PAUL'S COMMENT ON THE BILLY CARSON / WES HUFF DEBACLE
I think it is very easy to talk at cross purposes, which I think was part of what made the Billy Carson / Wes Huff “debate” such a painful watch. Classically an apologist’s job is to show the reasonableness of faith. In practice apologists often fall into a pattern which begins with a faith position, i.e. orthodoxy, and then champions data which supports that orthodoxy while finding a wayfair or foul to dispense with any data that contradicts their conclusion. For this reason, to pitch an apologist against a seeker will generate a clash of agendas from the outset. That dynamic was just one part of what made it a frustrating watch.
I think it is fair to say that Billy did not do well in that conversation. 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 Billy to see he was not well. He was exceptionally low energy in the conversation, unable to press his points and I think there were two points where Billy couldn’t recall the specific sources for what he was saying. For that reason it might have been better to have postponed the conversation until a better time. Billy agreed as a favour to the host and was not on his mettle.
The response from some conservative Christian podcasters to Billy's underperformance in the discussion has been, in my opinion, totally out of proportion to what actually happened. I note that Wes made mistakes in his contributions with regard to sources and textual dependence. These mistakes were of no interest to this conservative Christian fanbase. As a Christian apologist Wes takes a particular interest in the dating and authorship of sources. However, though he was on top of some sources, he was dismissive of and appeared not up-to-date with any of the sources relating to the heterodox topics Billy was interested in discussing.
I would have liked to have heard Billy and Wes discuss the topic of Jesus’ possible relationship with Mary Magdalene, for instance. My view is that it is interesting that there were early Christian audiences / readerships who believed in this relationship between Jesus and Mary and evidently had no problem with it. Unfortunately when Billy cited the new fragment known as “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife,” initially Wes Huff claimed not to know what text Billy was talking about. When it became clear it was the Karen King fragment that Billy Carson was referencing, Wes dismissed it, asserting that it had been debunked. This is in fact not the case.
Harvard Professor Karen King’s work was backed up by Harvard’s analysis of the fragment and by Professor Roger Bagnall at Yale. The age of the fragment has been questioned and its apparent dependence on the Gospel of Thomas has been noted. However, these points do not in any way falsify the fragment, they only inform us. After all, John's Gopsel shows evidence of being both late and dependent on the Gospel of Thomas but these factors do not in any way falsify the Gospel of John. The Harvard review concluded from its analysis that no evidence of fakery or forgery had been found and to date it has not retracted that position.
In the end, though, 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,. They all describe an intimate, romantic relationship between Jesus and Mary (Magdalene) and a degree of friction 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 “what really happened,” but out of an interest in the spectrum of belief among early Christians (those sources are from the 200sCE) and the widespread comfort at that time with a picture in which Jesus had a girlfriend or even a wife. Frustratinglyin the disagreement over the validity of the “Gospel of Jesus’ Wife” fragment the moderator failed to move the conversation forward onto the actual topic. Which is a shame becuase I would have liked to have heard it discussed.
I find it interesting that orthodoxy has such a huge problem with even the idea of Jesus in a relationship. It in no way impacts my value of Jesus’ person or teaching. But for some, Wes Huff for instance, it certainly seems to be hot potato. But as NT scholar Bart Ehrman said just the other day, “Does it really matter?”
I would also like to have heard Billy and Wes discuss the question of early Christian literary communities such as those which produced and read Thomas, Q and the original form of Mark’s Gospel (ie the one to be found in the Codex Sinaiticus, popularly referred 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 Carson meant by the Sinai Bible. However, once it was established that Billy was talking about the form of Mark in the Codex Sinaiticus, again the moderator didn’t move the conversation forward onto the actual question. So again, very frustrating.
My view is that the earlier version of Mark has a kind of resurrection ending ,with a statement that Jesus has arisen and will be seen in Galilee. My take, however, is that this is actually an ascension-type narrative – as is the passage in I Corinthians 15, where Paul equates his subjective resurrection encounters with the resurrection encounters of "the Twelve." The important note here is that Paul did not claim to have encountered a flesh and bone human being. Indeed Paul argues that after our bodies die we continue as spiritual entities with a “spiritual body.” And in I Corinthians 15, that is how he understands Jesus’ resurrection too.
The empty tomb of "proto-Mark" fits neatly into the trope of the apotheosis of the hero, common to Graeco-Roman mythologies. This was the cultural milieu of the first readers of that text. The first Christian readers of the Gospels and New Testament would have read of Jesus' resurrection and ascension and recognised the familiar trope. I would have loved to have heard this discussed. Unfortunately, once again the moderator never moved the conversation onto that point for Billy and Wes to compare notes, which was a shame because I would have liked to hear a conversation on that topic.
