The same correspondent writes that in July, fully awake after dinner, she thought of Neville — believing him still in Barbados, since he had left in March and said he would not return until the fall — and he suddenly stood before her in a grey business suit, said 'There is no time', and vanished.
Date (happened)
c. July 1966
estimated · probable · preferred
Why
Corrects the year of D1's 1967-07 claim (run v1.1/l4/w1/D1), left standing per append-only. Note this event also carries a `corpus v1 / phase3b` field_date row at circa/CERTAIN with a NULL year - a claim asserting certainty about no date at all; that is phase3b's, not mine, and is left untouched.
Reasoning
The passage fixes the vision to 'In July' with no year, so the year comes entirely from the lecture that reads the letter aloud. D1 took that year from d0, a bound reading 'after 1967-07' whose own note states it is not a delivery date, and so placed the vision in July 1967. With the lecture dated 1966-11-15 the July is necessarily July 1966 - a correspondent cannot describe in November 1966 a vision she will have eight months later. The lecture's dateline claim is itself corroborated by the letter's internal 1966 chronology, which is the same letter, so the two agree. Month-level and circa because the passage says only 'In July'; probable, matching the delivery claim it inherits from.
-
c. July 1967
estimated · refuted
Why
Flagged weak in the lecture's own reasoning: the passage itself never states the year, only reference glosses do.
Reasoning
The existing field_date claim fixes only 'In July' from the passage itself, with no year. The lecture's own (weak, possible) delivery reasoning places the letter's July vision within Neville's 1967 Barbados trip, so a circa-1967 year can be added at the same reduced confidence, without overwriting the existing month-only claim. || v1.1/l7/passage-inherit/held/c1: reviewed against the complete owning lecture and current delivery field; `possible` -> `refuted`. The full owning lecture (nid 1957, all 61 passages) reads one correspondent's sequence: a year ago last October, March 1966, last September, then 'In July' while Neville was believed in Barbados. The document's own 11/15/66 dateline makes that July 1966; July 1967 would occur after the telling and is impossible. Nid 1957's 1967-07 delivery claim is refuted and its 1966-11-15 probable claim is preferred. The held 1967-07 possible event row is therefore refuted; the existing 1966-07 probable preferred event row and 1966-11-15 probable told row are retained.
Told
15 November 1966
estimated · probable
Why
Corrects the told claim written by run v1.1/l4/w1/D1 on this event; that claim is left standing per append-only.
Reasoning
Of nid 1957's two claims only one is a delivery date. d0 is an open 'after' bound, and its note says plainly that it records the testimony being later than its July vision, not when the lecture was given; inheriting it as a told date, as D1 did, treats a floor as a fact. d1 gives an actual date, 1966-11-15, from a transcript dateline corroborated by the read-aloud letter's own internal chronology, and it lands on a Tuesday - Neville's second commonest lecture night at 213 of 1,164 dated claims. Probable, matching the delivery claim.
after July 1967
estimated · refuted
Why
Only one delivery claim exists on this lecture and it is itself flagged 'weak'; no better evidence available.
Reasoning
Passage 550100 is the correspondent's July-vision letter, read aloud by Neville as a fresh telling in this lecture. The lecture's only delivery claim is a weak, possible bound ('after July 1967', since the letter describing the vision arrived the week of the lecture); the telling date inherits that same bound and reduced confidence rather than being asserted more precisely. || v1.1/l7/told-lower: lowered `possible` -> `doubtful`. The telling-date 1967-07-?? is refuted on the source lecture (nid 1957) and no live claim on that node supports it, so the corpus can no longer say WHEN this was told. ⛔ The row is KEPT, not retired: it also records THAT nid 1957 tells this event, which is true and checkable from the passages, and retiring it would discard that with the date.
Sources
Source
- The Return of Jesus ¶26 (I knew when you left here in March on the way to Barbados, and that you said you wouldn’t return ‘til the fall of the year. So I took it for granted you were still in Barbados and wondered how you were. Suddenly you are standing before me.)