Can the NYT’s religion coverage be resurrected?

posted at 1:21 pm on April 2, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

We somehow missed this yesterday, but Newsbusters certainly didn’t, and it’s worth a look even a day later.  The New York Times, with reporters around the world and “layers of fact-checkers and editors,” somehow couldn’t properly define Easter in a news article that focused on Pope Francis’ message on Christianity’s most holy of days.  This correction has to be a contender for the most hilarious of the year:

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 1, 2013

An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the Christian holiday of Easter. It is the celebration of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead, not his resurrection into heaven.

Clay Waters at Newsbusters resurrected the original paragraph, emphasis his:

Easter is the celebration of the resurrection into heaven of Jesus, three days after he was crucified, the premise for the Christian belief in an everlasting life. In urging peace, Francis called on Jesus to ”change hatred into love, vengeance into forgiveness, war into peace.”

Even the correction is in error.  Easter celebrates Jesus’ resurrection from the dead three days after he was crucified, but his ascension into Heaven was not a “resurrection” at all.

One has to wonder why no one bothered to run this by Ross Douthat, who writes an intriguing column for the New York Times that often reflects on his Catholic faith.  For that matter, one has to wonder why none of the layers of fact-checkers and editors missed this egregious error prior to publication — or why they have assigned a reporter to cover the Pope’s Easter message who has no understanding of the event itself.  Ross would have been the more natural choice to write a report on Francis’ Easter address rather than Elisabetta Povoledo, their correspondent in Rome who has oddly not bothered to familiarize herself with even the most basic facts of the religion practiced in the Vatican.

Part of the problem for the NYT is the lack of a religion section, and a religion editor.  At one time, most newspapers had a particular section dealing with news stories about faith and religions, which presumably would have lent enough expertise to at least catch this kind of ignorance before it hit the newsstand and the Internet.  With newspapers facing tough budget choices, it’s not difficult to understand why a section on religion might be considered expendable, especially for a publication that serves an increasingly secular market.  However, the lack of an editor with at least some basic knowledge (and a reporter who checks her assumptions) will eventually lead to silly, avoidable, and credibility-damaging errors like the original story and the still-erroneous correction.  It might have also avoided some of the ignorant opinion pieces offered by the Gray Lady during the papal transition, which one can find via a search on “Benedict XVI.”

If the New York Times wants to cover religion, then it had better find reporters and editors who understand it, at least if they want to maintain that they have any credibility to perform those functions.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

OT – The UN and Obama will take your guns away.

Schadenfreude on April 2, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Hilarious.

MoreLiberty on April 2, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Newspapers are headed for collapse.

Who freaking needs them?

Of course they’ll be looking for a bailout, the Feds need them to carry their Progressive water.

PappyD61 on April 2, 2013 at 1:25 PM

OT – The UN and Obama will take your guns away.

Schadenfreude on April 2, 2013 at 1:23 PM


GAYS / GUNS / AMNESTY!!!!!

24/7/365, all day, every day, every media driven story they can work it into.

PappyD61 on April 2, 2013 at 1:26 PM

They just corrected the correction. As follows:

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 1, 2013

An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the Christian holiday of Easter. It is the celebration of Moses’ fight for the arc of the covenant from those evil Nazis’, not his escape from the great white whale Moby Dick.

Gatsu on April 2, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Can the NYT’s religion coverage be resurrected?

A better question would be, can the NYT’s religion coverage be buried or it’s too toxic for that?

Archivarix on April 2, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Actually Ed you did post this in the headlines yesterday via The Corner.

Correction of the day

Speechlesstx on April 2, 2013 at 1:30 PM

OT – The UN and Obama will take your guns away.

Schadenfreude on April 2, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Treaties, even those ratified by the Senate, DO NOT TRUMP THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. Reid v Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

The Court wrote:

“[N]o agreement with a foreign nation (or transnational or supranational organisation) can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.”

Resist We Much on April 2, 2013 at 1:32 PM

Down twinkles to the New York Times for being such idiots.

