Dedicated to Pierre Krijbolder (1920-2004), author of ‘Jezus de Nazoreeer’

Introduction to this website

Welcome to this blog dedicated to Pierre Krijbolder, author of the ethnomethodologically most thorough historical study into the origins of the gospels published so far in the world: Jezus de Nazoreeër.

The analyses by Krijbolder do not take away even one single penstroke from the entire gospels, rather emphasized their unrivalled spiritual and outstanding precise wordings. Yet revealed thereby no less also: what sophisticated fine-tuned or well-trained “ears” those writings intended as crucial requirement to fetch their true expressed meanings.

Without such properly trained ears, equiped to identify underlying structural models as the elaborating context for performing meaning expression, the gospels were deemed to remain closed like an oyster, regardless how eloquent and intelligent their readers or scholars.

In other words, the gospels were intended to be: “for your EARS only”

Or in the wordings of the gospels themselves: who has ears to hear (capable of hearing), such person (only) shall hear (understand).

All others, not “circumsized” in their ears, will only be fooled by the distractions of their own ears, taking litterally what is metaphor and appreciating metaphor what is plain unwrapped deontic semantics.

In this respect Krijbolder is the precise opposite of all those that rather ridiculed the profound sincere intentions and nature of the gospels, like by Acharya_S or David Icke who fall in the same bracket of  shortsighted misappreciation of pre-Platoon allegorical style of expression characteristic for in authentic mythical codifications, as Rudolf Bultmann. Nowhere does Krijbolder ridicule anything in the gospels. On the contrary, at least in spiritual sense, there is only immense gain found in favor of the sincerity of the gospels and their authorship.

As one should recollect, Plato advised the state, to banish all those who used artistic forms of expression, as such expressions carried in them the possibilities of multiple hermeneutical meanings, to escape proper criticism. Plato was thus against artistic and poetic freedom. Up to this very day of ours, mankind bears the toll in its ears of this biassed verdict, prohibiting unbiassed appreciation of pre-Platoon allegorically styled and extrapolated Hebraic minded forms of expression.

Very few apart from Pierre Krijbolder have properly appreciated this seperation in mental digesting characteristics of semantics by the naturally authentic pre-Platoon expressing brain on the one hand by the rather limited hermeneutical post-Platoon brain, on the other hand. The difference in alignment of the unit of symbol for meaning is tremendous. Two entirely different worlds of semiotic brain setups.

DIFFERENT (SIGN) UNIT OF MEANING, AS OPPOSITES SPACE AND TIME-WISE

Whereas post-Platoon Greek mind seeks a one-on-one connection for efficiency of communication between word or sign and meaning, in pre-Platoon authentic expression, nothing has meaning on a one-on-one basis, but from the totality of all signs, and it is only from the structuralist hierarchies of the style formations of the totality, that first layer after layer shall be appreciated carefully, to render the beginnings of the extraction of semantic code structures, that allows into the penetration skills at one-on-one levels.

This resembles what Philo Judaeus was set out to do, against the typical post-Platoon critical rethoric philosopher Appion, who threatened the historigraphical authenticity of Hebraic scripture and tradition, before the Roman authorities. Philo Judaeus tried to save those against such severe post-Platoon attacks. What critical historical NT investigations have come up with during the last three centuries, is nothing new. It happened to no less degree in the very same days of the evangelists or Jesus-movement, through such crtical rethorics, like Appion, yet aimed at the “then NT”, the Septuaginta and in particular its spine, the books attributed to and the figure of Moses, in the times of the great pharoah of the Exodus. There is strong analogy between Paul’s hermeneutical elaborations in the example following Galatians 4.21, and the hermeneutical framework found in many of Philo’s Allegorical Interpretations of Torah narratives.

In Galatians 4.21 and further, Paul sets out to show the very difference between the conventional ears that take each word literally, versus ears equiped to distinguish underlying spiritual structures as model of meaning expression. Elsewhere Paul then speaks as literal interpretation that kills, in contrast to spiritual appreciation that contributes life and increases liveliness, concerning scripture.

