Hamblin 24: Question for Jenkins

Prof. Jenkins insists that there should be “objective evidence” for the Book of Mormon.  So my question for Jenkins is: What would he considered “objective evidence” for the BOM?  I’m not talking about vague categories; see the blue text below.

We have been discussing the significance of inscriptional evidence, and the paucity thereof for Preclassic Mesoamerica.  Jenkins seems to think that the paucity of inscriptional evidence is a decisive argument against the BOM.

So, my question for professor Jenkins is: If we had a Mesoamerican inscription which mentioned a Book of Mormon king, with a date and historical context that matched the date and context for the Book of Mormon, would that be “objective evidence” in favor of the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

I should also note that Professor Jenkins has seriously misunderstood my position on epistemology, empiricism, and objectivity of our knowledge of the past.  I’ll explain in detail later.

Here is Jenkins’ response in red, sent to me by email:

You ask, “If we had a Mesoamerican inscription which mentioned a Book of Mormon king, with a date and historical context that matched the date and context for the Book of Mormon, would that be “objective evidence” in favor of the historicity of the Book of Mormon?”

Briefly, yes of course.

Provided of course that the date and authenticity of that inscription was confirmed.

I’ve actually tried to be quite specific (and wide-ranging) about the kinds of evidence that would fit this criterion, so that I don’t think I have ever used “vague categories.”

If I have indeed misunderstood your position on issues of historicity and epistemology, then I will certainly apologize. I’ll look forward to your clarification.