I.T. Erudio

Author: Les

  • Mustelam habes.

    You have a weasel in your house, was said to persons with whom everything turned out unfortunate and perverse. To meet a weasel was considered by the ancients as ominous, and portending some misfortune about to happen.

    Among huntsmen in this country, Erasmus tells us, it was in his time deemed an ill omen, if any one named a weasel when they were setting off for their sport.

    Theophrastus, in his description of the character of a superstitious man, says; “If a weasel crosses the road he stops short, be his business never so pressing, and will not stir a foot till somebody else has gone before him and broke the omen; or till he himself has weakened the prodigy by throwing three stones.”

  • “Nimia Familiaritas parit Contemptum.”

    ” Familiarite engendre mepris.”

    ” Familiarity breeds contempt.” “E tribus optimis rebus,” Plutarch says, ” tres pessimae oriuntur,” from three excellent endowments, three of the worst of our affections are produced. Truth begets hatred, familiarity contempt, and success envy. The contrary to this may be,

    Omne ignotum pro magnifico est.

    We are apt rather to extol those persons whom we know only by report, but with whose merit, or real characters, we are not acquainted. ” A prophet is not without honor,” we are told, “save in his own country.”

    Great men should not associate too familiarly with the world, ever more ready to blazon their defects, which reduce them to their own standard, than to admire those talents and qualities which they are incapable of imitating. To posterity they must look for justice, which never fails paying to their genius and abilities, the homage that had been refused them by their own age and country.

    ” Suum cuique decus posteritas rependet.” Posterity will give to every one the portion of commendation, to which he was entitled by his merit. Or the adage may be thus interpreted : ‘What is mentioned in the gross often fills the mind with surprise, which in detail would excite no emotion. If we should say of any man that he ordinarily walked between two and three thousand miles in a year, the account would seem to be exaggerated ; but if we should say, he walked six or seven miles in a day, which would amount to the same number of miles in the year, no surprise would be excited.

  • Fortes Fortuna adjuvat.

    “Fortune assists the brave,” “sed multo majus ratio,” Cicero adds, but reason or consideration, is still more to be depended on; therefore, “antequam incipias consulto, et ubi consulueris, facto opus est,” that is think before you act, but having well considered, and formed your plan, go on resolutely to the end.

    To design well, and to persevere with vigor in the road we have chalked out for ourselves, is the almost certain way to attain our object. “At in rebus arduis,” but in great and sudden difficulties, a bold and courageous effort will frequently succeed, where reason or deliberation could give no assistance, for “non est apud aram consultandum,” when the enemy is within the walls, it is too late for consultation.

    ” When dangers urge he that is slow,
    Takes from himself, and adds to his foe.”

    And, “Quien no se aventura, no ha ventura,” “nothing venture nothing have.” The proverb has been pretty generally adopted. “A los osados ayuda la fortuna,” the Spaniards say ; and the French “La Fortune aide aux audacieux.” Which being the same as the Latin, need not to be explained.

  • Piscator ictus sapiet.

    A fisherman, putting his hand hastily into his net, was wounded by the thorns on the backs of some of the fish; being thus caught, he said, I shall now become wiser : which is said to have given rise to the adage. “Bought wit,” we say, “is best;” it will certainly be more likely to be remembered, than that which is obtained without suffering some kind of loss or inconvenience.

    Hence also we say, ” wit once bought, is worth twice taught.” “El hombre mancebo, perdiendo gana seso,” by losses and disappointment young men acquire knowledge.

  • Ne sus Minervam

    Persons pretending to instruct those who are qualified to be their masters, or to inform others in matters of which they are themselves ignorant, fall under the censure of this adage; their conduct being as ridiculous as would be that of a sow who should presume to attempt to teach wisdom.

    Our clowns, not very delicately, tell you, ” not to teach your grandames to suck eggs,” for, “a bove majori discit arare minor,” the young ox learns to plow from the elder, not the elder from the young, and “El Diablo saba mucho,” the Spaniards say, “porque es viejo,” the devil knows a great deal, for he is old.

  • Cor ne edito

    Let not care corrode and gnaw your heart, lest you should fall into a state of despondency, and to avenge some disappointment or trouble, throw away all the blessings you enjoy, and with them your life.

    To this purport the Psalmist, “Fret not thyself, lest thou be moved to do evil.”

    “Por mucho madrugar, no amanece mas aina.” The Spaniards say, early rising makes it not day the sooner, or too much anxiety and care will not enable you the sooner to obtain your point; and the Italians, “cento carre di pensieri, non pagaranno un’ oncia di debito,” an hundred cartloads of care will not pay an ounce of debt.

    “Cura facit canos,” care brings gray hairs, and “care,” we say, “killed the cat.” But who is without care, or can escape its fangs!

    “Man that is born of a woman is of short continuance, and full of trouble; all his days are sorrow, and his travels grief, his heart also taketh not rest in the night.” And “you may as soon,” Burton says, ” separate weight from lead, heat from fire, moistness from water, and brightness from the sun, as misery, discontent, care, calamity, and danger from man.”

