23 April 2011

Forum # 6 (apr. 6 - 21, 2011)

Posted 07 April 2011 - 06:32 PM
Another clue I found that Viking is derived from Vitking meaning (primarily) Seaking:

The origins of the Rus' Khaganate are unclear. The first Scandinavian settlers of the region arrived in the lower basin of the Volkhov River in the mid-8th century. The country comprising the present-day Saint-Petersburg, Novgorod, Tver, Yaroslavl, and Smolensk regions became known in Old Norse sources as "Gardarike", the land of forts. Norse warlords, known to the Turkic-speaking steppe peoples as "köl-beki" or "sea-kings", came to dominate some of the region's Finno-Ugric and Slavic peoples, particularly along the Volga trade route linking the Baltic Sea with the Caspian Sea and Serkland.

If Norse warlords in another language were known as "sea-kings", then why not in their own, or that of their ancestors, as made plausible by OLB?

### Posted 07 April 2011 - 06:36 PM
Meta-physics in the OLB ~ the word "GÁST" (ghost or spirit)

Dutch: geest
German: Geist

This word is mostly used in the OLB in the context of the 'Worldghost' or 'Spirit of the Over-old-one' (WR-ALDA'S GÁST). See fragments nr. {1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,13,16,19,20,21,23,24,27}

And once refering to Frya's ghost or spirit: {18}

In the context of a (living) human spirit or mind: {4,12,17,20,21,22,23,28}

Refering to bad or evil spirits: {10,11,26}

And to spirits of the dead in general: {25}

As an element of the word BIGÁSTERET or BIGÁSTERED (inspired, enchanted, excited): {14,15} The Dutch version "begeesterd" is very old-fashioned and hardly ever used anymore, but the German version "begeisterd" is still commonly used.

I wonder if there's an etymological relation to the word "guest" (Dutch: gast).
==>> reading exercises

### Posted 09 April 2011 - 05:42 AM
Abramelin, on 08 April 2011 - 06:34 PM, said:
Well, something did happen around 2200 BC, and that is a change in weather patterns all over the world. But we also had a Little Ice Age during and after the late Middle Ages, but nothing points to some major catastrophic and world-wide disaster like a comet impact or something. It could have been caused by Icelandic volcanoes erupting and/or a change in sea currents.

We should be aware that when the text about the big flood (that could be read on the walls of all the burgs) was copied in the 6th century BC, the story was already some 16 centuries old. That means that, although without doubt it had been a big disaster for the Fryans, part of it may have been dramatic exaggeration.

### Posted 09 April 2011 - 05:44 AM
Alewyn, on 08 April 2011 - 06:09 PM, said:
Secondly, the list seems to talk about people that lived East and North-East from Frisia. One would therefore not expect to see OLB names amongst them. In fact, I would suggest that had the names been similar, it would have proven that the OLB was copied from these "older" writings. As it stands, it would seem that the OLB was written quite independetly from these old "Germanic" writings, even though the time frame may be the same.

I would have to study those German texts to have a solid opinion about it, but it seems to me that they are similar to the Frisian historiography of the same period; partly based on older sources and/or oral tradition and partly based on fantasy (similar to our gossip magazines LOL).

If there are similarities between the 16th century sources and the OLB, it can either mean that one has inspired the other, or that they are both based on an older (possibly true) source.

### Posted 09 April 2011 - 08:37 AM
One of the most important reasons why OLB is rejected by most Dutch scholars seems to be that the language is relatively easy to understand.

Since the oldest known texts in Dutch, Frisian, Saxon etc. are more difficult to understand, people assume, that anything older should be even more difficult than, or more different from our 'modern' language.

What they don't realize is that while the written history (written language) had been thoroughly destroyed in a few hunderd years of cultural genocide, the spoken language may have stayed almost the same for people who did not migrate and mix too much.

In the late Middle Ages, the only people who could read and write, had learnt this in Latin (not counting the few exceptions like Liko and Hidde, who risked their lives writing in the old language).

At some point they tried to write down the commonly spoken language (that was much older than Latin), but they had no more examples, they had to construct or actually reconstruct the spelling.

So instead of the evolution of language being linear or exponential (from very primitive to very advanced), it was actually more cyclic; at some point very advanced, and then as a result of wars, migrations and mixing of cultures, it became confused and partly forgotten, while later, in times of relative peace, it was reconstructed again.

Because of the similarities in the North-European languages, we can conclude that they must have had the same (or at least a shared) origin, much older than any known written source.

Nowhere ever have I seen one convincing example of "modern Dutch" in OLB that would prove that it cannot be as old as it says it is.

### Posted 09 April 2011 - 01:32 PM
Alewyn, on 08 April 2011 - 12:27 PM, said:
In my geology studies many years ago, we were taught the “Principle of Uniformity” which holds that “the present is the key to the past.” That is to say that the processes that are in motion today were also in motion in the distant past.

This is similar to the “Theory of Uniformitarianism” that we find in the Philosophy of Naturalism. This theory assumes that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. It is frequently summarized as "the present is the key to the past," because it holds that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the world.

My contention is that this theory does not only apply to the natural sciences, but also to human behaviour.

Having studied the Oera Linda Book in some detail over the last few years, there are many events in the book that the author(s) describe that tells me they could only describe these if they actually lived through them. The thing is that these were not major historical events or facts, but rather the seemingly casual remarks made in passing. Unless you have experienced this yourself, you would not even notice it.

The OLB describes a few occasions where the Fryan Folk encountered less developed people, settled, tried to educate (and rule them) and then they were kicked out.
Now, when I read this, I cannot help but seeing the similarities with South African history (my “Principle of ‘Human’ Uniformity”).

Please understand that I am not trying to defend or attack anything in S.A. history – I am merely trying to show how human nature has not changed at all over the last few thousand years. From this distance in time, we can now clearly see the picture as it unfolded, but this would not have been possible during the 19th century in the Netherlands.
Let me give a few examples:

In 1652 AD, the Dutch started a halfway station at the Cape of Good Hope (Present day Cape Town) on the Southern tip of Africa, on their long sea voyages between Europe and India. At the time, they had no intention to colonize Africa. Through time, however, the colonists migrated north until they eventually formed the Union of South Africa (under British rule) in1910 and eventually the fully autonomous Republic of South Africa outside the British Commonwealth in 1961. In 1994, the country for the first time became fully democratic by extending the franchise to the majority of the black peoples in the country.
Now let us consider the Oera Linda Book:

1. When Minerva arrived in Attica and started building Athenia, the locals became upset because the “Frisians” did not have slaves. Now why did they react that way? Surely one would have thought that they would have been happy that the Frisians were not about to make slaves of them.
The reason is that the Frisians did not present job opportunities to them. This is something I have encountered countless times in S.A. history and throughout my life. When you start any business in S.A., the locals will only support you, understandably, if you give them employment. If you do not, you will have a fight on your hands.

2. When the Gertmanne were kicked out of Athens, the locals introduced many changes. The most pronounced were the changes in the judicial system. Previously all litigation was done in the “Frisian” language only, then in both Fries and Doric (?) and eventually in the local language only.
Before 1994 in S.A., most state departments, the police, the army, etc, were predominantly Afrikaans. Today the numbers of Afrikaners in these departments are almost non-existent and you will, for most of the time, not be served if you address them in Afrikaans.

3. The OLB describes how the priests and rulers in Athens corrupted the laws after the Gertmanne had left. The same happened in Zimbabwe and all over Africa, and is now happening in South Africa.

4. The Gertmanne in the OLB did not want to live under a foreign government and they chose their own leaders before they were kicked out of Athens.
In S.A. we had the same thing when many people emigrated to Australia, New Zeeland, Canada, etc. The right-wingers in S.A. who could not emigrate, tried to form their own homeland, etc.