Up twinkles to Ed for using the picture of Whoa Nelly.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 1:34 PM

Most Americans know more about quantum mechanics, than they know about the Bible.

There is your indictment.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 2, 2013 at 1:34 PM

They just corrected the correction. As follows:

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 1, 2013

An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the Christian holiday of Easter. It is the celebration of Moses’ fight for the arc of the covenant from those evil Nazis’, not his escape from the great white whale Moby Dick.

Gatsu on April 2, 2013 at 1:26 PM

That’s still not accurate. A better statement would be the following:

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 1, 2013

An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the recent actions of the NYT. It is jumping the shark and nuking the fridge, not jumping the fridge and nuking the shark.

Mr. Prodigy on April 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

We somehow missed this yesterday,

Well – you and Allahpundit have to spend ALL THAT TIME each day Making SURE that you DEMAGOGUE EXACTLY on the Topics that OBAMA WANTS You to —– so, it’s entirely understandable….

williamg on April 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Heh. It’s funny, but here in Utah we have two main papers, the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News.

The trib is a NYT wannebe, a liberal bastion who delights in ticking off the conservative culture (and has since the 1800′s). The Des News, however, has dramatically increased its religion coverage and I think it is a wise move: by focusing on the growing LDS membership worldwide, they are trying to be the premier paper for that.

Not coincidentally, the Des News is actually growing, bucking the trends. Who could possibly think that a conservative message people want to read might lead to success? Certainly not the NYT!

Vanceone on April 2, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Shouldn’t that be TWO days after?

Friday to Saturday makes one day after. Saturday to Sunday makes two days after.

Christien on April 2, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Sidebar:

Yesterday, on the Laura Ingraham Show, she said that Google – in lieu of celebrating, or even making mention of, Easter – chose, instead, to celebrate the birthday of Caesar Chavez.

I refuse to use Google, so I don’t know.

But, it would necessarily follow that it happened.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Crazy.

80% of the country are Christians and they can’t find one person on staff who can tell you what Easter is. My five year old can explain it to you.

The Schaef on April 2, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Journalism majors writing stupid things on topics they know nothing about?

I am shocked by this turn of events.

Spade on April 2, 2013 at 1:42 PM

Friday to Saturday makes one day after. Saturday to Sunday makes two days after.

Christien on April 2, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Yes. “On the third day” does not mean three days later. In fact, it wasn’t even fully two days. Assuming tradition is correct that Christ died at 3:00 PM on Friday and rose on Sunday morning at sunrise, about 6:30 AM in Jerusalem, then he was only really in the tomb for a little under 40 hours.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 1:42 PM

one has to wonder why none of the layers of fact-checkers and editors missed this egregious error prior to publication

Maybe due to the fact the NYT doesn’t have anyone on their staff that is actually religious anymore?

TulsAmerican on April 2, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Crazy.

80% of the country are Christians and they can’t find one person on staff who can tell you what Easter is. My five year old can explain it to you.

The Schaef on April 2, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Kinda like this:

The Meaning of Christmas

OhEssYouCowboys on April 2, 2013 at 1:44 PM

Shouldn’t that be TWO days after?

Friday to Saturday makes one day after. Saturday to Sunday makes two days after.

Christien on April 2, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Yep, three days and three nights would put his death on Thursday.

nobar on April 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM

the premise for the Christian belief in an everlasting life.

I take bigger exception to the idea that the resurrection is a premise. To call the resurrection a premise really misses the whole point of the Christian faith.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Resist We Much on April 2, 2013 at 1:32 PM

I know, good one, but things evolve. It’s never a good sign when the president of the US doesn’t condemn this and doesn’t defend the constitution, fiercely and in their faces.

Schadenfreude on April 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Shouldn’t that be TWO days after?

Friday to Saturday makes one day after. Saturday to Sunday makes two days after.

Christien on April 2, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Generally it is said that Jesus rose “on the third day”. Since he died on Friday (presumably the afternoon), Friday is considered the “first day”, Saturday the “second day”, and Sunday therefore the “third day”. If we suppose he died on Friday afternoon and the resurrection occurred early Sunday morning, then Jesus was dead only about 40 hours or so. (And why not? 40 is a nice Biblical number, no?)

