Hays and Ehrman on Da Vinci Code
The complete audio of a discussion titled “Behind the Da Vinci Code” between Richard Hays (Duke University) and Bart Ehrman (UNC Chapel Hill) is available here. (Note: Don’t right-click and save my link; go to the page and follow download instructions there.)
The title is important. This is not a discussion of The Da Vinci Code book or movie themselves. Both Ehrman and Hays agree that TDVC is fiction and just about everything in it (including the book’s first page claim to historical accuracy) should be taken as such. Instead this discussion centers around some of the central, legitimate questions raised by TDVC: are the canonical New Testament documents historically accurate (or “true” — a fine point raised in this discussion) and should we reject other early gospels (and if so, why?).
Share on Facebook
May 1st, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Do they disagree? (My dialup doesn’t have time to download 24MB!) If so, I have to ask, when will this ACC-rivalry madness stop!?! If not, wow, UNC and Duke agreeing - is the return of Christ upon us?
May 1st, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I listened to it late last night and this morning while cooking breakfast.
They do agree that TDVC is full of historical inaccuracies and outright fabrications. A questioner at the end expresses disappointment that they didn’t talk more about the book. Hays response: “Why didn’t we talk more about Dan Brown’s book? Because it’s not worth talking about.” Both of them reject Brown’s claims that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children, and also strongly renounced his portrayal of the RC Church as being conspiritorial and hiding secrets about Jesus they would even kill to protect.
As I said above, the meat of the discussion was on the reliability of the canonical NT (the gospels in particular) and what we should do with the various non-canonical gospels in existence. This is where Hays and Ehrman parted ways. Basically, Hays affirmed the canonical gospels as giving a “faithful” presentation of Jesus, if not always historically accurate in the particulars. Ehrman agreed that the canonical gospels are the best record of Jesus we have, but he argued that the other gospels, to varying degrees, must be given their due as they represent “the great diversity of early Chrisitianity.” Hays defended the orthodoxy that produced the canon because it did so on the basis of a “Jesus we can believe in” who also flows naturally out of Old Testament Judaism, whereas the non-canonicals present a weird, anti-creational, anti-semitic Jesus. Ehrman is much more suspicious of the canonical process, believing that it bullied out groups who had as much right to their “take” on Jesus as the established orthodoxy.
Funny you should mention the UNC Duke rivalry. At one point Ehrman was trying to explain why he thought the resurrection of Christ could never be a subject for historians (because historians deal in probabilities and miracles are the most improbable events of all by definition). He was grasping for an example of something historical that had such a high probability that we could call it relatively certain. He came up with UNC winning the national championship in 1994…which almost started a riot in the Duke Chapel.
What made it even funnier was a few moments later when Hays got up and reminded Ehrman that it was 1993–not 1994–when UNC won the championship!
May 1st, 2006 at 2:53 pm
DISCLAIMER: In all of the above, I was merely reporting the debate as I heard it. The opinions expressed by Bart Ehrman and Richard Hays are their own and not necessarily the opinions of the staff or management of this blog.
For the record, the Foolish Sage takes the position that Paul cribbed his theology from an early Dutch to Aramaic translation of Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics.
May 5th, 2006 at 12:26 am
This is more of a side note, but I find it interesting that the Catholic church is taking it all so seriosuly that it’s asking its members to boycott the movie. I’ve heard critics say that the movie could shake their faith, and it could be dangerous for them to watch? If I would were Catholic, then I would take that as an insult to my intelligence. I would also wonder why there is such a noise being created if it’s all just a bunch of bunk.
(Sorry this off sort of off topic. Btw, nice blog.)
May 5th, 2006 at 12:31 am
Thanks, Rachel. I hadn’t heard about Catholic boycots. I’ve just been glad that, as far as I know, that hasn’t been the general Protestant response this time.
While I’m obviously not big on boycotting as an effective means of dealing with cultural hostility, I can at least understand the touchy feelings of some Catholics, since they take the most direct hit in this book/movie.
On the whole, I think we should welcome the dialog this movie is opening up in our culture about the origins of the Christian faith. If more Christians really understood and could articulate their own history, it would be a wonderful opportunity.
May 6th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
It’s interesting, I was really surprised to find that New York believers have been really stumbling over DVC. I must have had my head in the sand (…or maybe just because I thought it was stupid that therefore everyone else would just think the way I do).
A few weeks ago we had a DVC class. I was expecting 5-10 people. The pastor was expecting 50, and I thought he was nuts. We got 35 or so–I was astonished.
…now I’m getting all kinds of emails. And I’m supposed to be a Jewish historian.
May 6th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
You’re not alone in your astonishment, Justin. My friend biblical theologian Bill Wilder did a one-night seminar on DVC back when the book came out. The room was packed out SRO, and this was long before the current hysteria over the movie. I was there that night, and at first thought this interest on the part of Christians was just the typical fixation on whatever the controversy of the moment is. However, during the Q & A, it became apparent that a good number of faithful church goers had been shaken in their faith by having read DVC. To my friend’s chagrin, he is now constantly asked to give this seminar in churches throughout the mid-Atlantic region. He has reluctantly become the DVC “guy” in that area.
May 7th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
You know, when I was at WTS there was a woman who kept asking me if I had read the book and what I thought of it. I kept shrugging it off. Said I hadn’t read it, don’t believe everything you read, and he’s not an academic so everything he says is therefore suspect. I wish I had read it then to actually respond. I don’t think her faith was in question, but it really got her wondering. I should’ve taken a hint.