In South Africa, Afrikaners are being ridiculed as “Boere” (Farmers) whereas the Frisians that remained in Athens were called “Sea Monsters” (From “Sea Peoples”)

5. When Minnos settled on Crete, the locals wanted democracy. They got it but the rulers soon changed it to suit themselves.
Now think of post-colonial Africa. They all wanted democracy but the tyrants and dictators still rule despite the guise of democracy.
(I am following the events in the Middle East with keen interest)

6. In South Africa, the Afrikaners brought in Apartheid (Separateness) to protect themselves (and their privileged position). I would suggest the same happened in Athens, Crete, India and with the Hyksos in Egypt. That is why they were so resented by the locals. My evidence shows that the descendants of the Gertmanne introduced the Caste system in India. (a different form of Apartheid).

Consider also the privileged positions of the Dutch, British, French, Spanish, Portuguese and German Colonists all over the world until the advent of “Uhuru” in the 1950’s / 1960’s. Even the Australians exploited their indigenous peoples.

I could go on but you will understand what I am trying to say. These subtle and perhaps naïve descriptions is unlikely to have been dreamt up by some hoaxer in the 19th century.

I know it is difficult to visualize or describe the backgrounds in the OLB, but it is these things that convinced me that the OLB is true. With our debate here on UM and my own further investigations, I am even more convinced.

This is one of the best posts we had in a long time.

### Posted 09 April 2011 - 04:30 PM
Re-reading parts of Jensma's thesis "De Gemaskerde God" (2004), about his conspiracy theory of 3 men having created the OLB in the 19th century, I found a fragment that I had forgotten about, but which is relevant.

If it would have been a good book, a pleasant read -and that does not mean at all that it would have to be easy, or confirm all or most of my ideas and beliefs- if Jensma for example would have been more modest with terms like "undoubtedly", "without a bit of doubt", "absolutely obvious", "utterly unthinkable", etcetera, I would have read it more thoroughly and taken it more seriously.

The best term to describe the reading experience I can think of is a Dutch one: "tenenkrommend", which litterally means "toe-curling" (a combination of terrifying, horrifying, disgusting?).

Anyway, the relevant part I had forgotten or suppressed (on page 256) was about some sheets of empty paper that were discovered between the things Cornelis Over de Linden had left behind when he died. It was discovered in the 1920-s, that is some 50 years after COL had died in 1874 (rather late I would say!?). The paper was "for the most part cut in the same size and also had lines drawn with pencil just like the paper from the OLB. This paper was not made brown (yet). These pages had been (...) numbered with pencil in the handwriting of COL" (my improvised translation). The handwritten pagenumbers appeared to fit in the gaps from the OLB; 193-194 and 169-188.

This leaves us with some questions:

1. How certain is it that it is indeed Over de Linden's handwriting?

2. Is the paper of the same fabrication as that of the OLB, if so, how old is it?

3. Is it possible that he inherited the empty paper together with the manuscript? (And that his aunt, uncle, grandfather or someone else had copied it from an older original?)

4. Is it possible that he himself had copied the OLB from an older original (that maybe did not look so nice or was falling apart), but somehow decided to make his copy look older than it was (to increase its perceived value?) and hide the fact that he had copied it?

5. Is it possible that there was no older original, and that Jensma's theory is right: that writer/ poet/ reverend Haverschmidt wrote most of the text, that filologist (Frisian language expert) Verwijs took care of the translation into quasi-old-Frisian, and that Over de Linden wrote everything down on quasi-old paper in the Jolscript? In other words a co-poduction of three conspiring men, who all three took their secret with them in their graves?

It seems obvious that Over de Linden did not have the creative and intellectual capacity to have created the OLB by himself.

If Verwijs and Haverschmidt had been involved, it means that Verwijs has shamelessly lied to his colleagues, even under oath, and that Haverschmidt has fooled his former teacher Ottema, whom he much liked and respected.

Personally, I find it very hard to believe (for psychological reasons) that Verwijs and Haverschmidt were involved and it's indeed obvious that Over de Linden cannot have done it alone. Therefore I suggest a better look at questions 3 and 4.

There's some other clues I also found re-reading, that strongly suggest that the manuscript already existed before 1850, that is; before the Swiss pole-houses (as described in OLB) were discovered by archaeologists. I plan to share these clues with the forum soon.

For now I will take a deep breath and study Jensma's chapter about Cornelis Over de Linden once more. I can think of more pleasant things, but it needs to be done. (And his style of writing somehow is difficult to translate into English.)

I hope all this made sense, my English is not at its best today.

### Posted 10 April 2011 - 12:39 PM
The Puzzler, on 10 April 2011 - 07:06 AM, said:
I'd like to know what you thought of the find that tannin was in common ink 1400 years ago, my post a few above.

Sorry, Puzzler I have not been responding to many very interesting posts recently, but I try to read them all.

I don't know about tannin and if it would be relevant to the OLB-paper. The tea-coloring hypothesis was never confirmed as far as I know (nor the smoke-house theory). I'm not in the best position to research this now, work mostly off-line. Lots of fascinating material in preparation though...

### Fragment of the letter from Cornelis Over de Linden to Eelco Verwijs of 7 October 1867, introducing the manuscript, now known as OLB. (My improvised translation, from "De Gemaskerde God", page 237; from now on I'll refer to this book as DGG.)

Dear sir!
When in my childhood I visited my grandparents in Enkhuizen, and my grandfather (he was a master carpenter) spoke to me in confidence, he used to say: "You speak fancy now, but you must remember that we are not of Hollandic, but of pure Frisian blood, when you're older I'll explain all that, because your father doesn't care about it." The old man died before he could tell me about it. Some 18 years ago [in 1848], visiting my family, my aunt gave me two manuscripts, that she had not been allowed to give me when her husband was still alive, although my grandfather had demanded it. The biggest is thicker than a Bible; the beginning is Latin and most is old-Hollandic. The smallest has to be some variety of old-Frisian and is written in a type of letters that look to me as capital Roman letters. The big one is of use to me, the small one not. (...)"

He continues writing how a friend suggested to ask a specialist for his opinion about the small manuscript.

I have highlighted the two (i.m.o.) significant parts of this letter.

His grandfather must have known what the manuscript was about and he must have loved it, while his son, the father of Cornelis did not care about it. This means that he will have tried to get his son interested, telling stories about it, maybe reading from it. In other words, apart from the passing over of the physical tradition (the manuscript), there was also an oral tradition; stories being told from older to younger generations. Those stories may not always have explicitly referred to the manuscript! So Cornelis may have known parts of the content of the OLB, or certain words from it, without knowing that it came from the OLB. (This is important for something I'll write about later.)

His uncle had forbidden his wife (Cornelis' aunt) to give the manuscript to him. Why? Did he like it so much himself? Did he think it would kindle Cornelis' megalomania or otherwise not be good for him to know too much about his family's past? If it's a 19th century copy, was he the one who made it (and maybe sold the original)? Who knows, but anyway, I sense something suspicious about this uncle.

Another fragment from the hand of Cornelis Over de Linden (1873 or 1874) about how he had received the book (free translation, DGG p.238-239).

Again, note the fragments about the grandfather loving it, while the father was not interested, and about the uncle who didn't want Cornelis to have it.

Once when I visited my mother and some other family, I was at my aunts at a moment when her second husband Koop Meylhof was not at home. I think it was in the year 1847 or -8. We were in the garden that I loved because I had such good memories of when my grandparents lived there. A pear tree carried three ripe pears that I asked for, saying that since grandfathers death, I had not tasted fruits from this garden. She agreed and said: "Now that you mention your grandfather, I have something for you that I had to keep until you had grown up. Hendrik..." (Hendrik Reuvers was the name of her first husband) "... didn't want me to give it to you, but Koops doesn't know about it, therefore I should give it to you now." I expected something like a watch, but she came back with an old book. Then she said: "This is, as grandfather said, an old Frisian manuscript from our ancestors. He didn't want to give it to your father, because he wasn't interested, therefore I had to keep it for you."
I put it under my coat and could hardly hide my disappointment. "You don't seem very happy with it", she said. "But if you knew how much your grandfather loved it, you'd be more happy. I only heard about it, but I believe they are Frisian papers of nobility. Etc." To please her, I showed some more gratitude, and promised that I would learn to read it and that I would tell her what it said. (She died in the year 49. So if she would not had given it to me, Koops would have laid his hands upon it - or one of her children, that are named Reuvers.) One might as well have given me Hebrew, I couldn't read any of it and when I told my wife that they were papers of nobility, she thought it was a joke.