But I’m sure the NYT thinks “after three days” is close enough.

JimLennon on April 2, 2013 at 1:48 PM

80% of the country are Christians and they can’t find one person on staff who can tell you what Easter is. My five year old can explain it to you.

The Schaef on April 2, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Be sure and have your five-year-old submit a resume, maybe the NYT will hire a religion editor. :0

BTW, wanna bet that the NYT could tell you in excruciating detail all about Ramadan?

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Crazy.

80% of the country are Christians and they can’t find one person on staff who can tell you what Easter is. My five year old can explain it to you.

The Schaef on April 2, 2013 at 1:41 PM

The folks at the NY Times don’t associate themselves with Christians. It’s beneath their libtard, atheistic POV.

These are the same twerps who couldn’t believe that George McGovern lost in 1972, because they didn’t know a person who voted for Nixon.

sentinelrules on April 2, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Who would expect the NYT’s to get anything right about Christianity?

And as Ed adroitly points out, they even got the ‘correction’ wrong.

Axion on April 2, 2013 at 1:49 PM

MY BUG-EYED LOVE!!!

Oh, how I missed you!

CurtZHP on April 2, 2013 at 1:49 PM

Wow. A lot of people beat me to the punch. I see steebo77 in particular had the same line of reasoning I had.

JimLennon on April 2, 2013 at 1:49 PM

“If I don’t know what an RBI is, no paper is going to let me report on sports. But they regularly publish religion reports by people who know nothing about religion.” — Patrick Coffin.

“I want a car that runs on ignorance of Catholicism.” — Dan McLaughlin

MassVictim on April 2, 2013 at 1:51 PM

However, the lack of an editor with at least some basic knowledge (and a reporter who checks her assumptions) will eventually lead to silly, avoidable, and credibility-damaging errors like the original story and the still-erroneous correction.

They’d have to have credibility in order for it to be damaged.

Midas on April 2, 2013 at 1:53 PM

at least if they want to maintain that they have any credibility to perform those functions.

Marxist don’t want to understand religion lest of all Christianity. What they want, is to tell you what you are allowed to think, believe and do.

SWalker on April 2, 2013 at 1:54 PM

But, it would necessarily follow that it happened.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 2, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Oh it happened. And it wasn’t even subtle. And the doodle was not just a picture of Chavez, he was dressed in what looked like a white robe with a serene look on his face and a sorta glow in the background around him. Now who do you think that others might be thinking about on Easter Sunday would fit that description? Hint: take a look at the Gospel of John.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 1:54 PM

What’s the big deal about leaving out the whole 40 days thing? We’ve had kinetic military action that lasted 10 times that and nobody in the NYT even noticed.

Chickyraptor on April 2, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Shouldn’t that be TWO days after?

Friday to Saturday makes one day after. Saturday to Sunday makes two days after.

Christien on April 2, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Yep, three days and three nights would put his death on Thursday.

nobar on April 2, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Think Biblical context for a second.

Genesis; “On the first day, God created…” Not on ‘day zero’, but ‘day one’.

Christ’s crucifixion was on ‘day one’, Friday. ‘Day two’ was Saturday. And ‘on the third day’ – ‘day three’ – the resurrection.

Midas on April 2, 2013 at 1:57 PM

I know, good one, but things evolve. It’s never a good sign when the president of the US doesn’t condemn this and doesn’t defend the constitution, fiercely and in their faces.

Schadenfreude on April 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM

It wasn’t a good sign when Congress and the US military made and agreement with the UK that would “expose civilians (including the wives of servicemen) to trial by military tribunals, under military regulations and procedures, for offenses against the United States, thereby depriving them of trial in civilian courts, under civilian laws and procedures and with all the safeguards of the Bill of Rights” either. Fortunately, nothing in the Constitution or the precedent of this country’s jurisprudence allowed for such deprivations and the Court, wisely and correctly, struck such asshattery down.

