Tigran Aivazian - The British Study Edition of the Urantia Papers

Notes to Paper № 172

who, In 1955 text: whom. The pronoun here is the subject of the verb phrase “might be led away;” not the object of “feared.” To clarify, Andrew feared they might be led away by their emotions; he was not watching his associates, whom he feared. — He did not fear them, but he was afraid they might be led astray.Also:First printing: He was concerned about the attitude of some of the twelve whomhe knew were armed with swords ... Changed to: He was concerned about the attitude of some of the twelve whohe knew were armed with swords ... — The pronoun is the subject of the verb “were armed,” not the object of “knew” nor of “were armed;” therefore “who” is the correct form. To illustrate: ... some of the twelve whom he knew Peter had armed ... [he knew Peter had armed them] ... some of the twelve who he knew were armed ... [he knew they were armed]. The sentence might have been written “He was concerned about the attitude of the twelve, some of whom he knew were armed with swords.” In which case, “whom” would be the object of the prepositional phrase “some of whom,” while the phrase itself would be the subject of “were armed,” but it was not.

Notes to Paper № 176

him, In 1955 text: he. The pronoun is the object of the preposition “except” therefore “him” is correct. See last sentence in subject paragraph for parallel usage where “him” is object of “to” also creating a “him who” phrase.

Notes to Paper № 177

who, In 1955 text: whom. This is a situation similar to the two found at 172:5.2. The pronoun concerned is the subject of love, not the object of think; therefore who is the correct form. To illustrate: ... others whom you think Jesus loved ... [you think Jesus loved them ] ... others who you think love the truth ... [you think they love the truth].

Notes to Paper № 179

11, In 1955 text: twelve. There were only eleven apostles still present for the establishment of the remembrance supper because Judas had left earlier; so the “twelve” of the 1955 text was incorrect, and was changed to “apostles” to make this sentence consistent with the rest of the narrative. However, if the manuscript had read “apostles” it could not have become “twelve” in the course of text preparation, therefore a different solution was required. The committee adopted “eleven” as the resolution of this problem based on the proposition that the manuscript contained numerals at this point — as written documents commonly do — thus “11.” At some point prior to formatting for printing, the last digit was changed either by accident or through the common typographical error of seeing what you expect to see rather than what is on the page. When the number was formatted for printing, the “12” which was so similar to “11” became “twelve” which is completely dissimilar to “eleven.” [Note that there are several other examples of errors in the 1955 text that apparently had a similar origin: see 37:8.3, 41:4.4 and 43:1.6; the several time statements that are formatted incorrectly — 134:3.3.1-3 and 177:4.1 also lend weight to the idea that numbers were written as numerals in the manuscript (as is common practice), and were formatted to words later in the process of text preparation.]

sometime, In 1955 text: some time. See note for 60:3.20.

Notes to Paper № 180

sometime, In 1955 text: some time. See note for 60:3.20.

Notes to Paper № 186

Maker,, In 1955 text: Maker (no comma). The addition of this comma properly sets off the following parenthetical phrase.

Notes to Paper № 191

the 14 th, Note that if Jesus entered the embrace of the Most Highs on 14 thof May, then his 18 thand 19 thappearances could not have been in morontia form as stated in 193:2.1 and 193:5.1 respectively.

Notes to Paper № 194

Pentecost, It is obvious that a serious textual corruption is present somewhere between the end of Paper 193 and here. Namely, Pentecost occurs after 50 days, not 40, and so 10 days are clearly “missing”. This contradiction was most likely introduced by Caligastia's agent through channelling prior to the publication of the first edition in 1955. For more detailed analysis, see the excellent book The Birth of a Divine Revelation by Ernest P. Moyer, PDF freely available at http://www.world-destiny.com.

Notes to Paper № 195

Pantaenus, In 1955 text: Poutaenus. The correct spelling of this name is Pantaenus; Dr. Sadler, in a March 17, 1959 letter http://www.ubhistory.org/Documents/BK19590317_SadlerW_06.pdfto the Reverend Benjamin Adams of San Francisco, suggested the possible source of the error: “I think the spelling of the name of the teacher in Alexandria is undoubtedly an error in transcribing the manuscript into typewriting. An “an” was undoubtedly transcribed as an “ou”. I remember when we were sometimes in doubt as to whether a letter was an “n” or a “u” in the manuscript. Of course, we who were preparing this matter, did not know the name of this teacher so could have easily made this mistake.”

Notes to Paper № 196

Sons’ sons, In 1955 text: Son’s sons. Sons’ does appear to be correct in light of the prior sentence which provides the context — “... this life of the Father is in his Sons.”