Another fragment by Cornelis, addressed to his grandson Cornelis and family, dated 1873 or 1874 (DGG, p.240-241).

Analysing the events concerning the book, I believe it was all meant to happen like it did. If I had not gone to visit my mother in Enkhuizen, I would not have seen my aunt Aafje; had the pears not been ripe when I was in the garden with her, I would not have spoken about grandfather, and she would not have thought of the book. The next year she died, and since no-one except her knew the book, it would have disappeared.
If I could have spent the night at my cousins, I would not have met Siderius and the book would not have gotten translated.
If mister Eelco Verwijs had been more generous, I would have had a translation as a manuscript, for I would not have had it printed.
Possibly, you'll probably say, nothing would have been lost. But I am superstitious enough, to think, that God wanted to have this history revealed, and therefore I also believe, that He did it to cast out the false history, and replace it with the true one.
That this will not happen during my lifetime, I also believe, but you are still young, so it is possible, that you will live to see part or all of this happen.
Some people are already found, who consider the book to be authentic. One day intelligent people will rise, who will challenge the priests and prove, that they have destroyed our history and our monuments, with the purpose of making us believe that our ancestors were like animals; that we owe nothing to them [our ancestors], but everything to the Jews, Greeks and other deceitful people.

Jensma’s theory, in short, is that Cornelis was a blatant liar and deceiver (as were Verwijs and Haverschmidt).

The writings of Cornelis don’t sound like lies to me. In fact, I find it very hard to believe that this man would have lied to his children and grandchildren about a matter this important.

Also, if Jensma’s suggestion that Over de Linden would sometimes drink too much is true, it’s most unlikely that, were he involved in the creation of the book, he would never have spoken about his secret to anyone, while being drunk. (Drunk people and children are honest, they said in my youth.)

But there’s much more information that is in strong conflict with Jensma’s theory that Over de Linden was one of the hoaxers.

In 1876 a schoolteacher from Den Helder, Cornelis Wijs, remembered an incident that happened in 1831. He was working on a ship called Nehalennia, on which the father of Cornelis, Jan Over de Linden was also working. The latter had in joyous moods often taken pride in the fact that he descended from the oldest family of the world, and in the same context he would also ridicule nobility [dutch: “adel“].
Another two teachers that went to school with Over de Linden’s oldest son Cornelis [around 1848], remembered a similar incident. As a 14 year old schoolboy, this Cornelis II (1833-1868) would sometimes have fights with a fellow student from a noble family, a certain ‘baron’ Eichstorff, who took pride in his high descent. Cornelis would have said: “Your German noble descent means nothing to me; we are of much older nobility than you, and Frisian.” And: “Father says it [that we are of noble descent], and he knows it from a book with such strange letters, that we can‘t even read it; Father can only read bits of it.” The two fellow students who remembered this incident, as well as two other people from Den Helder made an official ‘sealed‘ statement [at a notary], declaring that between 1848 and 1850, they had known of the existence of the manuscript (without having seen it themselves).
(free translation, DGG, p.241-243)

A similar statement by a sea-officer named W.M. Visser who had made a note in his diary on 23 December 1854. On that day Cornelis Over de Linden had told him about the book, that “not only was written in a strange language, but also with such strange letters, that he could not read it.” (DGG, p.243 and footnote)

After mentioning several other, similar statements that confirm the existence in the 1840-s of old, important Over de Linden family documents, Jensma’s conclusion is that “... there surely must have existed some sort of family document. But because the OLB [...] must have been written in the 1850-s or early 1860-s [see below], it is impossible that this concerns the OLB” (DGG, p.243).

And: “About a possible, no longer existing ‘Frisian’ manuscript [that must have existed in the family] one can only speculate. If there was one, it was not saved, but destroyed by Cornelis and ‘replaced’ by the OLB” (DGG, p.244). Behold a nice example of Jensma’s logic and way of reasoning.

This dating of the OLB between the 1850-s to early 1860-s is mostly based on the discovery of the Swiss pole-houses in 1854, the digging of the Suez channel in 1859, and the publication of a book “Minnebrieven”, an early-feministic novel, in 1861 by Multatuli (Eduard Douwes Dekkers), because he used a character (a daughter and milk-maid) called “Thugater” (milk-maid in Sanskrit), as daughter in OLB is spelled TOGHATERA. (For Jensma “irrefutable” proof that OLB is inspired by Minnebrieven.) Note also that Haverschmidt, according to Jensma’s hypothesis the mastermind behind the OLB, was only 25 years old in 1860!

### Posted 11 April 2011 - 07:04 PM
Alewyn, on 10 April 2011 - 02:29 PM, said:
In trying to understand the “primitive” religion of the OLB, one must first try to define, what I would like to call, the 4 basic concepts:
1. Wralda (pronounced Ra-alda). This could mean “the most ancient of ancients” or the “most ancient father”. This was their name for “God” or the “Creator”.

Interesting post Alewyn. I can't dive very deep in it now, but have a few comments.

I like "dust" better than the "matter" I used earlier. Note that the Dutch "stof" can both mean "dust" and "fabric". With ambiguities like this, a footnote in the translation might be good.

The W or VV (double-you) is pronounced like the OE in "boer" or the English OO as in "proof" or "poor" or OU in "you" (I can't hear the difference); WR-ALDA, therefore is pronounced as (Dutch/ Afrikaans:) OER-ALDA, or (English:) OOR-ALDA, or (German:) UR-ALDA.

Have you also considered Monism?

### Posted 12 April 2011 - 04:44 AM
Otharus, on 11 April 2011 - 06:33 PM, said:
His grandfather must have known what the manuscript was about and he must have loved it, while his son, the father of Cornelis did not care about it. This means that he will have tried to get his son interested, telling stories about it, maybe reading from it. In other words, apart from the passing over of the physical tradition (the manuscript), there was also an oral tradition; stories being told from older to younger generations. Those stories may not always have explicitly referred to the manuscript! So Cornelis may have known parts of the content of the OLB, or certain words from it, without knowing that it came from the OLB. (This is important for something I'll write about later.)

From the moment Cornelis Over de Linden decided that he would have the mysterious family manuscript analysed and translated, he must have felt inspired to start writing himself. He left many notebooks that can be dated from 1867 till his death in 1874. A schoolteacher from Den Helder, Gerrit Jansen, helped him correct his writings from 1867 on and visited him more than 100 times. My guess is that he would write down anything he remembered from what he had learnt from the older members of his family and his own thoughts about it. Also, although he said he could hardly read anything from the manuscript himself when he asked for help in 1867, in the process of making copies for the Frisian scholars, he may have started to learn and understand some of it after all. He never gave away the whole manuscript, always parts of it only. Therefore he was able to continue his own study of it, while the 'specialists' in Leeuwarden did their part. A big difference being, that Cornelis had also received some oral tradition about the book, while the Frisian specialists were 'hindered' by their preconceived 'knowledge' about the past.

The following fragment, from the hand of Over de Linden and estimated to date from 1867, shows that he had knowledge of some of the content of the OLB, but also, that he knew more that just that. The notebook was named "Thoughts and comments by brother Cornelis".

