Neville begins teaching to large skeptical New York audiences

He recalls beginning to teach in the thirties, speaking in New York City to audiences of a thousand or more while unsure of himself, and being challenged by ministers, rabbis and priests who threw the book at him — until his own experience proved the principle and the challengers stopped coming.
Date (happened)
between 1930 and 1965
unresolved
  1. between 1930 and 1965 stated · preferred
    Source The Law: Self-Circumcision ¶22"since the thirties—this is now the sixties", told in The Law: Self-Circumcision (nid 1209)
  2. between 1930 and 1939 estimated · probable
    Source The Law: Self-Circumcision ¶22passage 533208 (nid 1209), 'I've been teaching this since the thirties ... I'm going back into the thirties when I started ... I was a young boy then thirty years ago'
    Why Duration of the described process (early insecurity through the challenges stopping) is not given a specific end inside the passage, so I kept decade precision rather than inventing a narrower one.
    Reasoning The stored claim's upper bound of 1965 comes from '...this is now the sixties', which is the telling's own relative time reference (how long ago he started, from the platform), not a date this event -- the beginning of his teaching, the early challenges, and their stopping -- extends to. What actually dates the event is 'since the thirties ... when I started', matching the corpus's own event description ('beginning to teach in the thirties ... until the challengers stopped coming'), so I bound the process to the decade he names rather than running it to the telling year.
Place
New York City
Persons
Neville Goddard
Told / reported
  1. 28 May 1965 estimated
    Source The Law: Self-Circumcisionnid 1209 surviving delivery claim after refutation. All claims: 1965-2-19 refuted; 1965-5-28 certain; 1968-??-?? refuted; 1965-5-28 certain (preferred)
    Why Lane L7 (#2354) re-derivation. Supersedes in substance, not in storage, the refuted-date told claim(s) on this event; those rows stand per append-only.
    Reasoning Re-derived, not walked down. The existing told claim(s) on this event took their date from a delivery claim on node 1209 that the corpus has since REFUTED, so the corpus was asserting that Neville told this on a day it separately says he did not lecture. That is a contradiction rather than an over-confidence, and lowering the confidence would have hidden it instead of resolving it. The refutation stands and the told claim is the wrong side of it. Node 1209 surviving (non-refuted) claim: 1965-5-28 at `certain`. All claims on the node: 1965-2-19 refuted; 1965-5-28 certain; 1968-??-?? refuted; 1965-5-28 certain (preferred). Superseded here: delta 0: 1968-00-00 at `certain` (run `corpus v1 / phase3b`). The telling is dated by its lecture, so with the refuted date removed from consideration the surviving claim is what the telling inherits, at that claim own confidence and no higher.
  2. 1968 stated · refuted
    Source The Law: Self-CircumcisionThe Law: Self-Circumcision (nid 1209), telling 1209-2, told 1968
    Reasoning || v1.1/l7/told-close: the delivery claim this was derived from (nid 1209, 1968--) was refuted by the L7 adjudication (#2363). The corrected told claim from the same lecture stands at 1965-5-28. This row is retired rather than deleted so the derivation history remains readable.
Sources

Source

  • The Law: Self-Circumcision ¶22 (I’ve been teaching this since the thirties—this is now the sixties—I’m going back into the thirties when I started, and when I started, because I was completely unknown and unsafe in my foundation, when I would speak in New York City to audiences of arou…)