Ruth Ann Daily: The Bible is Good Journalism

In today's column, Post-Gazette columnist Ruth Ann Dailey takes on The Da Vinci Code.

I haven't read the book nor have I seen the movie, so I will have to remain an agnostic on those aspects of her column. For the trolls keeping score - that was a pun.

She does, however, make some interesting points about The Bible. Here's how she begins:

I didn't read "The Da Vinci Code," and I haven't seen the movie, but I'm not going to let those two facts keep me from committing punditry on this season's silly salvo at the Church.

Why not? Because of this little thing I like to call "journalism."

I like the self-deprecating part about not letting facts get in the way of "committing punditry." It's funny because for so many pundits it's all too true.

But then gives a thumbnail definition of journalism:

Here's how it usually works: You have a busy life, filled with jobs and kids and chores and charity work, so you don't have time to attend, say, most sessions of the Legislature in Harrisburg. (If you're lucky, you haven't attended any at all.)

Instead, you drop 50 cents into a little box and pull out a newspaper with regular, detailed reports on what our fine state reps are up to. The newspaper also carries first-hand accounts of things such as war, natural disasters, crime and government -- or crime in government.

First hand accounts and so on. But then she ties things together with:

It's a good system, don't you think? It also happens to be the reason that I believe Jesus was divine, performed countless miracles, preached radical truths and didn't father children with Mary Magdalene.

The eyewitnesses who heard his sermons, witnessed his miracles and touched his living body after they'd watched him die wrote about these events in both detail and great accord. Though they give Mary Magdalene credit for arriving first at Jesus' empty tomb, they don't mention a romantic relationship or children. They understood that the gospel concerns his blood, not his bloodline.

Well, that's something new, the Bible as 1st Century journalism. This might get her into some epistemological trouble, however. For instance, on the Gospels:

• Were the Gospels written at the time the events they describe were unfolding? If not, how long after, say, the crucifixion, were they written? Days? Months? Years? Decades?

• Were all the Gospels written by people who had first hand, eye-witness accounts of the events they were "reporting" on? If not, how did those who weren't witnesses collect their information?
  

• Were they all written independently or do one or more quote any of the others?

If there's a "no" in any of those questions, then there's room, at least, for some healthy skepticism in calling The Bible "journalism."

Until I know more, I remain agnostic on the entire subject.