What did Paul perform as allegorical interpretation when addressing the hearing or proper understanding and appreciation of what had been received as the codification of the Law? Paul takes biblical birth stories not as births of biological persons of individuals, but similarly to Philo Judaeus: as brainchilds, that is, as newly developed or absorbed THOUGHT MODELS.

That then is no less than a specific METALINGUISTIC STATEMENT or INSTRUCTION, like a semantic code structure, with consequently very strong implications, in case gospels would include similar styled birth stories, that should not be neglected – if contemporary historiographies express little of the kind of impressive accounts of a certain figure Jesus, the talk-of-the-town. And prior to such character Jesus, a certain baptizer, no less the talk-of-the-town, at the river Jordan. But no specific details on a character Jesus other than pretty abstract at most if at all reliable and the same applies to the baptizer. No mention of any miracles in contemporary historiography.

But this should not be puzzling at all, given the route laid open by Paul, for the semantic appreciatations of OT scriptural birth stories.

Nowhere did Pierre Krijbolder mention explicitly the example of Paul, that he let follow as explanation after Galatians 4.21. Too much theology, Krijbolder would have argued. Yet Krijbolder did not hesitate to give many other examples of birth stories, as core pattern for firstborns throughout the entire Book of Genesis, as if to enhance the point Paul was making in Galatians 4.21; like Philo Judeaus also elaborated, not biological births of babies, but the absorption process of new thought models, developed in neighboring kingdoms, culturals and countries. For Krijbolder, the arguments had to be purely scientific based on empirics based research of myths in cultural anthropoligical studies and sociolinguistics – not simply because Paul and Philo Judeaus had already said so -, and the proper appreciations of scientific theory of communication and language development and evolution process, from the physiological understanding of language learning and acquisition.

Krijbolder pays the proper merits to the outstanding works on pre-Platoon types of expressions (mythical narrative), as elaborated by the likes of Thorleif Boman, Claude Lévi-Strauss and Franz Boas. The same applies to elementary theory of linguistics set out by Ferdinand DeSaussure, Charles S. Peirce, Iwan Pawlow, G. Herbert Mead, Ludwig Wittgenstein and Claude Shannon. No less how from a Luhmannian perspective of social groups formation dynamics the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis then works out from systems theoretical decyphering (or problem resolution) perspective like once applied at Bletchley Park by Alan Turing, to decode German radio transmissions during WW2, and thereby pioneering the very same foundations that would prove the forebearers of modern digitialized ICT age. If this isn’t the state-of-art of science, how to go about with authentic ways of expression from a problem resolving ethnomethodological perspective for thorough historical research, THEN WHAT IS….?

By showing this problem solving methodological framework worked for clarification of the NT in its entirety, the value of the book by Krijbolder, goes much further for science, showing the route. And if so, then no less, apostle Paul, some 15 centuries before modern sciences took off, already stipulated the ideal methodological framework for scientific analyses and problem solving,

And they called it, Jesus the Nasorean. Today it is common practice in one particular discipline: legal reasoning and decision making (theoretics). Not through the gospels, but through functional approach and explanation of human behavior, and what Cognitives Sciences holds in store for such, in order to do justice in conflicts.