"The Hollandic word 'wereld' [world] is a bastardisation of the old Frisian word Wr-alda, pronounced as 'oer-alda' [oor-alda], which meant 'overoude' [over-old-one]. The word 'wereld' is bastardised, just like the German word 'welt', Oldfrisian 'wald', pronounced as 'welt', that means power [magt] and also influence [gezag].
By pronouncing the word wr-alda or oer-alda, as both forms occur, was connected the association with the galaxy, and the notion of a most ancient being; and when the the word 'wald' was used, one thought of its power and influence.
When nowadays people speak of 'wereld' or 'welt', one mostly merely associates it with a material space, being otherwise empty. But enough of this; let's see how this bastardisation was introduced into the world.
The first inhabitants of these lands, the 'Friezen' [Frisians], actually 'Fria's bern' [sic!], that means children of Fria, called the V 'oe' [oo], also 'joe' [you], the W double 'oe' and double 'joe'. But after they had been forced, by the violence of the Frankish weapons and the evil plans of strange priests, to embrace the doctrine and history of the slave-people from the south-east, in stead of their own laws and history, their lettering skills were lost by 'lieverlede' ['lovesuffering'?]. Now that all this had been passed over to the hands of Frankish monks, the V became 'vouw' [vow?] and the W double 'vouw', like they later became 'vee' [vay] and 'wee' [way]. Yet, the Frisians that lived around and near the 'Zuiderzee' [South-sea], held on to the old language and spelling as much as they could. But instead of 'oer-alda', later more frequently 'wrald', wrauld', 'rauld' and 'ruald' were found. Gysbert Japix wrote 'wrâd'. Nowadays in the small piece of the once large 'Fria'sland', one also writes 'wrâod', so both leaving out the 'l'. If the W would be pronounced as a double or long-stretched 'oe', and connected with the 'r' to one syllable, it would mean 'oer-âd' - over-old, or 'oer-âod', depending on the pronounciation, but in both cases 'over-old'. But if the W is used as 'Wee' [way], and the word is pronounced in one syllable, than it is as wasted as the word 'wereld' [world]."

This to Jensma again is 'irrefutable' proof that Cornelis knew the content of the OLB before he received a translation from Ottema or Verwijs. And therefore he had to be one of the 'hoaxers'. Jensma does not like doubt and jumps to conclusions too fast.

Since the grandfather of Cornelis loved the book so much, it is very well possible that he taught his children from it, or discussed things with local teachers, from whom Cornelis it may have learnt. The above to me sounds more as information that is passed on orally, than from reading the OLB or a translation, as there are parts that are not mentioned in OLB, for example the link between 'wr-alda' and 'wald' or 'weld'.

More and more, it becomes clear to me, why the great-grandfather of Cornelis, Jan Over de Linden or Overlende, who was a writer ['clerk' or administrator] in 1741 Leeuwarden, left (east) Friesland shortly after his marriage in 1745, to settle in the far more free-spirited Westfriesland [Enkhuizen], where he became a book trader and publisher. (Something Jensma does not write about...)

The next 'proof' for the 'fact' that Cornelis must have held the pen from which the OLB-ink flowed, is that he sometimes placed a comma in the beginning of a new line, something we also see in the manuscript.

This is an example
, of comma's placed
in the beginning
, instead of at the
end of the line.

There's other explanations possible for this.
1) It's a peculiarity that his grandfather, who loved the manuscript, passed on to his descendant.
2) Cornelis, studying the manuscript and identifying more and more with it, copied the habit. He only had primary school education and was mostly a self-educated, and educated by family.

Did Cornelis make the manuscript, or did the manuscript - directly or indirectly - make Cornelis?

### Posted 12 April 2011 - 07:16 AM
Cornelis Over de Linden (ca.1867):
Otharus, on 12 April 2011 - 04:44 AM, said:
"The first inhabitants of these lands, the 'Friezen' [Frisians], actually 'Fria's bern' [sic!], that means children of Fria..."

Cornelis, writing about the correct spelling and pronounciation of the word "wr-alda", spells the name of the primal mother as "Fria", a spelling we find only sparsely in the OLB, while it is common in West-Flandres. The OLB-spelling is, with few exceptions, "FRYA".

Jensma will argue that this must have been yet another trick of 'arch-liar' Over de Linden to confuse and deceive us. In theory this is possible, but psychologically far more unlikely than that he was honest and had NOT received his knowledge from reading the manuscript, but rather from oral tradition.

### Posted 12 April 2011 - 07:17 AM
When the first doubts about the authenticity and age of the manuscript reached Cornelis he answered to Ottema:

"My grandfather or my father can't have written it, they were 'timbermen' [carpenters] just like me. Furthermore then [when it was supposedly created] all that remained of them were some bones.
If it [the manuscript] is that young, my good old auntie must have made it. Perhaps she was a witch, there's quite a few of them in Enkhuizen. But if it contains that many spelling mistakes and other flaws, the devil must have deceived her, or maybe his knowledge of the Frisian language wasn' that good." (DGG, p.259)

Three weeks after Ottema's first publication of the OLB in 1872, when a tempest of criticism was being released, he wrote Ottema again, suggesting a plan for revenge:

"Among my fantasies of revenge, that flew through my brain, there is one that is getting stronger. I leave it to your better judgement, because I know that, if you like it, you will be able to make it happen. This is my plan.
You people [in Friesland] have a public Frisian society, that in my (possibly wrong) opinion does not function properly. This society is supposed to study and education of the old Frisian language. I would like to add a secret society to that. One that aims at expanding the Frisian element more. Such a society might name itself 'Adela's Followers'.
To expand the Frisian element, it should acquire every farm within the borders of Friesland, that becomes available through death. It shall place a motivated and honest pure-blooded Frisian farmer on that farm, who can make it his by working hard. This society can also be of good use in elections for local counsels or representatives of the people. If one would start this, one should take good care that it would only have pure-blooded Frisian members, etc.
If my plan of revenge is successful, the other Netherlandic farmers can move to America, and the Frisian farmers can stay here to take over the property, that belongs to them". (DGG, p.259-260)

It's obvious and understandable that this was written, driven by negative, almost desperate emotions.

From what I know of human health, his death only two years later (aged 63) may very well have been primarily caused by what can be termed a 'broken heart'. (But I know this is beyond the subject of discussion here.)

### Posted 12 April 2011 - 03:29 PM
The Puzzler, on 12 April 2011 - 10:24 AM, said:
Grandfather but if Cornelis thinks his grandfather is uncapable of it, maybe he worked on it with his daughter (Cornelis aunt), she wrote it up through his ideas, maybe.

The aunt was illiterate and the grandfather a naval carpenter...
Grandfather Andries may have learnt to read and interpret the book (or part of it), with help of his father Jan (the book publisher and trader), but to create something like it is of a whole different order.
In fact, I don't even believe that a team of the most studied men of their times could have created it, if they would have tried.
Also Puzzler, think about it, you are a mother yourself.
can you imagine any (grand-) parent who would pass on such a big lie to their children?

### Posted 12 April 2011 - 05:54 PM
After primary school Cornelis Over de Linden learnt to be a (naval) carpenter, probably from his father, who had learnt the art from his father. He was a third generation 'shipstimberman' (scheepstimmerman), who made a good career with the Royal Navy, that was based in Den Helder.

He also had an impressive library, so he must have liked to read and (at later age?) he became passionate about writing himself, although no-one seems to have been very impressed with his work and he needed someone to correct his mistakes. (I would be very interested to read all of it some day.)

The earlier posted fragment from him about the word "wr-alda" showed that he had specialised knowledge and interest in the original meaning, spelling and pronunciation of words. Things like that can be passed on in families for many generations. In the past much more so, I believe, than in the last few generations.

Apparently he has helped Ottema solve several translating problems.

The following fragment of DGG (p.260 and footnotes) about this is interesting for various reasons:

It is remarkable for example how at a certain point Ottema asked Over de Linden for typical North-Hollandic, or Westfrisian language qualities, and how Over de Linden answered with a whole list of words [that he had put together with assistance of schoolmaster Dekker from Den Helder].

Ottema was delighted: "... I have discovered 30 words that are not known to us [(east-) Frisians] but that are used in the manuscript!"

A good example also is the correspondence about the translation of the word 'Od' (the most discussed word from the whole OLB in its literature). [Here Jensma had placed a footnote, but this only reads: "cancelled"???]

