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

November 23, 2008

The hallmark of Pierre Krijbolder

Filed under: Uncategorized — nazoreeer @ 12:41 pm

The book by Pierre Krijbolder should be considered at the same time as

– the end of all religion, but also

– the beginning of true empirical knowledge based spiritual thought.

In this regard the title ‘Jezus de Nazoreeër’ is sort of misleading, to most people. While Jesus is historically rescued by this study, it is not as a biological person: only in an abstract sense Jesus has been historically rescued, as a model of spiritual thought and its complementary mental behavior attitude. Now this purely abstract Jesus, has never been disproven by any scientist or historian.

The only issue is, what thought model best fitted to the known contemporary thought models, like
– the strict Essenism or
– what comes to the surface from the Dead Sea scrolls,
or as Krijbolder has demonstrated a mixture of both!!
Krijbolder explains then how the gospels narrate the origins of two spiritual Jesus figures. For one the metaphor of a birth story is used, the mainstream Essenism. And for the later developed mixture, the metaphor of the baptism is used: the baptism by another symbolical personification of a spiritual doctrine or thought model, John the Baptist. Neither this John the Baptist, existed as a bological person, but is meantto refer to a spiritual thought model. But if it were not of the known Essenism, from what other movement. In this Krijbolder was way ahead of his time, back when he developed his historical reconstruction. Then he considered the hidden scrolls of the caves adjacent to the Dead Sea, not as Essenean by character, but of an entirely different spiritual movement.

What according to Krijbolder became narrated afterwards as the origins of the new mixture movement within Essenism, was done by (1) first letting the birth story of Jesus be preluded by the birth story of John the Baptist and
(2) years after te birth story of Jesus, the baptism of Jesus BETH-LECHEM by John the Baptist, resulting in a new movement within the mainstream Essenism, the socalled Jesus the Nasorean.

In other words: some eminent leading scholarly priests from the DSS Qumran sect wandered over to the Essenes, since they must have felt, the Qumran sect did no longer offer the environment for further elaborations of their spiritual ideas, concerning the ideal interpretation or explanation of the written laws.

Nowadays it is an accepted position to distinguish Essenism as described in contemporary histriographies from the writings found in the caves near the Dead Sea. Krijbolder was one of the first ever to make this distinction, that only decades later has become the common view among todays historical bible researchers.

For the details I refer to the book by Krijbolder itself, although it has to be admitted, many is put in a fashion, not easy to penetrate, unless one really desires to understand all at detail levels.

So the general picture presented by Krijbolder is this: within the mainstream Essenism (Jesus of Bethlechem or young Jesus), a new sub-movement led by former Qumran sect chief priests, was gradually developed; the baptized Jesus. These former Qumran chief priests taught the spiritual law interpretation that required the sadducean law orientation, whereas the main stream Essenism followed the pharisaic law orientation. The reason was, that those former Qumran priests, must have recognized in the imortality of the soul doctrine illustrative for the mainstream Essenism, a motivation that was lacking in the Qumran-movment. Only the pharisaic law orientation seemed to provide the window, for such motivation. So they walked over, leaving then the Qumran-movement or symbolically John the Baptist, as beheaded allegorically.

So the Jesus-movement that eventually wrote the gospels, was not the mainstream Essenism, or movement portrayed as Jesus of Bethechem, but the Jesus the Nasorean, or John section of Essenism. It was only this particular section, that was in the early 30’s subjected to investigations by the high priest Caiaphas and the legal tribunals of the Sanhedrin. Not subjected was the mainsream Essenism.

Now Pierre Krijbolder would not put it as follows, but based on Acts 4 and 5, there is little room for any doubt, how the preaching of the hung Jesus came into being initially, borrowing from Deuteronomy 22/23, regarding pagan/gentile practices in dealing with criminals, by hanging. This was considered as something that distinguished gentiles from the practice of punishment among the people of the promised land, who considered such as an unlawful way of punishing criminals or enemies.

Based on their spiritual law interpretation, this new sub-movement within Essenism, could perfectly adopt such scriptural doctrine of dealing with criminals, in a different way than among gentiles, as the ideal metaphor, to express the outcome of an official verdict by the Sanhedrin against their movement, that they considered the only proper law interpretation doctrine, while considered by the Sanhedrin as a form of gentile law interpretation. How better then to use especially this scriptural distinction in Deuteronomy to build a new doctrine of faith on?