Also, the Feds can sign all of the treaties that they want, but they will never get the guns in this country unless they develop some giant magnet in the sky or something. Remember, there is a gun ban in the UK; yet, an armed gunman can still walk down the streets past schools while threatening to kill police officers.

Resist We Much on April 2, 2013 at 2:00 PM

If the Times get Catholicism so wrong, how an we believe their coverage of Gaiaism ?

J_Crater on April 2, 2013 at 2:01 PM

The picture for this post:
http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/facepalm-triple.jpg

I fully understand the usage of this picture as a “Triple Facepalm”, but I still cringe every time I see it.

ITguy on April 2, 2013 at 2:02 PM

All: “Crucify Them!”

aquaviva on April 2, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Thanks to posters for putting me some knowledge. I larned a lot of wrong things in Monday school. I was misunderedumacated on the Lord’s Prayer. It turns out Jesus didn’t say one should explicitly ask forgiveness. Evidently, there’s no need to ask–rather, ye shall receive regardless. No need to knock before the door is opened. And no need to seek, either, in order to find. Best of all, the road to Hell is straight and narrow, but the gate to Heaven is wide and the path is broad.

Pro tip: On Judgment Day, make sure you’re seated on the Lord’s left-hand side.

Christien on April 2, 2013 at 2:03 PM

We apologise for the fault in the
subtitles. Those responsible have been
sacked.

Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti…

We apologise again for the fault in the subtitles. Those
responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked
have been sacked.

Akzed on April 2, 2013 at 2:04 PM

I know, good one, but things evolve. It’s never a good sign when the president of the US doesn’t condemn this and doesn’t defend the constitution, fiercely and in their faces.

Schadenfreude on April 2, 2013 at 1:46 PM

It wasn’t a good sign when Congress and the US military made and agreement with the UK that would “expose civilians (including the wives of servicemen) to trial by military tribunals, under military regulations and procedures, for offenses against the United States, thereby depriving them of trial in civilian courts, under civilian laws and procedures and with all the safeguards of the Bill of Rights” either. Fortunately, nothing in the Constitution or the precedent of this country’s jurisprudence allowed for such deprivations and the Court, wisely and correctly, struck such assh@ttery down.

Also, the Feds can sign all of the treaties that they want, but they will never get the guns in this country unless they develop some giant magnet in the sky or something. Remember, there is a gun ban in the UK; yet, an armed gunman can still walk down the streets past schools while threatening to kill police officers.

Resist We Much on April 2, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Oh it happened. And it wasn’t even subtle. And the doodle was not just a picture of Chavez, he was dressed in what looked like a white robe with a serene look on his face and a sorta glow in the background around him. Now who do you think that others might be thinking about on Easter Sunday would fit that description? Hint: take a look at the Gospel of John.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 1:54 PM

HN, thanks for the fuller description of what happened, on Google. Ingraham didn’t mention what you’ve added.

You’ve made it even more despicable.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 2, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Shouldn’t that be TWO days after?

Friday to Saturday makes one day after. Saturday to Sunday makes two days after.

Christien on April 2, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Death on Friday…Day1

In the tomb on Saturday…Day2

Risen on Sunday…Day3

“…and on the third day, He rose again from the dead…”

Solaratov on April 2, 2013 at 2:07 PM

This is all fine and dandy…

… but what does any of this have to do with being gay?

/

Seven Percent Solution on April 2, 2013 at 2:08 PM

An earlier version of this article mischaracterized the Christian holiday of Easter. It is the celebration of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead, not his resurrection into heaven.

Even the correction is in error. Easter celebrates Jesus’ resurrection from the dead three days after he was crucified, but his ascension into Heaven was not a “resurrection” at all.

No, that’s not an error in the correction. It’s true that “resurrection into heaven” is not an event or even a meaningful description of anything, but they correction is just referencing the original article. They don’t have to put in the correction that there is no such concept as being resurrected into heaven.