Ottema initially thought this would mean something like 'misfortune' or 'bad luck'. But Over de Linden knew exactly what the correct meaning of the word was:

"... page 6 [of Ottema's translation] reads OD TRAD TO RA BINNA translated as 'bad luck passed through the door' [onluk trad (de) deur binnen]. For door I found on page 94 DURE. Shouldn't it be: OD nature, life-force, fertilising force, or an even better word, entered her?" [letter 5 November 1871]

The word OD is related to Oldsaxon "ôd" - fortune- or good luck-bringing force [gelukbrengende kracht]. The Dutch word for stork, 'ooievaar' might have been derived from this.

Ottema did not accept this correction, he changed his interpretation and derived the word from Latin 'Odi' = I hate.

A comment about part 1) of the above fragment.
The Westfrisian dialect seems to be closer related to the OLB language, than (east-) Frisian. Being a Westfrisian myself (although not really having grown up with a hardcore dialect), I had this feeling before and have mentioned it several times in the forum. This may very well be one of the reasons why the OLB was misinterpreted; It's not old-Frisian, but more old-Westfrisian!

That is, the 'Fryan' language stayed more pure and unchanged on the west-side of the Flymar, later Zuiderzee (South-sea). This makes perfect sense too, as it is further away from Denmark and Germany and it was the part that included Texland, now Texel, where the main centre of education and knowledge had been (until the Christenings?).

Comments about part 2)
I find it absurd that Ottema ignored Over de Linden's suggestion and chose for the Latin "od" (hate) rather than the old-Saxon "ôd" (fortune or life-force) in his translation of "OD" in the creation myth. (In old-Norse it appears to have meant 'spirit', which would also fit more into the context than 'hate'.)

I can think of two possible explanations.

First, that he might have had the preconceived idea that the creation myth should have an 'original sin' type of element in it; pregnancy means bad luck?!

Second, that he might have felt embarrassed with any association to fertility. Is this yet another example of the difference between the generally more liberal, free-spirited Westfrisians and the more conservative, suppressed (east-) Frisians? Or is it just the 'simple' carpenter versus the well-educated scholar?

If Ottema really believed that his very own name meant 'bad luck' or 'hate', this could i.m.o. even be related to his suicide in 1879...

### Posted 13 April 2011 - 10:28 AM
The adjective "FRY" or "FRYA"

Dutch - vrij
German - frei
English - free
==>>> see reading exercises

### Posted 13 April 2011 - 10:51 AM
The Puzzler, on 13 April 2011 - 06:04 AM, said:
Seems the frYan, Y is only in West Frisian language...?
Maybe an older version of West-Frisian, not the modern or Dutch one.

The old "y" is mostly replaced by "ij" in modern Dutch.

The word for sound, BTW is "geluid", from "luiden";
een klok luiden = to sound a bell

Therefore, LYDA would most likely have evolved into "lijden" (to suffer).
Or, less likely "leiden", which sounds the same and means to lead.

### Posted 13 April 2011 - 02:59 PM
The verb "FINDA"
A study of the meaning of the name FINDA, from the second mother of the creation myth.
Dutch - vinden
German - finden
Danish - find
Norwegian - finner
English - to find
Icelandic - Finna
==>>> see reading exercises

### Posted 13 April 2011 - 05:39 PM
The verb "LYDA"
A study of the meaning of the name LYDA in OLB.
Dutch - lijden
German - Leiden
Swedish - lidande
Danish, Norwegian- lidelse
English - to suffer

### Posted 14 April 2011 - 09:43 AM
Abramelin, on 13 April 2011 - 09:09 PM, said:
And.. I didn't ignore what you posted about the Over the Linden family, but it's clear to me that you must have ignored what I posted about Cornelis' grandson.... that he was present when friends of his grandpa visited his grandpa, that they were discussing some document late at night, and laughed like bats from hell when they did.

Cornelis' grandson ~ a 'witness report' out of the third hand

Version 1 ~ Jensma (2006), p.42:
That Over de Linden has to have been the handwriter of the book, is confirmed by an important witness report of a family member. A grandson that had lived with him said that he had one day seen grandfather write 'on big sheets of paper', after which in the evening two learned doctors visited to discuss the work that had been done.

Because we can date this witness report, we can date these activities to have happened in the summer of 1869. This probably explains the big difference in quality between the first and the second part of the book, as discussed before. The first part (or a significant part of it) had already been finished in the early summer of 1867, when Over de Linden send a few copied pages of the 'original' from Den Helder to Friesland. So he waited with finishing the second part until someone was found to be interested. This took a rather long time - almost two years - but when the Frisian Society gave Verwijs permission to have a transcription made of the handwriting, then there suddenly was a hurry. It was probably only then that not only superfluous parts from the original manuscript were edited, but also in a hurry much too long stories were written and added (for example the more than boring fragment about the arrival of Friso in Friesland [120/10-130/20]).

Version 2 ~ Jensma (2004), p.161:
From later times also, signs of doubt exist. The grandson of Cornelis I, who in 1906 had shown to 'know all about it' by means of a smile on his face, we'll meet him in a next chapter, just like a certain Riek Mulder-Pomper. From 1917 she had shared house with the widow of a grandson [a different one] of Cornelis I, Floris August Over de Linden (1863-ca.1910). The latter had lived in the house of his grandfather in the 1860-s and had seen how Over de Linden 'was writing on big sheets of paper all day'. The question whether this testimony is trustworthy is not relevant here yet, but rather the way the family reacted to it:

"Years later, when he heard about the controversy around the book and had a good think about it, he went to his oldest brother Cor [= Cornelis III] (there was also a sister Brecht) and told him, that it was all nonsense, as he himself had seen Grandfather write the book [aged 5 or 6 years old!].
But Cor had become furious and had said, that he had no clue, that he should mind his own business, and keep his mouth shut, because after all the book said that they descended from kings! So he kept it for himself, he no longer could ask his grandfather, who had already passed away, and therefore he informed his wife about it. And Mrs. O.d.L. told me, probably because she thought, that at least someone should know. But first I had to solemnly promise her to never speak about it with anyone 'because of the sensitivity of the family'." (Letter signed Santpoort, 7 Oct. 1965)

Version 3 ~ Jensma (2004), p.257:
Now a witness report that leaked out of the family circle of the Over de Lindens starts to prove useful as evidence. Grandson Floris, who had lived in the house of Over de Linden, claimed later that:

"... as a very little child he was brought to his grandfather. This grandfather must have been a very funny man, who was fooling everyone around and was always telling strange stories and said things that make you laugh. In one summer a few 'learned doctors from Leeuwarden', as the grandfather called them, came to visit, and took him out to go sailing. But there was a day, that the grandfather no longer joined, but was writing all day on big sheets of paper. He had fun, but never wanted to tell the little boy why. In the evening the 'learned doctors' came and grandfather would read to them what he had written during the day. Then they laughed loudly, and Floor had heard them shout: they'll be surprised and they'll never believe it! Years later, when he heard..." [etcetra, see above] "... because after all the book said that they descended from kings!"

Although this story is not out of the first hand, all factual material we have found so far fits within such an imagination of matters. Over de Linden has handwritten the book and was supervised by two 'learned doctors from Leeuwarden'. Frisian men therefore, who were more learned than Over de Linden himself. I will return to this witness report in the next chapter.

Version 4 ~ Jensma (2004), p.298:
The OLB-files of Tresoar contain a note of a certain Roovers, captain of the ship 'De Kortenaer'. It was signed Batavia [Dutch Indies] 4 Sept. 1868, addressed to Cornelis Over de Linden. Roovers and medical doctor of the ship inform Over de Linden about the death of his oldest son Cornelis II and his wife Margaretha Krul shortly before; on their deathbed they had asked the captain to send their three little children to grandfather Over de Linden in Den Helder, and Roovers asked Over de Linden to come and collect the children in Rotterdam. And so it happened; the three children were registered in Den Helder on 31 Dec. 1868.

