an opportunity to speak not to trap them. That's my view.
As for the current spat of "gotcha" videos, when in in the past people have asked me to do a "debate" or a "response video" in order to "oppose," "debunk," or "expose" some other writer, or a researcher, or a YouTuber who takes a different view to me, I have just said "No." Because why on Earth would I do that to a fellow seeker or a fellow broadcaster, whether or not we agree? I am not interested in debating apologists because I think our interests and agendas are just so different. I am not a fan even classic Oxbridge debates because I think that approach only polarises people and is simply not how we best learn from each other. Debates polarise the speakers. There is no incentive to really listen to or understand the other speaker, it's all about "beating" them. And of course debates polarise the audience, which is also unhelpful as there are likely to be strong points and weak points on both sides. I think that rather than pitching one "expert" against another or one YouTuber against another, it is better that we listen critically, discerningly, skeptically even, to anyone who speaks and be willing to go away and do our own thinking and reading. Incidentally, I see Wes Huff has put out a video declining offers to debate because he is "not a debater," and I understand from theological podcasters who have approached him for a debate that Wes is unavailable, being now booked solid until 2029. Nice to be in demand!
So those are my thoughts. I hope that's helpful.
Health and Peace,
Paul
