[1]
INFORMATIONAL First printing: Bethphage; — The 1955 text uses Bethpage in all 13 occurrences of this word. In the 4th printing, the original was changed to Bethphage here, and at ten other locations; the remaining two were changed in the 9th printing. These changes were presumably made because Bethphage is the spelling found in English Bibles since the Authorized Version (King James) of 1611. While the apparent misspelling in The Urantia Book is not theologically or historically significant, it seems unlikely to the committee that so many identical typographical errors could have occurred, so the spelling “Bethpage” must have been used in the original manuscript. The committee made its decision to retain the original form based on three factors: 1) It is the only form found in the text of the UB itself; 2)The form is a reasonably accurate transliteration of the sound of the original; and 3) Though the form found in the UB is uncommon, it is not unique — the spelling having been found in numerous texts pre-dating the UB and in various references down to the present day including a number on the Web.
[2]
days, In 1955 text: day. The change from “day” to “days” here is required because the former is inconsistent with the ensuing narrative (at 174:0.1, 175:3.1, and 177:5.3 which would place the time of Lazarus’s flight between Tuesday at midnight (when his death was decreed by the Sanhedrin) and Wednesday evening (when “certain ones” at the camp “knew that Lazarus had taken hasty flight from Bethany”) — two days before the crucifixion of Jesus. Because of the near impossibility of a typographical error leading from “week” in the manuscript to the “day” found in the 1955 text, the committee rejected the “week” resolution (found in numerous printings) and adopted “days.” If the original manuscript read “days,” the loss of only a single character in typesetting would create the problematic “day.” This is a very common type of error and well within the realm of possibility. Though “days” is a new resolution to this problem and therefore unfamiliar to readers — perhaps some will see it as a “stretch” — it bears repeating (as with West/west at 79:5.6) that if the 1955 text had originally read “days,” there would have been no contradiction in the text and the issue would never have been raised in the first place.
Notes to Paper № 169
[1]
was laid, In 1955 text: laid. This sentence, as structured, does require “lay” rather than “laid,” the former being the past tense of the intransitive verb “to lie;” the latter being the past of the transitive verb “to lay.” However, it is the committee’s opinion that the error here is not poor grammar by the author, but a lost word in transcription. The authors of Part IV of The Urantia Book generally follow the text of the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901, with certain modernizations and corrections as needed. The ASV text of Luke 16:19-21 is as follows: “Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen, faring sumptuously every day: and a certain beggar named Lazarus was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table; yea, even the dogs came and licked his sores.” In view of the apparent reliance of The Urantia Book on the ASV at this point, the committee decided to reject “lay” and reconstruct the verb as “was laid.” Additional contextual support for this argument is based on the beggar’s inability to fend for himself. If “even the dogs came and licked his sores,” he surely would have been carried to the rich man’s gate by others, who would then have laid him there.
Notes to Paper № 172
[1]
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 whom he knew were armed with swords ... Changed to: He was concerned about the attitude of some of the twelve who he 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
[1]
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
[1]
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