In the last chapter I quoted from the witness report of [the maid of!] the widow of one of these grandchildren, namely Floris August Over de Linden. Born in Soerabaja on 22 May 1863, he was five years old when he, together with his brother Cornelis III (11 years old) and his sister Brechtje (9), came to live with his grandfather and his second wife. Floris remembered of this period, as his widow would repeatedly [???] tell her maid, how 'two learned doctors from Leeuwarden' had visited his grandfather and went out sailing with him. Later grandfather stayed home and Floris had seen him write on big sheets of paper. In the evening the guests had come back and together with grandfather they had - shatter-laughing - reviewed the written works. A strong argument in favour of this witness report, I remarked, is that it was indeed Over de Linden who has handwritten the OLB manuscript. [not a proven fact]

This note creates a difficulty though. Because the children arrived in Holland a long time after Verwijs had written the state officials and for more than one-and-a-half year had tried to introduce the manuscript into the world. One would say, that the witness report about Floris can therefore not be true. At second thought though another, much better explanation presents itself, namely that Over de Linden had not completely finished the manuscript in the beginning of 1869 and that the events that Floris remembered occurred not before the summer of 1869.

In his report [to state officials] about the manuscript of 1867 Verwijs wrote, that it 'contains about 200 pages in 4, the last part of which apparently is missing though...'. The usual interpretation of this is obviously that the OLB ends at page 210 in the middle of a sentence which (indeed) suggests that part is missing. But one can also interpret it, that the last part was missing and therefore still had to be made or finished. Based on existing writings that still needed editing, he estimated the expected size of the book at 200 pages.

I must admit that Goffe Jensma has a good imagination.
But mine is better.
With one simple question I can sweep his theory off the table:

What if King Willem of the Netherlands himself would have heard of the manuscript and taken an interest in it, what if he would have suddenly sent a telegram saying that he would arrive with the first next ship or horse and carriage, to personally come and have a look at the manuscript himself?

Surely, the supposed hoaxers Over de Linden and Verwijs would not have taken the risk to stand empty handed, and be demasked as swindlers, after their many attempts to get a transcription and translation of the manuscript funded!

### Posted 14 April 2011 - 03:00 PM
Otharus, on 14 April 2011 - 09:43 AM, said:
Version 1 ~ Jensma (2006), p.42:
That Over de Linden has to have been the handwriter of the book, is confirmed by an important witness report of a family member. (...)

Version 4 ~ Jensma (2004), p.298:
(...) A strong argument in favour of this witness report, I remarked, is that it was indeed Over de Linden who has handwritten the OLB manuscript.

Did anyone notice what happened here?
Both arguments are not strong enough by themselves, so Jensma uses the one to support the other.

His book is full of wafer-thin suggestive 'evidence' like this.

But the worst thing about his book is that he accuses people who can no longer defend themselves of having been incredibly unethical liars and deceivers. And, just like Menno Nul, he doesn't present his theory as what it is, a theory, but as 'absolute undoubtable truth', while suggesting that anyone who dares to consider the OLB to be other than a hoax, must be either mentally insane or a neo-nazi.

See, I don't have a problem with ignorant people, when they are modest and know their place.
Neither have I a problem with arrogant people, if they have done their homework and know what they are talking about.
But the combination of ignorance and arrogance must be one of my worst allergies.

### Posted 15 April 2011 - 10:11 AM
The Oera Linda Boek, a 'cold case' and 'hot item'.
by Henk Porck, Ellen van der Grijn, Adriaan Kardinaal

[published in the magazine of the Dutch Royal Archivists Union (KVAN), edition April 2011;
improvised translation by Otharus, translator notes between "[...]"]

Introduction and research question

The OLB from Tresoar (Centre for Frisian History and Literature) in Leeuwarden is one of the most remarkable manuscripts from our Dutch written cultural heritage. The only certainty we have about it is, that it is not what it pretends to be. In the manuscript, it is claimed that it was written in the year 1256, and that it is a copy of a much older text [note #1]. On 190 pages, a story is told about a mythical Frisian empire, in a unique 'rune script' [note #2]. In 1867 the manuscript became known as being in the possession of Cornelis Over de Linden who had inherited it from his family ('Oera Linda' means 'Over de Linden'). Ancestors of Cornelis would have assembled the text and passed it on to following generations.

Although some still defend the authenticity of the document, it became clear very soon after the 'discovery' that the OLB is not an original medieval codex: it was written on paper that was made by machines in a language that is a combination of old Frisian and 'modern' Dutch [note #3]. Yet, the OLB remains a great mystery and is still today a fascinating subject of research. In Goffe Jensma's thesis (2004), the text is partly interpreted as a religious allegory, while the famous poet and reverend François HaverSchmidt (Piet Paaltjens) is argued to have been the author. He would have worked together with the owner of the manuscript, Cornelis Over de Linden, and Eelco Verwijs, archivist and famous philologist. According to Jensma, the OLB was not meant to permanently deceive the readers, its aim would have been to create a temporary illusion of authenticity. Therefore, it is to be regarded as a mystification, rather than as a forgery.

Our interest in the OLB was based on the examination of the manuscript's paper in the 1870-s. Paper specialists then concluded that the paper had been fabricated after 1840 on a machine, and that the paper had been artificially coloured to make it look older. The organisation of the 19th century examination was limited, and apart from a brief inspection by a German paper-producer in the 1930-s, no new research of the OLB-paper had been done. The question behind our study was if we, with our current knowledge and more advanced research-facilities, can draw more accurate conclusions about the physical and chemical characteristics of the document, and with that about the history of its genesis.

Methods and organisation

Besides visual research of the physical characteristics of the paper, like the vergé-pattern (shining light through it), the exact size of the sheets, and the cutting edges, some physical paper-qualities were measured, like weight, thickness and smoothness. Microscopic research of the fibres was also done. The chemical composition of the material was analysed by use of several spectrometric methods: X-ray fluorescence (XRF), hyper spectral imaging (HSI and laser-ablation (LA-ICP-MS).

The research material consisted, besides the sheets of the OLB, of a pile of unused paper, that was also in the possession of Cornelis Over de Linden, but had never been examined, as well as some letters from the correspondence of Eelco Verwijs. We were obviously utterly careful doing our examinations of the material, partly because of the poor state of the material.

Initiated by the paper-historian interest and speciality of the authors, this research was only possible thanks to the cooperation with a multidisciplinary team of specialists: Jacob van Sluis (Tresoar, Leeuwarden), Goffe Jensma (University Groningen, KNAW-Frisian Academy, Leeuwarden), Georgine Calkoen (Proost and Brandt laboratory, Diemen), Andrew van Es (Dutch Forensic Institute, NFI, Den Haag), Luc Megens (National Service for Cultural Inheritance, RCE, Amsterdam), Roberto Padoan and Gabriëlle Beentjes (both of the National Archive, Den Haag). By working together with these experts and their organisations, the desired test-materials could be made available, the several tests could be done and the results of the research could be adequately discussed and interpreted.

[I have ignored a fragment about how to conserve old documents etcetera as this is of no relevance here.]

Work in progress

The research is in the final stage and not completely finished. The results so far, specially the conclusions from the fibre-analysis, have given more clues for a more accurate dating of the paper of the OLB. The spectrometric tests most of all have confirmed the suspicion that Cornelis Over de Linden himself played an important part in the genesis of the OLB, because the unused paper that was in his possession appears to be identical to the paper of the manuscript. Another interesting conclusion of the research is the fact that the sheets of the OLB can be distinguished into several groups, based on the vergé-patterns and other physical qualities of the paper, which points to a certain chronology of the creation of the several parts that the manuscript consists of. A possible relationship to the genesis of the text of the handwriting still needs to be researched [note #4].

The first test-results were presented in 2006 at the congress of the International Union of Paper-historians (IPH) in Spain [note #5]. End of 2009 an expert meeting was held in the Den Haag Royal Library, where the provisional results of the continued research were discussed. By now yet another phase of additional research is finished and a final publication is prepared (planning: 2013).