    “Such being the state of man, and as we are assured, “that it is as natural for him to suffer, as for sparks to fly upwards,”we should bear our afflictions with patience, by which alone the heaviest of them will be in some degree softened, and appeased. “Si gravis brevis, si longus levis.” If the pain be very severe, it cannot last; if it be moderate and of longer duration, it may be borne. “Nullum est malum majus, quam non posse ferre malum,” no greater misfortune can happen to us, than not to be able to bear misfortune.”

  • Amicorum communia omnia.

    AMONG friends all things should be in common. Erasmus thought he could not begin his Collection better than with this apothegm, which is of great antiquity, and much celebrated, and for the same reason it is here placed first.

    Nothing is so frequent in our mouths, nor is any thing less common than such a conjunction of minds as deserves the name of Friendship.

    “When a friend asks, there is no tomorrow,” for he is another self. “Ne ay major espejo, que el amigo viejo.” Like a glass he will discover to you your own defects ; and “mas vale buen amigo, que pariente primo,” a good friend is better than a near relation.

    A man, the Italians say, without friends is like a body without a soul. “Chi si trova senz’ amici, e come un corpo senz’ anima.”

    The French, by a very delicate phrase, denominate friendship love that is
    without wings, ” L’amitie” est 1’amour sans ailes,” meaning that it should be a permanent affection, and not easily to be obliterated.

    ” Ova d’un ora, pane d’un di, vino d’un anno, amico di trenta,” that is, eggs of an
    hour, bread of a day, wine of a year, but a friend of thirty years is best; and “Azeyte,
    y vino, y amigo antiguo,” oil, wine, and friends improve by age.

    Friendship, Montaigne says, ” unlike to love, which is weakened by fruition, grows up, thrives, and increases by enjoyment; and being of itself spiritual, the soul is reformed by the practice of it.”

    And according to Sallust, “Idem velle et nolle, ea demum firma amicitia est,”
    to have the same desires and dislikes, to love or hate the same persons, is the surest test of friendship. But instances of such exalted friendship, if they do exist, are very rare.


    “Tantum ego fucorum, tantum perfidiae in hominum arnicitiis reperio, non in his modo vulgaribus, verurn his quoque quas Pyladeas vocant, ut mihi jam non libeat novarum periculum facere” — I find so much dissembling, says the good Erasmus, so much perfidy among friends, not only those between whom there subsists only a slight intimacy, but those connected, as it would seem, by the strongest ties of affection, that I have altogether given up the search after such a phenomenon.

    The same writer, at a more advanced stage of his life, and as the result of long experience, says,
    “Quin in totum, eo degenerarunt hominum, mores, ut hodie, cygnus niger, aut corvus albus, minus rarus sit avis, quam fidelisamicus.”
    In short, men are become so degenerate, (a complaint that has been made in every age), that a black swan, or a white crow, are not so rarely to be met with as a faithful friend.

    And another writer says, ” We talk of friendship as of a thing that is known, and as we talk of ghosts but who has seen either the one or the other !”

    ” Friendship,” Lord Verulam says, “easeth the heart and cleareth the understanding, making clear day in both; partly by giving the purest counsel, apart from our interest and prepossessions, and partly by allowing opportunity to discourse; and by that discourse to clear the mind, to recollect the thoughts, to see how they look in words; whereby men attain that highest wisdom, which Dionysius, the Areopagite, saith ‘ is the daughter of reflection.’”

    Spenser gives a beautiful description of three kinds of affection, to women, to our offspring, and to our friend, and gives the preference to the latter.

    “For natural affection soon doth cess.
    And quenched is with Cupid’s greater flame ;
    But faithful friendship doth them both suppress,
    And them with mastering discipline doth tame,
    Through thoughts aspiring to eternal fame.
    For as the soul doth rule the earthly mass,
    And all the service of the body frame,
    So love of soul doth love of body pass,
    No less than purest gold surmounts the meanest brass.”

  • Communication IS  information exchange

    One of the benefits (curses?) of working 3rd shift and field service is that you get a lot of time to think.

    Trust me there is only so many hours of music you can listen to before it starts grating on the ol’ nerves. The audio book industry started with a customer demographic of the blind – then truck drivers became a profitable market niche and suddenly “audio books” were mass market.

    Yes, podcasting and the iPod deserve a mention. Apple, Inc did NOT INVENT the technology, maybe “perfected” and certainly “popularized” –

    Not to get lost in the weeds – BUT Steve Jobs didn’t come down from the mountain with the first generation iPod and say “now ordinary people may listen to music free from restraint!”

    I’m not bashing Apple, Inc or Steve Jobs. Mr Jobs was exceptional – BUT “how do we make this product better” is much different than CREATING something new. The history of “mobile audio” starts with “recorded sound” in general and then magnetic tape, and then … different subject

    What has been will be again,
        what has been done will be done again;
        there is nothing new under the sun.

    Ecclesiastes 1:9

    Information exchange

    My pick for the biggest “leap forward” in the speed of “information exchange” is STILL the movable type printing press. But even there we needed a lot of “prior art” for there to be a demand for those Gutenberg Bibles and Shakespeare First Folios.

