REGARDING A NEW (3rd) EDITION OF THE DUTCH BOOK ‘JEZUS DE NAZOREEËR’
Immediately after the publication in 1999 of the english translation (“Crucifixion and Turin Shroud Mysteries Solved“), Pierre Krijbolder expressed his desire for the publication of a new version of his Dutch book ‘Jezus de Nazoreeër’. A frequent fax correspondence followed, concerning some points for improvement.
As I was planning to develop the new version, and already had gone through the entire book, suddenly a few things happened, that made it difficult for me to complete this work.
Of course there was his death, which made things or thoughts I had ran into, even more difficult to find a solution for.
First there was this text in the Letter to the Galatians, in which Paul heard the true meaning of the birth story of Isaac and Ishmael, as allegories, expressing them to articulate not biological births but instead, the ideal mental thought model versus the antagonistic mental thought model. Now one must know that Pierre Krijbolder had come to his ‘wantnaam’-hypothesis, based on lectures from prof. Willem Grossouw during his study in Theology at University. Furthermore this particular Willem Grossouw had previously published a monography about this particular Letter to the Galatians.
So increasingly I got curious why Pierre Krijbolder, had not considered explicitly mentioning this particular text of Paul , that articulated precisely the same ‘wantnaam’approach to birth stories in the Torah. I had been planning to fax this and other new questions to Pierre Krijbolder, but since it had been quite a lean time in between since our last correspondence, I decided to ask those questions during a new visit to his house in Hoorn. During this time I learned that mister Krijbolder had been in hospital for some diagnozed illness, yet after the treatment, found out this had been unnecessary since it concerned a socalled ‘goedaardige’ instead of ‘kwaadaardige’ symptom.
In other words: this cure had rather unnecesarrilly made him rather even weaker, than it had helped him. You can bet on it, when mister Krijbolder complains about something concerning his health, or the impact of a mistake in the treatment for a health complaint, it must be something really serious to the extend of making every second like a hell.
When I arrived, there was no reaction at the door, so I asked a neighboor if they moved out or if they had any ideas when to expect mister and misses Krijbolder back. I was told, misses Krijbolder should be at home, so if she was not home, it might have to do with mister Krijbolder having been taken to hospital again.
So I drove to the hospital, hoping it could be possible to visit mister Krijbolder. Normally they allow only family to be informed about some patient. When I explained I was the publisher of his book, they considered that it could be apropriate to inform me that he had already deceased. I felt very sorry for misses Krijbolder, a more than special and very courageous, graceful and above all intelligent woman. There could not be any doubt in my mind that I had to return to her home and give her my sympathies and sorrow.
There I also met the son-in-law of the now widow of the late mister Krijbolder, mister Henk Eerhart. The picture of mister Krijbolder on the backflap of the english translation was made by mister Eerhart.
Afterwards I sent a report to him, explaining the situation with the english translation and the proposed new Dutch version and the troubles that had gotten to my mind on the kind of difficulties making it tougher for me, to do the right thing for spreading the word of insight contained in the book by Krijbolder.
Here I will try to summarize the main issue that had started to make things tougher for me, during the time that I had been working on the new version.
– I already mentioned Chapter 4 of the Letter to the Galatians, as the probably originating inspiration for the ‘wantnaam’hypothesis, while no mention was made of it in the book. The book predominantly introduces only science as the foundations of the ‘wantnaam’hypothesis. I started thinking about this ‘Foreword’ by Krijbolder in his 2nd revised edition of ‘Jezus de Nazoreeër’, more and more, when it addressed requests from readers, for more the theological aspects following from of the historical reconstructions provided. One must understand, rather only events in the narratives of the gospels had been analyzed thoroughly, yet only very few sayings and explanations had been analyzed. This brings me then to my major difficulty.
– On the back of the historical reconstructions, I started to find very interesting logical explanations for all texts of the type not covered by Krijbolder, as they involved the sayings and illustrations attributed to Jesus in the gospels. So there was the whole array of theology having become transparant to me as plain logic, that Krijbolder had decided was not fit for his type of book and study to get anyway included or dealt with, since this would be no longer a restrictive historical research, with the contemporary linear facts from historiography as strict starting point as well as preliminary limiting boundary for extrapolating purposes. On the one hand one must give mister Krijbolder credit for this approach. Yet on the other hand, possibly, once being able to unravel all theological aspects of all texts, following automatically from the same elementary method of historical reconstruction, it could give back even more detail to a fuller scope of historical reconstruction of the origins of narrated events in the gospels, albeit then rather speculative in nature. Now, this as such would not cause any obstacles, if not, from this experience of having been able to solve all theology involving texts in the gospel narratives, and extrapolations from there in combination with the existing historical reconstructions, it came to me, that I discovered many instances that there were events mentioned in the Acts, that started to make some historical sense, albeit requiring a level of specuation, then there were no other sources available in the contemprary historiography of Flavius Josephus for such.