In the end we hope that our research of the OLB can be used to reveal this intriguing mystification and the role that the 'perpetrators' François HaverSchmidt, Eelco Verwijs and Cornelis Over de Linden played in this 'cold case'.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
#1 The choice of words already suggests lies and deception (hoax), but it is very well possible that later copyist(s) just did not add notes, like the ones in 803 and 1256 AD did.
#2 The script is actually more similar to Old Greek and Roman capitals, than to Runes.
#3 What is meant here is that it contains words and expressions that have not been found in (other) old (written) sources, but that remind of more modern languages (which are more and more based on the oral language of the common people). One might also say that both old Frisian and 'modern' Dutch (as well as many other languages and dialects) still carry traces of the OLB language. Therefore, if the paper is modern, it does not mean that the information on it also is.
#4 Dutch text of this sentence: "Een mogelijke relatie met de genese van de tekst van het handschrift moet nog worden uitgezocht." This means that Jensma cannot fit the results into his current theory. Therefore the main conclusions are not reveiled and the main article about the test results is delayed until somewhere in 2013. I guess that is how long he needs to fabricate a new theory, so he can try to save his reputation and credibility...
#5 A. Kardinaal, E. v.d. Grijn, H. Porck, The Oera Linda Boek. A literary forgery and its paper, in: IPH Congress Book 16 (2006), p. 177-185.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Paper age and colouring

The most important and most obvious results - which would have been the new, more accurate dating of the paper and how it was coloured (whether natural or artificial) - are left out of the article.

When I asked questions about this, I received the answer that they actually prefer to not give me any "other or further conclusions from the research" and that I will have to wait till the official publication, which as said is planned to happen somewhere in 2013...

I wonder...
Have I been too critical and outspoken here about the works of their undoubtedly most important research-group member professor doctor G.Th. Jensma? It's unthinkable that he would not keep a direct or indirect eye on this discussion.

### Posted 15 April 2011 - 02:02 PM
Abramelin, on 15 April 2011 - 01:43 PM, said:
Thanks for posting and translating, Otharus.
I guess we both will agree that this is somewhat .... disappointing.

Very disappointing, indeed.

And what is a historian (Jensma) doing here?? Is he also a chemist/physicist?? Was he only invited to add 'weight' to the research?

I actually don't think he's a historian at all. He got his doctor's degree with his theological thesis and is professor Frisian culture and literature (zero new students this year LOL). He probably had nothing better to do and he wants to stay the official mister OLB, I guess, that's why he wants the monopoly on the test results, until he has a new theory published. All wild guesses of course.

Btw, it wasn't only you who was critical about Jensma, but so was I. And I am being the skeptic here, lol.

Well, I'm as skeptic as one can be about his work! Hahaha

PS I have asked for a PDF copy of the 2006 report, although I don't expect much more news of it.

### Posted 15 April 2011 - 02:10 PM
Bezum, on 15 April 2011 - 01:53 PM, said:
I don't think the question is whether it is artificial or natural anymore. The question of the research is in what year (later than 1840) it is produced and HOW it has been colored.

Good, that is: neutral, unbiased research must be without preconceived ideas.
Who knows if those 19th century 'specialists' were all neutral and did not say what was expected of them?

From this article it's technically still possible that the paper was created with 'machines' in the 13th century (in Turkey or China or ...?) and that the researchers believe that the 3 supposed hoaxers had laid their hands on this old paper to create their joke.

All very unlikely, but not impossible.
They should just have reported their results, or say WHY they won't reveal the truth.

### Posted 15 April 2011 - 03:09 PM
Abramelin, on 15 April 2011 - 02:29 PM, said:
Come on Otharus, imagine you have a centuries old document about your family history. Would you soak it in tea (or whatever) first, and then bring it to officials to investigate?
And you think that smudgy brown-yellow color is making the document look 'better'??
If Over de Linden wanted to make it look more like the 'original', then why didn't he show the officials the original in the first place??
And it would mean he had seen the original, or else he would not have tried to make the new copy look like it.

Who said Over de Linden did it?
What if his uncle Hendrik Reuvers, who had forbidden his wife Aafje Over de Linden to give the manuscript to her cousin Cornelis, (as she had promised her father (his grandfather) Andries Over de Linden,) made the copy and sold the original to some rich guy or secret society of spiritists or whatever? The perceived value of the copy is higher when it looks old. Who knows one day the REAL original shows up. Imagine what that would be worth now...

I am preparing a post about this guy.
Did you never make an old looking pirate treasure-map as a kid?
We tried to make it look old by burning the edges and rubbing earth on the paper.

Edit: as I said earlier, Cornelis may have received the unused paper together with the manuscript. Jensma says the numbering was in his handwriting, but I want to see that with my own eyes. I no longer trust his judgement.

### Posted 16 April 2011 - 03:49 AM
Abramelin, on 15 April 2011 - 06:57 PM, said:
I found out the ancient Prussians had their own script, a script that is still hard to translate.

I wonder how many, and what kind of sources in this script exist.

To me it looks more like a secret (coded) script than one that would be practical to use .
Again, like the old looking pirate maps we made as kids, it reminds me of the sort of coded alfabets we used to create at primary school.

OLB mentions that there were other peoples who had secret scripts, and that it will have been the case is easy to imagine, as sensitive messages sometimes had to be carried through enemy territory, and there have been long periods of war and animosity.

The Jol script is practical and easy to use. I actually find it more easy to imagine that the old Greek and Roman capitals evolved out of it than the other way around, that the ones who 'invented it' used Greek and Roman letters as an example. (But that may be just me.)

### Posted 17 April 2011 - 06:09 AM
Abe, the information about the Prussians and Russians is very interesting.

Concerning Halbertsma; have you thought of the question why a respectable Frisian like Halbertsma would want to elevate a Westfrisian family of common 'sinners' like the Over de Lindens? Cornelis's father "did not practice religion", Cornelis himself had highly blasphemous (in that time) ideas, his aunt had married after she had two children already etcetera. Why would he not have chosen a respected Frisian family? Was there a Halbertsma-Over de Linden connection at all?

At least in one aspect is Jensma's theory superior to Knul's: Haverschmidt was a modernist reverend in Den Helder, and Verwijs was also a modernist who would have had no problems with 'blasphemy'. IF they would have known Cornelis Over de Linden, they would have liked him and his ideas. Halbertsma, at the other hand, would not have wanted to be associated with him.

Also, Halbertsma'a style of writing is completely different from that of OLB. Very academic and utterly boring. I don't think he had any sense of humor at all.

### Posted 17 April 2011 - 06:12 AM
Otharus, on 16 April 2011 - 10:33 AM, said:
This is a provisional genealogy of the Over de Linden family.
It is also published on http://fryskednis.bl...-genealogy.html, where it will be updated later.

I discovered some huge errors in the information of Menno Knul, that I used as one of my sources for the Over de Linden genealogy.

So anyone who is interested in this, please don't use the info I posted about it, but the quoted link above. I have already updated many corrections, and will add more in the next few days.

### Posted 18 April 2011 - 09:30 AM

### Posted 19 April 2011 - 08:02 AM
Some first attempts towards a new OLB theory

Earlier we have read about Cornelis Over de Linden's version of the story of how he got the OLB manuscript from his aunt Aafje in Enkhuizen.

Otharus, on 11 April 2011 - 06:33 PM, said:
==>>>see there

Let's first have a look at three other versions by other people.