FEEDBACK BASED, CONDITIONED NATURE OF LANGUAGE PROCESS AS ONLY THE OTHERS MAKE OF BREAK – ONE ONLY HAS TO FIND WHICH PARTICULAR SOCIOLINGUISTIC BASED FEEDBACK CODE-STRUCTURE, IN A CASE THAT OFFERS OTHERWISE CONTRADICTORY HISTORICAL EVIDENCE:

All metatheoretical frameworks to explain language have – for reasons of efficiency, based on how the brain tends to work for pattern recognition – in common the sharing of roughly the same sets of paradigms how expectancy of meaning is related to (or: to relate to) syntaxis of sign and use of sign combinations (symbol) in expression to construct meaning. In particular Charles S. Peirce, F. DeSaussure and Iwan Pawlow, provided the groundbreaking foundations for the role of expectancy and related requirement of patterns of contrast for recognition to suit the structuralist nature of the functionalist working of the brain in distinguishing cause and effect in reward to be obtained (being evoked behavior from the other), as the physiological fabric of communcation through symbol. In communication never counts one’s own concepts of proper sign use, to express meaning, but the expectancies of such among the others, retrieved from noticed distinctions in patterns in their current way of using sign to communicate. The whole concept of social interactionism theory in sociology of behavior is build on this role of patterns-based expectancy features to act as sociolinguistic paradigms in groups formation process. One has to establish then the particulars of such prevailing paradigm set, through ethnomethodological excercises for the purpose of finding the best plausible fit, for obtaining coherence between NT-semiotics and contemporary plain-linear described historiograhies. Thankfully there are more than sufficient deontic statements expressed througout the entirety of the NT, to easily crack down the leading paradigm set that was applied as to act as semantic code structure for the coherent expression of the intended meaning by the authorships.

One can take ethnomethodology into consideration as the (problem resolving aimed) paradigm tracing toolkit that relates as the inverse excercise following from Niklas Luhmann’s autopoiesis metatheoretical explanation model of society, set forth in his works on Law, like Social Systems. The genius of Krijbolder was, he carried out precisely this, from deriving such assumptions mostly all by himself – except what he had learned from the works on myth theory by Claude Lévi-Strauss – in times few still had ever heard of Niklas Luhmann and Harold Garfinkel.

In Dutch language Law academics there has been a quite similar situation, when Jan Broekman, J.F. Glastra van Loon and Jack ter Heide, adopted the structuralist approach into metatheoretical explanation of the law as social process. Abroad – outside The Netherlands and Belgium – still this day, little is known of their groundbreaking works, then already in their own countries few contemporary law scholars gave proper attention to their functionalist theory of legal decision making and conflict resolution. And those who did, like J.M. van Dunné, only to rather ridiculize as the role of the consciousness or spiritual bias of the individual judge, had still only be replaced by something even more worry(ing)som – or in the case of Van Dunné, Paul Scholten had to be rescued, as the true founder for modern Dutch law academics of the multidisciplinary cognitive science based approach of legal decision making theory. The common mistake here that set apart Ter Heide: etnomethodology works in all directions at the same time, providing helicopter view onto oneself as professional roleplayer as part of all kinds of environments (roleplaying scripts / linguistic expectancies), having to make choices in each and every instance, in order to decide what is justice from a functional approach, of what society as a whole demands for future better justice, to the entirety. If that is worrisom, what place is left for multidisciplinary scientific method in the legal reasoning of lawcourts! The primary superior ruling principle then sooner or later then shows itself more or less automatically, if only the method is carried out meticiously enough. In practice however what Ter Heide taught for legal reasoning can be found like a sponge, soaked in it in many major theoretical courtcases in modern Western countries, or at least serious attempts. One could say, for Christ, go to the courts and study the methodologies applied in highly theoretical cases. Latently it is hard to miss Christ, if only one again, has the ears to hear. But failing to hear the historical Christ then, as narrated through the gospels (only for ears to hear), none can hear the very same Christ today, when the scientiifically refined methodological framework, that was once rather intuitive analytical philosophy, is put to work and being applied. To conclude: theologians that study scripture in order to spread the word, are in the wrong place, unless they understand legal practice is where the battlefields are that are of spiritual matter. In this sense, yes, through not rescueing the less worrisom christian values of Paul Scholten, Paul Scholten is implicitly rescued rather.