The result of this would then be: for almost any Chapter in the book of Krijbolder, to me, there was more to the historical reconstruction he brought forward, to take into consideration. What it does however, is showing even more the genius of the remarkable achievements of mister Krijbolder.
– Yet another aspect that in the case of a new version, would give some troubles, was the use of various terms to distinguish several levels of linguistic imitation forms. I happened to know the dean of the Faculty of Philosophy of the Erasmus University very well. The late prof. Michael Petry, played at the same cricket club. So sometimes to his frustration, I tossed up some of these terms by Krijbolder. This way, it became clear to me, some terms should be replaced. Now one must understand mister Krijbolder in this regard should be held as the first true pioneer in 19 centuries, to have broken the seal of the narrative linguistic properties that prevented the gospels to be understood for their original semantic meanings. It is then only logical, some of the terms used, although in doing so is addressing the issues properly, yet, using a vocabulary that he never got the proper expert feedback for, to determine the right use of some terms. It concerns in particular this term ‘modelmatig’ or ‘modelmatic’. All language is modelmatic imitation. Now using this term, things become rather unclearer once it is being attached to ‘dimensional’. It makes things kind of double and unnecassarily complicated not only for the average readers, but similarly to educated theologians etc., what is really being meant in a straight forward fashion.
So in my view it was required to change some elementary things in such manner, that I felt very unsatisfied about all of this, if I had not been able to know the response on those from mister Krijbolder personally. It happened thus that way, that I got stuck as fate had interfered. It is hard to live with the promise made to the now late mister Krijbolder, not having fulfilled. I feel having failed to fullfil his greatest wish. Still I hope one day to keep my promise one way or another. It keeps me restless until I have managed to accomplished the fullfilling of his greatest wish.
Meanwhile there have been some other pitiful developments that those interested in the work of Pierre Krijbolder and its future should be made aware of.
1. References to the reconstructions in ‘Jezus de Nazoreeër’, by a dr. Karel Hanhart in his work ‘The Open Tomb’, meant to scrutinize and ridicule the importance given to the works of Flavius Josephus, by Pierre Krijbolder for his historical analyses and so indirectly meant to undermine the work of Pierre Krijbolder as such.
2. The book by Belgian journalist Frans(iscus) Vermeiren (De man die in het jaar 80 het kruis overleefde).
This book must have been experienced by Pierre Krijbolder as some kind of rape of the center piece, the wantnaam-hypothesis, that is systematically essential for the entire genius and framework of the work of Pierre Krijbolder. I learned from mister Vermeiren himself, that Pierre would not even have bothered reading his book. When Krijbolder, in his last letter to me wrote that of the many readers of his book, he had come to the conclusion that I was the first one – besides his wife of course – to have properly understood what his work really had elaborated to clearify. For that matter alone, I owe it to mister Krijbolder, to one day find a way to accomplish a new version of his book, in such fashion, only a fool can ignore the greatness of genius nobody else managed to achieve for the proper historical understanding of the gospels and its authors. Albeit inspired by a devote metaphysically oriented philosophy, still very human in its nature of symbolical expression, much like Wittgenstein distinguished private language from common language in his language games theory, asserting that any type of language resulting from social formation of a distinguishable subcultural group, either it can all be understood from the right classification of the nature of the language game played, or it is deemed to have no more meaning than the cries of a baby. Well, it all falls well within the bracket of the ordinary language game, yet of a kind specific and characteristic for the cooked brain attempting to replace ordinary social developments concerning a new movement in thought, for reasons of preaching pragmatism and esteem for the level of philosophical initiation, by a myth-like structuralistic patternism of allegorical substitution. I have personally developed an even more logical explanation for the reasons behind the selection of this particular style of language game than the common known odd arguments, but that is only on the detail side, that makes it all fit even better, to this general fundamental viewpoint. One has to understand that once this articifial layered way of expression is chosen based on some initial success of preaching, such process kind of automatically starts to become of the self-legimating spiritual thought orientations in itself, causing such method of allegorical subsitution to take over in a dominant way, that becomes selffulfilling in nature. There is no way back, simply for then having to undermine the discovered power of such linguistic formula, by demonstrating its forfeiting dimensions.