Approximately 200 packed Goodson Chapel Tuesday night-not for a late-night service, but for a discussion about the book and upcoming movie The Da Vinci Code.
Students, faculty and community members came to hear two professors-Bart Ehrman, chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Richard Hays, professor of the New Testament at Duke Divinity School-discuss religious questions raised by Dan Brown's 2003 novel.
Both Ehrman and Hays rejected the historical accuracy of the events presented in The Da Vinci Code, which follows a professor as he uncovers a Catholic Church conspiracy involving the story of Mary Magdalene and the holy grail.
"Had [The Da Vinci Code's] claims been written on a final exam, it will definitely show up in such an e-mail," Hays said, noting that when professors receive student papers that contain "laughable historical mistakes" they will circulate these errors to other professors via e-mail.
Ehrman admitted that he enjoyed the book, but only as a clever murder mystery. Although inaccurate, The Da Vinci Code did perform a service, he added.
"It got people to ask questions that are important and pursue historical knowledge that matters," Ehrman said, noting that if this discussion was held five years ago, only 20 people would have showed up.
Hays and Ehrman proceeded to discuss questions regarding the Gospels of the New Testament.
Both acknowledged the disparities between the accounts presented in the New Testament and rejected the act of "harmonizing" the Gospels into one.
"[The act of harmonizing is] coupled with a certain fear that if one can find one sentence in the Bible that's not true, then that's going to be the pin prick that's going to let all the air out of the balloon," Hays said. "You don't have to be afraid; the truth will vindicate itself."
The professors, however, offered different explanations for the existence of the disparities.
Hays said the differences can be traced back to the nature of the Gospels. "You have to deal with them as narratives that give the rendering of the identity of Jesus," he said, adding that each Gospel writer values something different in his portrayal of Christ.
Ehrman, however, attributed the disparities to the formation of the Gospels-a "word-of-mouth" mechanism. With the passage of time, he said, details were changed and deleted.
The speakers also regarded the miracles of Jesus from two different perspectives-one as a historian and the other as a theologian.
Historians, Ehrman explained, can not say with certainty the truth behind the miracles because their occurrence defies probability. The claims regarding the miracles of Jesus, therefore, is a faith claim, he said.
Hays said the miracles are "faithful to the true identity of Jesus Christ." He admits, however, that it is not a historical claim but a theological claim.
One audience member asked the professors to clarify the relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene-Christ's alleged wife in The Da Vinci Code.
Ehrman said the name was mentioned 13 times in the New Testament-she was with Jesus once in these. Some Gospels indicate that Mary Magdalene was the first to proclaim Jesus rose from the dead, hence it is reasonable to claim that she started Christianity, he said.
"That's not the same as saying they had sex and she had his babies," Ehrman added.
A number of audience members said they enjoyed the different view points the professors brought to the issues and were impressed by the way they answered them.
"It was very intellectually stimulating," said John Gentrind, a member of the Hope Ministry Institute. "I disagreed with some of their answers and was disappointed by others; but they left me with plenty to think about."
Others expected a greater focus on the book. "I thought they would pay more attention to The Da Vinci Code and the related questions regarding violence," said Sonio Dolutskaya, fifth-year graduate student in the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.