The pity is, in the end all involved in the discussions lost, to sheer pragmatism in the arena of lawmaking, neglecting the tremendous wide horizons of possibilities to apply the general metatheoretical functionalist frameworks, to define the shortcomings of current legislative paradigms, in respect of what democracy ideally should tend to be, in contrast to what had become of it. Now four decades have been lost to fulfil the potential, not only in teaching legal theoretics, but to no less extents, economics, business management and in particular technical studies. Yet, with the taste it can be demonstrated to work for the gospels, it is deemed to rather spoil chances even further. But no less is the legacy left by the Pierre Krijbolder, made painfully clear to the fields of Law academics and theology studies. Has it been all for nothing?

Autopoiesis in combination with the findings by Thomas Kuhn on paradigm shift prevented by prevailing tunnel vision (paradigm), foretells the dangers of such negligences of self-critical analysis of the profession one is itself part of as a roleplayer. The same already follows from inverse implications of the pure mathemetical communication theory-model introduced by Claude Shannon.

The outcome of the historical research by Pierre Krijbolder, could be summerized in technical sense, the historical Christ beats all of sciences in this very respect of what science ideally is supposed to be, and such no less for its role for society, aimed at emphasizing an attitude for ripe figs (knowledge that benefits all humans equally) over an attitude for unripe figs (knowledge for the purpose of serving more cognitive distans of confusion of speeches among peoples, to enable the bearers to benefit more than the public in general). Unripe figs will produce more and more a situation of all nations against one another and each people striving against the others that eventually will lead all humans to loose, the only winner being the very Mammon itself, with mankind as its slave. The gospels, like the Essenes considered no ownerships but of all, through a spiritually professional leadership, based on sufficient trainings in spiritual wisdom, that would today be on the basis of post-Luhmannian and post-Kuhnian expertise, of the fabrics of knowledge and its implications for the legislative process. Karl Marx considered religion as a drug, neglecting though communism is like any ism a religion in itself involving, like atheism also, no less metaphysical assumptions and prejudices as any other religion. The original objective of democracy was transparency for all, eliminating any chances of abuse of cognitive (dis)advantage by a minority. The framework of reasoning for such a legislative process today exists, but would now involve beyond local and national commitment from a global governing body and has therefore become too abstract for national legislative powers. What then remains is plain, ad hoc symptoms remedies, that history shows, has not such fine track records to show for. The “Beast” in man, that seemed conquored each past war, in the case of Europe, Hitlerism, was taken off its head, yet, for each head taken off, ten new more sneaky new heads pop up, the next time, to take the place of the former. And this is now what Law academics have let happen to the world, whereas it should have known better, for over four decades now. Hitlerism had a face for opportunistic mindset among people, whereas the same outcomes of opportunism in the forms of science-based Post-Industrial Automation Revolutions, don’t seem to have a face. Yet the sector of sciences as such not having stood up through proper ownership legislation process, against abuse of cognitive distans and lack of transparency in global decision making, is that face, neglected as the Beast within ourselves of this age. Someone who warned against the consequences (dangers) of globalisations from opportunistic trajectories without proper legislation processes, was economist E.F. Schumacher, from the viewpoint of population growths in comparison with available natural resources. Eventually leading to wars over natural resources, with the survival of the fittest back at the driving seat. As long as a majority of people can earn a reasonable income things will remain evolving the way they are currently, with multinational corporations determining the boundaries. But there comes a day, like those of finance minister Joseph ben Jacob-Israel, that the question rises: what have leaders done to preserve the 1/3-rule of maintaining enough land to prepare, 1/3 to rest and 1/3 to harvest. Elaborating further from Schumacher, legislation process should have come up with the answer, that at this time, is still being pushed forward from election to next elections by all parties in charge of government, like the ostrich sticking its head in the ground, to postpone plague.