For Krijbolder, this is way too mch theology to be applied for his reconstruction, but it provides the most logical explanation from ethnomethodological view point, that is illustrative for the whole scientific approach demonstrated by Krijbolder.

Once this new section of Nasorean Essenism became officially prohibited, as a legal jewish interpretation methodology, in the way it is described in Acts 5, it then had to go underground from then, in Jerusalem. Outside Jerusalem, there was no problem. By the legal council of the Sanhedrin led by Gamaliel, the movement was considered as a heathen or gentile or pagan form of explaining the Mosaic heritage, the Torah or Law and the Prophets.

From that moment though, the very same could no longer be taught in any straight forward ways, and had to be captured in a far-fetched metaphor or allegory. So far-fetched only insiders, knew the proper contemplations of such metaphor, just for the sake of surviving in Judea. And before applying it in practice, they even got out to test it first. It worked like a miracle, then even more then their jewish fellowmen, it were especially gentiles who were considered rather barbaric, that proved an easier prey, for this metaphor, of the impaled Saviour for the world.

This is all of later date. Until then, there had never been a Jesus the Saviour, but for reasons of metaphor, due to some brainwave, it just fell into place to become selfprophetic in momentum and leverage. Once a prosecutor himself, Paul, prior to that Saul, got this particular brainwave. Not on the road to Damascus. But when confronted during his missions to the south and east, with the there prevailing beliefs in a Saviour called Mithra, he simply must have made the equation, for imitating the success of the Mithra-faith system. He only had to wrap the same in a Hebrew scriptural base, letting eventually pop-up the hanging of the prohibited doctrine as the hanging of the Saviour, name ‘THE essene’. As this was considered not as an abstract reference to a doctrine, but seemingly a biological character, it all become a overnight selfprophetic invention of what was actually just a fictitious artificial imitation.

Krijbolder did not put this in such detailed way. Then this goes to far to prove. He only brings up the resemblance between the sound of the word “Essene” in Aramaic language, essaya, and he name Isaiah. One can even go as far as putting it that during te initial testing phase outside Judea, by Simon Cephas himself for reasons of security, this was substituted by another name, Immanuel.
Again, this is way too far-fetched for Krijbolder, and not needed for his general reconstruction. It is just to show the immense window of opportunities his reconstruction leaves, for all kinds of deeper elaborations to show the depths of what this new movement within Essenism, must have been going through to eventually give permissions to Paul for his request, for start preaching this new metaphor to the gentiles. No use for paul to ever drea about teaching the same in Judea, as he was perceived as the greatest traitor to the nation by all priests attached to the Temple of Jerusalem, that used to be his collegues.

Borrowing from Deuternomy texts concerning hanging of criminals among gentiles, no better metaphor to substitute the mistake made by the Sanhedrin (prohibition of preaching), than to suggest they had accepted the outlawed form of hanging, making themselves like the barbaric gentiles or pagan peoples.

A stoning would not be possible, based on Acts 5 and the real events that had taken place. Then a stoning would not have caqrried the load of the prohibited doctrine as heathen/gentile, but of jewish nature. For the same reasons, Gmaliel had considered not the Sanhedrin but only YHWH the only competent to judge in this matter. Compare Acts 5. Also, one has to be aware of the following, when using stoning as not suitable as a metaphor. You can not use stoning in a symbolical way other than saying: stoning has to be understood purely symbolically. So not for real. Like in the way of: he who is without sin, shall throw the first rock. In other words: only YHWH has this right. Metaphorically, a stoning then can only be refering to throwing out knowledge or testing a person for the consistencies of his beliefs, by confronting that person with smart questions.