If the NYT referred to Merlin the Wizard as the prime minister of the UK, they might print a correction that said, “An earlier version of this article misidentified the prime minister of the United Kingdom. He is David Cameron, not Merlin the Wizard.” That wouldn’t be an assertion that there is such a person as Merlin the Wizard.

J.S.K. on April 2, 2013 at 2:10 PM

I mean, the correction wouldn’t be an assertion that there is such a person as Merlin the Wizard.

J.S.K. on April 2, 2013 at 2:10 PM

one has to wonder why none of the layers of fact-checkers and editors missed this egregious error prior to publication

Maybe due to the fact the NYT doesn’t have anyone on their staff that is actually religious anymore?

TulsAmerican on April 2, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Or…the NYT simply has no one capable of ‘checking facts’ or of properly fulfilling the functions of ‘editor’.

Solaratov on April 2, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Actually, I will defend the New York Times original article. Jesus’ resurrection to earth implies He was from this earth and went further down and came back to earth.

Jesus’ resurrection to Heaven implies He was from Heaven, was sent down to earth and went back to Heaven.

The underlying implication is that we have souls that come from Heaven.

rbj on April 2, 2013 at 2:13 PM

People still read the NYT?

I thought they just bought it for birdcage liner and fishwrap… its cheaper than getting stuff made for the purpose…

ajacksonian on April 2, 2013 at 2:14 PM

one has to wonder why none of the layers of fact-checkers and editors missed this egregious error

a. Bush tax cuts
b. Sequestration
c. All of the above

MassVictim on April 2, 2013 at 2:17 PM

I’m Catholic and I know there are doctrinal differences between us and other Christian denominations…but I do not believe this is one of them. All Christians believe in the resurrection from the dead and the ascention into heaven, right? So, the Times did not merely display an ignorance of basic Catholicism, but of basic Christianity as a whole.

Blaise on April 2, 2013 at 2:20 PM

I thought they just bought it for birdcage liner and fishwrap… its cheaper than getting stuff made for the purpose…

ajacksonian

Don’t forget housebreaking puppies.

Nothing beats a good, absorbant, NYT editorial page. ;)

Solaratov on April 2, 2013 at 2:22 PM

…why they have assigned a reporter to cover the Pope’s Easter message who has no understanding of the event itself.

I assume that’s a rhetorical question.

BocaJuniors on April 2, 2013 at 2:23 PM

No one on the NYT staff is capable of getting simple religious points correct.

But I bet they could endlessly debate the accuracy of the depiction of the use of some esoteric sex toy by Lena Dunham on HBO’s Girls.

krome on April 2, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Actually, I will defend the New York Times original article. Jesus’ resurrection to earth implies He was from this earth and went further down and came back to earth.

Jesus’ resurrection to Heaven implies He was from Heaven, was sent down to earth and went back to Heaven.

The underlying implication is that we have souls that come from Heaven.

rbj on April 2, 2013 at 2:13 PM

The Apostles’ Creed:

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipotentem,
Creatorem caeli et terrae,
et in Iesum Christum,
Filium Eius unicum,
Dominum nostrum,
qui conceptus est de Spiritu Sancto,
natus ex Maria Virgine,
passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus,
descendit ad inferos, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis,
ascendit ad caelos,
sedet ad dexteram Patris omnipotentis,
inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos.
Credo in Spiritum Sanctum,
sanctam Ecclesiam Catholicam,
sanctorum communionem,
remissionem peccatorum,
carnis resurrectionem,
vitam aeternam.
Amen.

Partial translation: He descended into Hell, on the third day he rose again from the dead

The Nicene Creed:

Credo in unum Deum,
Patrem omnipotentem,
factorem caeli et terrae,
visibilium omnium et invisibilium,
Et in unum Dominum Iesum Christum,
Filium Dei unigenitum,
et ex Patre natum, ante omnia saecula,
Deum de Deo, lumen de Lumine,
Deum verum de Deo vero,
genitum, non factum, consubstantialem Patri:
per quem omnia facta sunt.
Qui propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem descendit de caelis.

[All bow during the following two lines]
Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto
ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est.