The implications of the study by Pierre Krijbolder, as shown above are then massive to such extends. The retrieved historical Christ, from it has the state-of-art scientific answers for spiritual wisdom, that would implicate major improvements for any field of science and scientific research as well as how commercial enterprise should ideally be defined, to serve economic prosperity in the best way for the largest number of people in the most equal ways. That Christ could not be ignored by any current religion as not being representative of its core spiritual values and the means of interpretation of their source books, to regain the emphasis of those spiritual values of pure wisdom, as second to none. But do not expect sciences to take and obtain such massive opportunity. Luhmann, Shannon and Kuhn in their togetherness explain why such will not happen by those institutions themselves.

Nowadays, business people more and more seek courses in spirituality, because they sense something fundamental is wrong in the way things tend to go. It can be found in what lies behind the research presented by Pierre Krijbolder, the thorough understanding of the methodology applied. That methodology can be drawn out in a simple model, once thaught to students, but forgotten about. It applies universally for self-coaching and problem resolving decision making. Through that model, one would stare the historical Christ right in the eye. Yet, for the very same reason it is here prohibited to openly provide, to any except those who have requested for it to be revealed.

Like in math, key is not to provide the correct answer, but rather to understand the method, to be applied, to get the right answer each time, it is properly applied. Same counts here. One may strike the correct answer a few times, because there are so many spiritual texts at hand, but for striking the correct answers more often than not, requires understasnding the method first. And understanding the method is then the real “trick”, the thing that matters more than anything else. The method show by its model is very abstract, like no less the historical Christ as a thought model, retrieved by Krijbolder, is something abstract in the same way as the ethics attributed to the Logos-model in the work of De Spinoza, which perfectly relates to both the framework of consciousness set forth by George Berkeley as well as the whole set of postulates of causation in the mechanical dynamics in physics set forth by Isaac Newton, if raised to the level that would include brain and mental activities (ethical and opportunistic behavior) also. All {Actions} + All {Reactions} = constant. So where there is too much abuse of cognitive distans, this will evoke counterweighting humilation of such, if these postulates would apply universally on all levels of physical interactions, including the mental. Now this is the too far-fetched implication of these postulates for sciences to take into account. But this inconsequence might well be what distinguishes sciences driven for ripe figs, from sciences that may only result for mankind in tasting unripe figs.

In “short” then: the problem solving application of systems theory in language acquisition, which means pattern analysis of contrasts from ethnomethodological perspective, from the premisses of behavioristic structuralism as the fabric of all systems of language in order to work socially as the result of any group formation process. If enough deontic expressions are available and the amount of direct-linear described historiographical accounts concerning contemporary social, political and spiritual or theo-cultural developments, what then remains is not much more than a set of math-like equations, to one way or another, accomplish their coming to match logically. So pretty much like the expectancies based crib-patterns also key to the decyphering method used by Alan Turing in Bletchley Park. This least what should have been expected by modern theology to have come up with, for the state subsidized salaries and funds it receives, has so far not done its job, whereas an expelled priest, Pierre Krijbolder did accomplish, and not without striking success. Not until recognized for such impressive feat by Universities, providing studies in theology, they deserve to be called academic.

One of the pities is, the everyday applied science of this natural science analytical approach in conversation analysis within the field of analytical philosophy and logic, concerns Law or the legal profession, rather than the natural sciences. The legal profession involves dealing with different types of texts on a daily basis, for the purpose of conflict resolution. And most who study Law, elected to do so, more or less to avoid as much as possible any further dealings with math or abstract thought. In Krijbolder we then meet the reverse, the natural scientist or at least the naturally gifted qualified math teacher, specialized in communication theory, who appreciated its value in dealing with ethical codification traditions, in a way that should distinguish any legal professional from other academic professionals (natural scientists), yet is rather more often than not overlooked by natural scientists.