Billy's interest in Christian sources differs to that of an apologist. Wes Huff is concerned to establish what he believes can be demonstrated as history and then argue for the truth of orthodoxy, built on that historicity. I can understand that. However, my interest is in going back and giving a “second listen” to the full kaleidoscope of primitive and early Christianity, from the time before its imperialisation and orthodoxisation. I guess I am more of a radical that way! As to historicity, though, I would also have liked to have heard Wes Huff’s response to the problem of the lack of eyewitness or contemporaneous reportage of Jesus, which was one of a number of salient points Billy raised.
The closest we have to contemporaneous reportage is the description of early Christian belief and practice offered by four writers: Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny and Josephus. However they are one or two generations removed from the claimed events. This is one of the most important problems Christianity has to address in its apologetics. It is a shocking gap in the apologist's armory. Frustratingly, Wes’ feed dropped out at this very point, and the moderator never brought the conversation back to that point.
As to the dependence of the Bible on the Mesopotamian cuneiforms, this is something that has been well established since the 1800s and has been a matter of public conversation since the 1870s when Assyriologist George Smith published his book “The Chaldean Account of Genesis.” Some of the correlations are in matters of considerable detail. In the academic community this is not in any way a controversial point to make, so I was very surprised when Wes Huff refused to acknowledge the point. Wes may be studying for a PhD, but he does not have a theology degree under his belt as yet. The fact is that anyone with even a Bachelor’s Degree in Theology has to study this dependence as part of their degree.
At an academic level, where the controversy lies is around precisely what that dependence means. What are its implications? It would have been interesting to have heard these questions discussed, but once again the moderator failed to hold the conversation on topic long enough for that to happen.
In the end, Billy tapped out and went home and asked his friend not to air the conversation because he knew he had not done himself justice. The “friend” however ignored Billy’s requests and put it to air anyway, at least until Billy hand-delivered a formal cease and desist. Only then did he take it down. By this point Wes had already posted the conversation on his own YT channel and other YouTubers immediately re-published it on their own platforms.
To me that’s a regrettable scenario. Why would you do that to a person, let alone a friend? If I have a guest on The 5th Kind or the Paul Wallis Channel it is to give them an opportunity to speak, not to trap them. That’s my view.
When in the past people have asked me to do a “debate” or a “response video” in order to “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, be that Billy Carson, Wes Huff or anyone else?
Billy’s initial video response was unfortunate The attacks on him – which included physical intrusion into his place of residence, and physical threats against his family – had pushed Billy into a bad space and his initial response video was a puglisitic displayas he addressed very specific people, who had abused his trust for the sake of clout-chasing. I completely understand the impulse to set the record straight, but it made for an ugly moment. Billy then took the video down, made a public apology and got himself some counselling, and he shared some of that conversation on his platform. Regrettably some content creators see all this as grist for the mill and use their own negative judgements of people in the public eye as a bid for views. I find that a shame. After all, which of us would want to be judged at our worst moment?
If our agenda is to explore topics and learn understand the other, then I don’t find debates a very productive way to go about things. By their nature, debates polarise the speakers so that there is no real incentive to to deeply listen to nor understand the other speaker. Instead it’s all about finding ways (fair or foul) to “beat” your opponent. And of course debates polarise the audience too, 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 to any speaker and then be willing to go away and do our own thinking and reading. That’s my take.
I hope that’s helpful.
Health and Peace,
Paul
COMMENT FROM BILLY...
Happy Birthday, Paul Anthony Wallis!
Today, I want to take a moment to truly honor and celebrate you — not just for the incredible man that you are, but for the powerful impact you've had on my life.
At a time when very few stood by me, you showed up with unwavering support. When others were hesitant, you weren’t afraid. When many turned away, you leaned in. You believed in me, you encouraged me, and you mentored me when it felt like no one else even cared. Your kindness, wisdom, and genuine spirit helped light my path in some of the darkest and loneliest moments of my journey.
I am beyond thankful for you, Paul. Your friendship has been a gift, your guidance a compass, and your heart a true source of inspiration. I celebrate you today — not just for what you've achieved, but for the incredible soul you are.
Wishing you a birthday filled with as much love, light, and joy as you have brought into the lives of others, especially mine. You are truly one of a kind.
Paul Anthony Wallis 