Crucifixus etiam pro nobis sub Pontio Pilato;
passus et sepultus est,
et resurrexit tertia die, secundem Scripturas,
et ascendit in caelum, sedet ad dexteram Patris.
Et iterum venturus est cum gloria,
iudicare vivos et mortuos,
cuius regni non erit finis.
Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem:
qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.
Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur:
qui locutus est per prophetas.
Et nuam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam Ecclesiam.
Confiteor unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum.
Et exspecto resurrectionem mortuorum,
et vitam venturi saeculi. Amen.

Translation is left to the reader.

unclesmrgol on April 2, 2013 at 2:29 PM

I’m Catholic and I know there are doctrinal differences between us and other Christian denominations…but I do not believe this is one of them. All Christians believe in the resurrection from the dead and the ascention into heaven, right?

Blaise on April 2, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Yeah, this is pretty much the crux of being a Christian and the “Paper of Record” got it wrong. Twice. Clearly whatever intern edits the paper these days was relying on a Wikipedia entry or something.

Happy Nomad on April 2, 2013 at 2:47 PM

It’s not about understanding religion, it’s about understanding the English language. Resurrection is not a tough word to understand, nor is ascension. Well, not for anyone that reads out of high school level.

Here’s a phrase for the NYT to ponder: limited vocabulary.

GeeWhiz on April 2, 2013 at 2:47 PM

You do not understand. The New York Times does in fact have religious coverage. And they are devout and evangelistic.

It is centered on the person of Buraq Hussein Obama, who rose from the Socialist Third World Masses, was inaugurated in January 2009, who turned the Exploitative Capitalist First World into the Third, and who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in saecula saeculorum.

Subotai Bahadur on April 2, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Christianlity is a myth to the NYT. What else would you expect from them?

TerryW on April 2, 2013 at 3:35 PM

This is neither a language nor a particular religious problem. Most any 4th grader from a Christian home through the 1980s could have explained the Easter story and Christmas stories well enough to note this error. This error/correction shows a total lack of even rudimentary knowledge of Christianity. And if this missed this by so much, think how wrong they are about any number of things about which we don’t have rudimentary knowledge.

deepdiver on April 2, 2013 at 3:40 PM

There was a time when Religion was a serious endeavor in NYC…

workingclass artist on April 2, 2013 at 3:42 PM

If the New York Times wants to cover religion, then it had better find reporters and editors who understand it…

Why should religion be special? They don’t require reporters to understand any of the other topics they write about.

taznar on April 2, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Actually, I will defend the New York Times original article. Jesus’ resurrection to earth implies He was from this earth and went further down and came back to earth.

Jesus’ resurrection to Heaven implies He was from Heaven, was sent down to earth and went back to Heaven.

The underlying implication is that we have souls that come from Heaven.

rbj on April 2, 2013 at 2:13 PM

But the original article was about Easter, and Jesus didn’t go back to heaven on Easter.

J.S.K. on April 2, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Solaratov on April 2, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Yep. That’s why I corrected Ed’s claim that Jesus rose on the third day AFTER crucifixion. The third day =/= the third day AFTER.

Christien on April 2, 2013 at 4:44 PM

It’s just a language barrier. NYT doesn’t have anyone in their layers of fact checkers and editors who speaks Catholjc.

Jaibones on April 2, 2013 at 4:47 PM

And that remains the funniest photo ever.

Jaibones on April 2, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Actually, I will defend the New York Times original article. Jesus’ resurrection to earth implies He was from this earth and went further down and came back to earth.

Jesus’ resurrection to Heaven implies He was from Heaven, was sent down to earth and went back to Heaven.

The underlying implication is that we have souls that come from Heaven.

rbj on April 2, 2013 at 2:13 PM

However, Jesus did not go directly from being dead to Heaven. He was resurrected to Earth, and then some days later ascended into Heaven.