What appears from the studies by Krijbolder is precisely what should be the joy of every christian and believer, yet is rather what is denied by the majority of those considering themselves as such:

The unit of semantic meaning, as hallmark of evangelist narratives, was of a brilliance stretching far beyond simple everyday one-on-one structured speech syntaxis of meaning. Both on the single word construction part as well as the structures beyond sentences and episodes-levels, bear interwoven allegorical compositions of meaning that are only surpasses by the beauty of the fabrics of life and existence themselves, requiring such refined metaphysical orders for any human brain to grasp.

Language or LANGUAGE ? Plain single level contrast or spiritually sophisticated multilayered contrast appreciation. What is a fisherman spiritually? Some trained to catch fish or better insights and explanations, concerning the proper appreciation of the given scriptures and their application? Then a fisherman throwing the net out the other side or instead of near the shore, away from the shore, means: using a different technique of investigation of the constructed semantic meanings in scripture.

Such other technique of “fishing” for insights concerning the constructed meanings in given scripture implies having struck something essential of core importance. Was such newly rediscovered methodology of how the former scripture was constructed or evolved – thus something abstract – then the Jesus that told the “fishermen” how to “fish” in a better way for obtaining more and bigger “fishes”? And then, is the same methodology, named Jesus also the required method of hearing, to properly appreciate the constructed proper spiritual and historical meanings in the gospels, ideally?

In this regard, one could thus say, the evangelists did such good job, that it was deemed too far-fetched for the untrained and not-properly prepared, to properly appreciate their genius. They rather committed themselves to sustain what they considered the genius in the first five works of the Hebrew Law codification absorption processes or TeNaCh, than make it less demanding for the audiences. Or in laity terms: never change a winning team. Objective: rather the compliments from the authors of the TeNaCh, than contemporary or future readers. If TeNaCh had proven to stand the test of time, what than better to secure the same purpose best, by applying the very same standards of linguistics properites of meaning exchange, even if at the price of risking to cause the very same problems of misappreciation that the evangelists intended to take away.

At least one could say, the authors of the gospels did no less a good job as the authors of the first Five Books, then watch how literal it was taken again, so with those same worn nets as the method in conventional schools of judaism, to fail to catch full nets of new insights (“fish”).

Krijbolder did however not touch the large majorities of parables and illustrations, unless those clearly involved the outer physical processes with behavioral characteristics described, that could bear parallel identification witness acounts in contemporary historiography, such as in particular the works of Flavius Josephus. Then Krijbolder clearly avoided any theology entirely, unless statements of pure deontic nature, could not be ignored from ethnomethodological perspective of historical comparison to known spiritual movements.

So for instance that through modern sciences a new Fig Tree (of knowledge) could have been planted, to regain the evangelists applied genius of linguistics, from pure independent scientific perspective, as the Fig Tree, Krijbolder borrowed ripe figs from, yet untouched still in modern theology, nobody will trace in the book by Krijbolder.

Krijbolder regarded any of such speculations and further elaborations of a theological nature, to others than himself, the strict scientist as he sought to be for himself.

It is this strict approach that also has contributed rather to his thorough investigation, so far having been widely overlooked and when not, having been misappreciated, by nearly all audiences. And for those that would have properly appreciated his book, it would put to much at stake to be lost, career-wise, to openly promote its knowledge. So even if a significant gospelleaks of transparancy may have been accomplished, for those who really sought to study the book by Pierre Krijbolder, all seems set for the retraced most plausible history – as “concealed” with such genius by the evangelists, through sophistaced use of linguisticws – to repeat. There is too much at stake for most. In other words: all what is gained, is also lost again, since the revealed historical Christ as the most plausible historical outcome, again offers such division as before, if not even more division of distinction between the christian according to the flesh or literal meaning or the christian according to the spirit or elaborated ears cleansed to hear, by providence of circumcision (of linguistic-hermeneutical skill) that comes not from human hand, but being just called or chosen to understand, to become addicted to.

For Krijbolder it is only a matter of prefering best-practice scientific method, applied consistently, or prefering not the full fruit of state-of-art scientific method. Nothing involving some higher providence, who is to appreciate his book, or its regained most plausible historical Christ, and who is to settle for less.