So such a metaphor, would immediately have caused serious problems, saying then: this practice is unlawful, period. No better then Paul would have known this immediately. Leaving thus the only proper option open: hanging, as it consisted of a principle distinction between gentiles and the people of the Law. So here we have things arranged suddenly in such fashion that eventually long afterwards, in te final form more than 40 years later and 35 years after the invention, and some time after the loss of the capital Jerusalm to the Roman army in AD 70, it also provided a perfect window, not thought of prior, to have some Roman involvement in the hanging of Jesus, given the strange event described by Josephus in Vita 75-76, when one of three crucified friends of Josephus was rescued in time by Josephus, to remain alive and survive. Then actually in AD 70, in a physical way, indeed it was the Roman presence that was involved in this strange surviva of a crucified person, forty years later, than the prohibition of preaching that had originated the invention of the metaphor of the hung Jesus. All sort of had fallen in one single place together as is meant to fit. It would have been stupid not to use this peculiar incident, while nobody except a friend – Josephus – could know, where this final form of conversion of the hun Jesus in the crucified Jesus, came from in biological sense.

Everybody happy, win-win, whereas the underlying spiritual reasoning is quite way too subtle, to be historically reconstructed properly by most if any, without this mention by Josephus in his memoirs (Vita par. 75-76) and the confirmation explained by Krijbolder by name analysis of his birth name, Joseph ben Mathattias, the mysterious eyewitness mentioned in the gospels as Joseph from Arimatea!!

As mentioned before, this survey of the work of Krijbolder involves way too much theology for Pierre Kijbolder to get involved with for his work. This is why it can not be found explicitly expressed in his book. But once his book is thoroughly analyzed, one simply can not deny, there is much more to his reconstrutions, than at first sight seem to be the whole picture.

It is one of the reasons, why at some stage, there was so much more to his revolutionary discoveries to be included, but has no parallels in contemporary historiographical sources, that things got too complicated for me personally, to finish the promised 3rd edition of his book in Dutch. Then for Krijbolder, only marginal use may be made of theologically charged texts, and all has to have contemporary historiographical sources as a starting point.

Likewise, there is much more that can be uncovered once the wantnaam-hypothesis is also stretched to all those texts without any direct parallel in contemporary historiographical sources.

This means there is lots of gain in spiritual sense, than can be generated, from the end to all religion that follows from the historical reconstruction by Pierre Krijbolder. The hallmark to be attributed to the work of Krijbolder should nonetheless be: Jesus lived in abstract form as the thought models developed by Simon-Cephas, James Zebedee and Paul, yet the biological Jesus never existed. What remains is only state-of-art spiritual thought that is inline with all findings of modern science. So long live the texts as they are, since their meanings that had been dead for over 19 centuries have been made conceivable again and provided a revitalizing rebirth for their purest meanings again, finally, thanks to modern science and its consequent application by Pierre Krijbolder.

Advertisements

October 23, 2008

My promise to mister Krijbolder

Filed under: Uncategorized — nazoreeer @ 11:41 pm

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.

Introduction – WELCOME

Filed under: Uncategorized — nazoreeer @ 2:27 pm

This website is maintained by the publisher of ‘Crucifixion and Turin Shroud Mysteries Solved’ (1999), the english translation of “Jezus de Nazoreeër” by Pierre Krijbolder.

Jezus de Nazoreeër‘ is by far the best scientific study on Jesus that has ever been written. If there would have been a person in the world suited for a title like pope, or even priest, or in the times of the Essenes, the title John for Mark or the title “Paul” for Saulus of Tarsus or the title “Cephas” (“Peter”) for Simon, Pierre Krijbolder would have been the first one to think of since Spinoza and Origen.

Only after reading this particular book as it was last published in Dutch in 1989, one is able to get the proper idea of what the historical Jesus truely was. Not a person but the symbolical personification in the sense of a purely ficticious literal construction for the storytelling requirements to tell the development stage of a new ideological movement in Hebrew legal thought, and its developed doctrines, in the same way they had – as part of the same doctrine – perceived the Torah to be understood as a form of allegory. So this new ideological movement sort of put back their discoveries of how to understand and explain the allegories in the Torah, in a similar form of allegory, with some minor but important changes.

For any questions, please do not hesitate to email: nazoreeer [“A.T.”] gmail.com

HOW I HAPPENED TO DISCOVER THIS BOOK

It was in February 1998 that I happened to come across the book by Pierre Krijbolder, when I paid a visit to the local library. Within less than three minutes, I knew this was the real thing.