(Translated from DGG p.243)

version 1
Over de Linden's stepson-in-law Jacob Munnik told in 1876 that in 1845 he went with Cornelis and the book-binder Ernst Stadermann from Den Helder, to Over de Linden's mother in Enkhuizen, where he [Cornelis], appearantly without succes, tried to convince her to give him an old family-book." [Source: Beckering Vinkers, "Wie heeft het Oera Linda-Boek geschreven?", p.31]

version 2
Related to this, Beckering Vinkers states - without mentioning a source - that Over de Linden in 1848 finally went to get this book in Enkhuizen, together with his son Cornelis II [aged 15 by then]. [Source: Beckering V., "Wie heeft ...?", p.15]

version 3
A third witness report is from a certain Hajo Last in Enkhuizen, whose mother lived next to the mother of Over the Linden. Last said that Over de Linden regularly visited his mother and...: "Once when he was visiting in Enkhuizen, he came to his cousin, and that was a widow Kofman [if this was in the 1840-s her husband was still alive], in the Rietdijk, now called the Vijzelstraat [...]. She said to him: 'Kees, I have some old manuscripts here, from your grandfather, and he always said: "Those are meant to be passed on to my heir ['stamhouder']".' That's how his cousin gave them to him; I still remember him saying it, sitting at our table."
[Footnote Jensma:] This was from a sent-in letter in the 'Enkhuizer Courant' of 9-1-1934. With this 'widow Kofman' Cornelia or Kee Reuvers is meant (born 1818), the daughter of 'aunt Aafje' and Hendrik Reuvers. Appearantly she lived in the old Over de Linden family-house at the Rietdijk after her husband Rijkent Kofman had died; in 1840 they lived at the Nieuwe Zeedijk 391.

Version three is complex and needs to be analysed:

It is told by Hajo Last (1) in 1934, who has heard Cornelis Over de Linden (2) tell his story (see underlining; before 1874), about what his cousin the 'widow' Kee Kofman-Reuvers (3) said to him (when she 'handed over' the OLB) about what his grandfather Andries Over de Linden (4) used to say (before 1820).

Over de Linden had told his story to Hajo Last, visiting Last's mother, who was the neighbour of OL's mother Antje Goedmaat, who died in 1874.

If versions 1 and 2 are correct, Cornelis tried to retreive the OLB in 1845, in which he succeeded in 1848. His own 'official' versions (from 1867 on) also say that he 'received' the OLB in 1848.

His cousin Cornelia or Kee Reuvers, married to Rijkent Kofman, became a widow in 1861.

This either means that Cornelis (sitting at the table) suggested that he received the OLB after 1861, OR that it was an older story about what happened in the 1840-s and that he was referring to his cousin as widow, because he told this story after 1861 (between 1861 and 1867).

According to Menno Knul, a Hendrik (Hein) Kofman (1853-1933) son of Cornelia Kofman-Reuvers, accused Cornelis Over de Linden of having stolen the OLB (from his parents or from his grandmother Aafje Reuvers-Over de Linden?). This source needs to be checked, because it can be of major importance. Hein Kofman was also a frontrunner of the socialist movement (1929).

Another son of Cornelia Kofman-Reuvers, Jacob Kofman (1843-1911), became a driven apostle who believed that the second coming of Christ was near (see below).

That is two brothers Kofman who have a strong idealistic drive, just like the cousin of their mother, Cornelis Over de Linden had, in a different way.

(The oldest daughter, Trijntje Zwaan-Kofman (1839-1912) had a significantly large family; 8 sons and 3 daughters. Most of her children also had many children. I suspect that further research to the religious paradigm of this family might prove interesting.)

Because Jensma beliefs that Cornelis was involved in the creation of the OLB, his theory about the above is that:
1) There must have been some old family document but this was lost as it can not have been OLB.
2) Cornelis' version of the story is a total lie.

I believe that some parts Cornelis' version of the story may be lies, but not all.

One important element of his version is that his uncle, Hendrik Reuvers (1796-1845) did not want Cornelis to have the book. This would explain why Cornelis in 1845, after his uncle's death, tried to retrieve the book.

Lie #1 of Cornelis: He DID know of the OLB and has done efforts to get it. (In Wirth's publication http://www.scribd.co...nik-Einfuehrung, it says that before the OLB was translated, Cornelis believed that it contained information about a family treasure.)

It also means that Hendrik Reuvers knew that the book was important, he may have known what exactly it was about, as he was 24 when his father-in-law, Andries Over de Linden, died in 1820. Since aunt Aafje was ilitterate, it is more likely that Andries discussed the book with Hendrik and maybe taught him to read it. (It is even possible that Andries was Hendrik's unlawful father... More about this later.) Hendrik's daughter Cornelia/Kee married to Rijkent Kofman in 1838, so Reuvers had enough time to pass on knowledge to his son-in-law.

Noteworthy is that when Aafje Over de Linden married Hendrik Reuvers, they asked her cousin Jan Over de Linden (1776-1858) to be a witness, and not her older brother Jan (1785-1836).

Since his aunt was ilitterate and since Hein Kofman later said that Cornelis had stolen the book (while his brother Jacob Kofman became an 'apostle'), and since Hajo Last knew a version where Cornelis got the book from his cousin Kee, I suspect a second lie:

Lie #2 of Cornelis: He did not recieve the OLB from his aunt Aafje Reuvers-Over de Linden, but from her daughter Cornelia Kofman-Reuvers, probably using force or maybe he even took it without her consent. This would explain his story "sitting at the table", more that 13 years later (between 1861 and 1867). He felt he needed to stress the fact that she had given it to him and that this had been the will of his grandfather.

With everything I know so far (I'm sure I'm leaving out other relevant facts here), I find it most likely, that:

1. The OLB had been passed on in 1820 from Andries Over de Linden to (his unlawful son? and) son-in-law Hendrik Reuvers, who already had two unlawful children with his daughter Aafje, whom he would officially marry in 1821.
2. After Hendrik's death in 1845, the book was passed on to his son-in-law Rijkent Kofman, the husband of Cornelia Reuvers.
3. Between 1845 and 1848, Cornelis Over de Linden tried to get the book, in which he succeeded in 1848. (This may have been a copy of the original!)
4. Between 1848 and 1867 Cornelis tried to decipher and translate the book himself, and when he came to the conclusion that the book did not contain information about a family-treasure, he gradually sent it to specialists, possibly hoping that at least it would increase the status and social position of his family.

Therefore, if the paper of the OLB can be dated from before 1848, it was Hendrik Reuvers (1796-1845) and/or Rijkent Kofman (1820-1861) who made the copy.
KOFMAN, JACOB. [1843-1911], son of timberman (carpenter) Rijkent Kofman and Cornelia Reuvers. He was timberman in Enkhuizen till 1898. Construction manager for city of Enkhuizen 1879, head of construction 1895, and apostle for the district Netherlands in the "Hersteld Apostolische Zendinggemeente in de Eenheid der Apostelen" (Recovered Apostolic Mission-community in the Unity of Apostles) 1898-1910. [...]

After the death of apostle F.W. Schwartz in 1895, the German apostle F. Krebs lead the HAZ, while the responsibility for daily matters moved to Kofman. On 12 June 1898, Kofman received the status of apostle. He kept serving the Enkhuizen community and was called "father Kofman". He was a gentle but efficient man, under whose guidance the number of seven communities increased tenfold, and the number of members grew from ca. 1000 to ca. 7500. In 1910 Kofman withdrew because of health problems and J.H. van Oosbree replaced him as apostle.

Kofman expected Jesus to come again soon. Therefore the church had to be recovered into the glory it had in the time of the first apostolic time. The apostles are missionaries who have the task to prepare the believers for this second coming.

Kofman was president of the local Union to improve loyal school attendance in a time that school was not obligatory by law yet. In the Hersteld Apostolisch Weekblad (weekly magazine of the HAZ) he regularly gave advise concerning hygene and a healthy way of living.

Some sources about HAZ:
Apostles or preachers. Evaluation of their "reading" done by the Ministry of preachers of the Dutch Reformed Community in Amsterdam on 1 Feb. 1906 about the so-called Apostolic Church, or Preachers found to be in conflict with the Truth. Enkhuizen (1905): - The Recovered Apostolic Community; 'a degraded Sect'? Enkhuizen (1909) - Sign of the antichrist and the false prophet. [...]

translated from Biographic lexicon for the history of Dutch protestantism (Institute for Dutch History)

No comments:

Post a Comment