Mitoch55 on April 2, 2013 at 4:57 PM

This was no error. It was a deliberate trivialization of the most important event in the Christian Faith. And the correction clearly added to that effort to trivialize Christianity by the use of the phrase “premise for Christian belief.”

xkaydet65 on April 2, 2013 at 5:00 PM

NYT:

Easter is the celebration of the resurrection into heaven of Jesus, three days after he was crucified, the premise for the Christian belief in an everlasting life. In urging peace, Francis called on Jesus to ”change hatred into love, vengeance into forgiveness, war into peace.”

HotAir:

Even the correction is in error. Easter celebrates Jesus’ resurrection from the dead three days after he was crucified, but his ascension into Heaven was not a “resurrection” at all.

Actually, it celebrates the (supposed) resurrection two days after the crucifiction. “The Third Day” is two days later: Friday is the first day, then Saturday, then Sunday. (Normal way of reckoning days and years in antiquity.)

Tzetzes on April 2, 2013 at 5:19 PM

The problem is that most reporters today are almost entirely ignorant of everything except leftist politics. They are ignorant of the substance of religion and philosophy. They know only a gruesome caricature of history. They only know of science what the AGW lobby tells them. But they do know what the latest Democrat party line is, and how to parrot it.

dkmonroe on April 2, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Can the NYT’s religion coverage be resurrected?

This makes me flash back to the Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin

COURIC: [To Palin] And when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read before you were tapped for this — to stay informed and to understand the world?

Yep, you need to read the New York Times if you want to be informed and to understand the world.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 3, 2013 at 1:26 AM

Friday to Saturday makes one day after. Saturday to Sunday makes two days after.

Christien on April 2, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Yes. “On the third day” does not mean three days later. In fact, it wasn’t even fully two days. Assuming tradition is correct that Christ died at 3:00 PM on Friday and rose on Sunday morning at sunrise, about 6:30 AM in Jerusalem, then he was only really in the tomb for a little under 40 hours.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 1:42 PM

That’s all based on the false assumption that the Sabbath was always a Saturday. In fact, various holy days were also Sabbath days. Specifically, the first day of Passover was a sabbath day, as was the last day of Passover, no matter where it fell in a week.

I think there’s a very good case to be made that the crucifixion happened on a Wednesday evening, because the Passover was on a Thursday, and the Jews considered Thursday to begin at sundown of the previous day. As the first day of Passover, Thursday would have been a sabbath day, and the Jewish religious leaders would have been in a near panic to make sure the criminals were not hanging on crosses during Passover. Then the first day of Passover — and therefore the sabbath — would have ended at sundown Thursday. Friday would have not been a sabbath, but Friday evening through Saturday morning would have been the normal weekly sabbath, and the sabbath would have ended at sundown Saturday. So at the first daylight, on Sunday morning, they would have gone to the tomb to do a proper embalming, and even though the sun was not yet up, Jesus had already risen. So burial from Wednesday evening until Saturday evening, or pretty much 3 days and 3 nights.

Now, 3 days and 3 nights is a fairly rhetorical description of a 3-day span, and it wouldn’t necessarily have to have been exactly 3 days and 3 nights. But I seriously doubt it was for just Saturday and Sunday, which would more accurately be described as just a couple of days.

There Goes The Neighborhood on April 3, 2013 at 1:38 AM

Eric Metaxas (author of the recent, amazing biography of Bonhoeffer) talked about this years ago: Does Anyone in the Media Ever Read the Bible?

Even though the Bible is more accessible than ever, the situation is getting worse. Of course, part of this is because Christian faith is more than just looking up a passage in the Bible to understand what people believe – though many “reporters” are far too lazy to do that either. The larger problem, though, is that this media ignorance is also a reflection of how the Biblical and Christian heritage is becoming lost to the society as a whole, regardless of whether one is Christian or not.

Katja on April 3, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Even the correction is in error. Easter celebrates Jesus’ resurrection from the dead three days after he was crucified, but his ascension into Heaven was not a “resurrection” at all.

*nerd snort* “…Mara Jade was not a “sith lord”, she was a Force User, and she is full Cannon, not “semi-cannon”, as claimed in your incompetent…”

It’s a friggin fairy tale.

eh on April 3, 2013 at 8:36 PM