It was in the early 90’s that a major shift took place in my views on Jesus. I did no longer taught about Jesus as a person, but as something purely abstract: the perfect all explaining epistemological taught model for the human experience of nature. At that time for me all was kind of solved. No need for a further explanation for such stories as the crucifixion, now that I had found this answer for myself. The crucifixion story simply had to be a mythical PR repharsement of the same verdict against Simon-Peter (Cephas) as described in Acts 5. It was a prohibition of preaching, sentenced officially by the Tribunal Court of Justice of the Sanhedrin.

Then during the first month of 1998, I had developed kind of the same concept about this character Socrates in the works of Plato. Neither this Socrates had ever lived, other than what went on as the mind experienced by Plato as his own. Not wanting to say it directly as of his own thoughts, he used this ficticious character Socrates, to express what had kept bothering his own mind and set his ideas about knowledge apart from his contemporary philosophers. So at that time in 1998 I desired to discover some books, sharing my own view that Socrates in the works of Plato, was a ficticious story figure, compiled from Plato’s own experiences with other philosophers. So most of what is being said by Socrates, is Plato himself.

I expected there should have been many such scientific publications or books. Till this day, I did not find too many of such kind though.

A few weeks earlier I had even send a letter to Jakob Slavenburg, asking if he knew of some books on this same viewpoint. It might have been telepathy, but it was only a few days after I had already discovered this book by Krijbolder, Jezus de Nazoreeer, that I received a letter back from mister Slavenburg, in which he refered to this book, in particular, since he could not come up with the same viewpoint on Socrates. He thus informed me, of what by then I already had discovered by myself: that Krijbolder had elaborated the same viewpoint for Jesus as a fictitious narrative character, that had never existed as a person.

So when one reads the sayings by Jesus, instead one kind of reads the taughts developed by the ideological leaders of this spiritual group that wrote those gospels.

Although only having read for about three minutes, the moment I got home, I went looking for the telephone number of Pierre Krijbolder. Within minutes I had made an appointment to meet him at his home in Hoorn, some 35 km North of Amsterdam. In order to have some different perception, I asked a good friend, specialized in the study of biblical texts, Ada, to join me, meeting mister Pierre Krijbolder and his wife.

In mister Krijbolder, I recognized someone that would not give in to the most extreme of mental and physical setbacks, that are destructive to any other person. It goes beyond imagination what he and in particular also his wife must have been going through for the larger part of their lives. Getting as close to understanding what the historical Jesus truely must have been, as Pierre Krijbolder did, seems not to be allowed without having to pay the heaviest of mental and physical prices, as it never got the rewards that the efforts should have deserved. How can truth be so cruel while often the lack of truth seems more rewarding in this world. Just for the sake of physical survival he seemed to have set him to the habit of prefering rather beer than tea or coffee. Ada, the friend of mine with the sharp eye I lack for things like these, that was with me when I first met mister Krijbolder in February 1998, noticed him drinking more than the odd bottle of beer. At his age then, somewhere around 80 years, I thought this some kind of smart method to keep the blood stream fluid, so no other purpose then preventing clothing or cope with diabetes that often comes with age, in a struggle to fight for physical survival.

The main reason for asking Ada to join me, when meeting with Krijbolder, was her immense knowledge of biblical archaeology and discoveries. She published a book herself about the Book of Jasher.

De complete vertaling van de Sefer ha Jasher, beter bekend als Het boek des Oprechten (A.A. Hill) uitgegeven door ServicePost – ISBN: 9789056530174

What was the reason, I could not waste any time to meet this genius?

To me the genius was so amazing, due to the following recognition: within scrolling only a few pages for less than three minutes, it was clear to me his analytical method resembled what I had been taught during my law education at university. I will not go into detail here, but basically it comes down to the application of what I had later discovered to be known as the etnomethodological assumption in linguistic theory, or ethnomethodology. It is the applied form of the language games theory held by Wittgenstein, to be used for hermentic semantic analysis.

Since the publication of the english translation and my last correspondence with Pierre Krijbolder, for the purpose of a new version of his book in Dutch, there have been quite a few new developments. I am planning to address those here in the near future.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.