Then also for Krijbolder, the completion of the historical investigation excercise, is sufficient already by the clearness of the outcome itself. So any coincidental further meaning in the type of expression in the gospels themselves, as potentially charged to a perspective of “return” or “Second Coming” raised therein, is nothing he would ever want to consider. Krijbolder just strived to set his given analytical skills borrowed from state-of-art scientific method, to work and upon completion, had done all that would have counted for him as a scientist. And everything more, he would have considered to qualify him as breaching the horizon of the pure scientist’s scope.

But with the regained most plausible historical Christ, as Christ means and involves then a certain way of living too, it would ideally not end there for the multitudes of christians seeking to align as close as possible to such regained most plausible historical Christ. At least it speaks for Krijbolder not having had any desire to interfere in any such possible future developments.

However, the bottom-line that should be drawn from the work by Pierre Krijbolder for contemporary society is then this one: no university offering education in Theology, can be considered to be of sufficient academic level, unless not only the investigation presented by Krijbolder has at least become one of the components of such education program, whereas ideally also the implications are made part of a teaching program too. Who thinks or professes otherwise, ignores the rights of students for the most thorough high level degree of professional education they shoulod be able to get, without having to discover it later themselves as a shortcoming of the university they thought to best study Theology (and Philosophy).

Please be aware that opinions expressed here reflect those of the publisher of the english edition and extend further and deeper, beyond what could necessarily be held representative for what has been expressed by Pierre Kijbolder in his works.

Essential for learning know (hearing) what is the real stuff that matters concerning the historical origins and main purposes of the gospels, is condensed in this particular book. Understanding the historically most plausible origins of the gospels starts right here in the book written by Pierre Krijbolder.

Several versions have been around since 1976 and 1989 in Dutch language and in 1999 an english translation was published also. The book has been references quite extensively, yet by only a few. In particular theologian dr. Karel Hanhart in his book “The Open Tomb”. In Dutch in particular by Anton Constandse, biologist and novelist Maarten ‘t Hart, psychology professor Piet Vroon and columnist Marcel Hulspas (Skepter).

Much has been written about the historical Jesus, yet together they offer less than what is inside the book written by Pierre Krijbolder.

Some day this book will create a world revolution, putting an end to all those whom are now still regarded as authorities on the subject. Either the Vatican will have to adopt what Krijbolder has uncovered about the origins of the gospels, or it will find itself dismembered, like once the Damascus sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls found itself having become obsoleted.

As it becomes evident from the findings by Pierre Krijbolder, no less than the high priest Caiaphas in his day, those in charge of the largests christian churches and movements today, are even worse to the real pure message. No less though the very same spiritual as the most plausible historical Christ regained through the research by Krijbolder, can be regarded as “hung” (allegorically, borrowed from Deuteronomy), by modern academic education institutions, that is all Universities and teaching institutions, that claim to be scientific.

Spiritual understanding of meanings should prevail any materialistic interpretation of what is written in the gospels. In a spiritual understanding of meanings bread means food for thought and thus: new knowledge and insights. The common fishing method represents the common materialistic semantic way of interpretation, and throwing out the nets on the other side means using a more advanced method of understanding the writings of the Torah. It is all in the hearing. For this Krijbolder applies the insights in linguistic studies regarding the relativity relationship between thought and semiotics developed by the likes of Thorlei Boman and Claude Lévi-Strauss, who both borrowed heavily from structuralist theory in phonetic symbol explanation for the understanding of the workings of deep grammar at root level developed by Ferdinand DeSaussure. DeSaussure has shown how all language is a cybernetic representation of the structuralist requirements of how the mapping capacity of the brain defines, what is logical to the the receiving hearer / listener, rather than what sounds good to the sender. All social group forming processes are dominated by this process. The only answer then to getting to the bottom of a dead language is the sound problem solving hermeneutical application of systems theory in linguisics, seeking for the underlying semantic code structures, by using thorough social action field examinations. This is what ethnomethodology is all about. The meanings are to be found in the dirt and mud, by thorough and systematic inventorisations of the contemporary social action field characteristics, comparing deontic expressions and ways of how they can be hidden by the use of a specific semantic code framework, with what can be found as deontic expressions in contemporary historiography that typify the social or cultural living environments. Besides the genius mentioned already, it is no less an achievement of Krijbolder to have done all this going through all ‘the dirt’, so others do not have to repeat this difficult task anymore. Thanks to Pierre Krijbolder, todays scholars can simply lean back and benefit from the fruits of the had work carried out by one man all on his own.

Krijbolder has been the first who was naturally gifted with the genius of this understanding to have properly applied this scientific method as the modern empirical form of Kabbalah. What the successful historical reconstruction contributes to as the most prominent conclusion is simply: there is nothing divine or alien about any word used in the gospels. It is all purely human and plain as common math.

It does not need a rocket scientist no longer to do the math. It rather takes someone prepared to return to the basics of contrast as the foundation of the physiologically behaviorist structuralist linguistic theory developed by Ferdinand DeSaussure, and what this consequently means for sociolinguistics.

For that matter alone, theologians should rather become experts in a discipline called metajuridica or metalegal theory. That discipline is more than any other scientific discipline supposed to be familiar with the everyday understanding of metalinguistics, for the purpose of esablishing a model of fact finding between semiotics in legal texts of legislation on the one side and the expressions exchanged by parties in society on the other hand, in order to be able to single out what particular legal texts from legislation are applicable to the correct fact finding based metalinguistic appreciation of what has been expressed by either party in a conflict. No theologian can be taken serious that is not cum laude expert in this particular field of scientific reasoning, as a starting point. Without expertise in this field, it should even be forbidden to any theologian for even daring to touch any sort of scripture. First start out with what is common in legal issues, in order to develop the feel of what metalegal theory is all about. Maybe then, the focus can be diverted to scripture, from the knowledge developed on how metalegal reasoning describes the sound method for dealing with expressions, to be able to give them the value that must be supposed to have been meant by the authors.

For this adjustment for the schooling of theologians, feel free to let me show the entire package of tools and instruments, as I got those taught during my academic study in Law at University. Few if any among my fellow students must have really understood what this metajuridica was all about.

Most importantly what the success of this method shows is the need to re-appreciate behaviorism for once and for all in the scientific study of language. It is never the appreciation of symbol for semiotics as experienced by the sender or speaker alone, but it is the dualistic interaction as a feedback mechanism that determines how language develops. There is no room for such chaos theory or free use of words or sign, when social group formation is to be achieved.

So do not wait for existing education and academic teaching programs to include the sophisticated elementary approaches applied by Krijbolder to be explained, because that will probably never happen, unless serious students take the initiatives to study by themselves or request in private. That is how serious Universities take science on behalf of their students. They only teach facts not how the same facts work out if applied consequently. This goes not only in the case of the gospels, it is a general weakness in all education, if the true reason that should be the function of knowledge would be appreciated: contributing to a socially better world for all, as primer criteria. Not asking the question of the damaging consequences, later, after problems that cause extinction to the intended bearers of knowledge, that is of no use, if there are none anymore.

4 Comments »

  1. Very interesting. I can’t wait to buy a copy of the Translation.

    Comment by Hanachash — April 17, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

  2. I see a lot of interesting posts here. Bookmarked for future referrence.

    Comment by tabletki na odchudzanie — December 27, 2010 @ 1:33 am

  3. Frankly I didn’t entertained the idea in the past. I heard about it, but didn’t actually take the time to do the research. Still it pretty much validates itself from your perspective. It’s not enough for me but it surely qualifies for a thorough investigation.

    Comment by effectivearticlemarketing — January 29, 2011 @ 5:54 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.