    (… and if you happen to have a genuine “full and original” First Folio of Mr Shakespeare’s work – you probably get $10 million+ for it at auction … and we are moving on …).

    The “revolutionary part” of movable type printing goes beyond just making printed books less expensive and more available. The “paper” industry as we think of it today came into existence because of the printing requirements.

    With tongue in cheek you can make a dotted line connection between “paper” becoming affordable and the Renaissance. Seriously – we wouldn’t have all of Leonardo Davinci’s “notebooks” if paper hadn’t become inexpensive. “Books” being available on various scholarly subjects allowed for “Renaissance men” to be “Renaissance men”

    Of course Leonardo regretted his lack of formal education mostly because he couldn’t read Ancient Greek and Latin. Which brings us to the point that “communication” == “information exchange” and for “information” to be exchanged both sides need to speak the same language.

    I’ll wave at the Tower of Babel as I acknowledge that “interpreters” have been part of the “communication process” for a long time …

    Secret communication

    Of course the folks that need an interpreter are at the mercy of the interpreter’s skill and good faith.

    Having a trusted 3rd party intermediate talks might be fine for “international diplomacy” – but not so much in intimate interpersonal “talks.”

    Being able to guarantee the “cyber security triad” of confidentiality, integrity, and availability can become an advanced topic – but the point is STILL that “communication == information exchange.”

    I’m five hundred word in and haven’t referenced a movie yet Roxanne (1987) is an updated re-telling of “Cyrano de Bergerac” – the classic 19th Century French play – and also easily one of Mr Martin’s most UNDERRATED movies.

    The Jose Ferrer Oscar winning performance Cyrano de Bergerac (1950) is a much more “stage adaptation” version of the story – it is available on most of the “free streaming services” because it holds up very well as a piece of entertainment, and is also in the public domain.

    Full disclosure – no the French play doesn’t have a happy ending, of course Steve Martin’s version does …

    oh, and Cyrano’s problem in the “19 century tragic romantic play” is much different than Steve Martin’s story problem in the 1987 romantic comedy – if comedians got nominated for “best actor” Academy Awards, Steve Martin would have got nominated that year

    Synchronize

    That classic dial up internet sound was the sound modems made while synchronizing/negotiating communications parameters.

    Basically the “answering modem” says “I’m a modem” -> then the “calling modem” responds “so am I” -> and then the high pitched squeal is the two sides “negotiating” the speed and standards to use for the call.

    In the case of modems the analog telephone connection is probably going to be the limiting factor – and then if the “line” gets disrupted the entire connection process need to start over.

    fwiw: I’m gonna guess that there are still a lot of dial-up connections in 2025 – just not being marketed to the general consumer. e.g. if security is the primary concern over speed then “”dial up” still has applications

    SO it is fun to point out that people can be seen “synchronizing” with non-verbal communication signals. MY cliche example involves a little “people watching” – e.g. watch people meeting at “public place” and how they “synchronize” gives you a lot of information on their relationship.

    Obviously I’m not suggesting that anyone violate other folks privacy. A group of young American women meeting always reminds me of that “modem connection noise” – they will talk faster and at a higher pitch if they like other. The young American boys might synchronize by wrestling or by “King of the Hill” style grunting – “yup”, “u huh”

    … still information is exchanged and communication happens

    Did I have a point?

    Well, the problem with ANY attempt at communication is that the “message sent” won’t match the “message received.”

    With data processing we have various forms of error checking to make sure “sent == received.”

    With people it isn’t always easy to gauge if “sent == received.” At one level that uncertainty is why contract law exists.

    BUT with humans there is always the chance that “sent == received” and one side is malicious. i.e Humans can intentionally distort the message for various reasons AND honest ‘miscommunication” can take place.

    Lying is intentionally trying to deceive which is a much different animal than “mishearing/misunderstanding.”

    This is where that old “interpersonal trust bank” becomes important – i.e. those long term relationships with a HEALTHY trust balance will naturally get treated differently than the long term relationship with a NEGATIVE balance or a brand new relationship.

    Chemistry and “clicking”

    “Would you believe in a love at first sight?”
    “Yes, I’m certain that it happens all the time”

    Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band

    The “With a little help from my friends” quote came to mind – it jumps out at me today as a form of Greek chorus engaging with the hero/protagonist – great song, but something about nothing new under the song probably applies …

    NO, I don’t believe in “love at first sight.’ Of course we have all experienced “instant attraction” or just “clicking” with someone.

    THAT instant “clicking” is what I would describe at “high speed synchronization” – i.e. you meet someone and then you care able to talk to them like you have known them for “longer” – THAT is just an example of energy levels and subject matter “clicking”

    Now, if that “clicking” gets reinforced with shared values and experiences THAT might look like a “love at first sight.”

    Unfortunately the opposite is also possible – “NOT clicking” will feel like instant dislike.

    The concept of arranged marriages in “western society” historically gave the potential couple a veto. Which plays out for humor in “Fiddler on the Roof” and “A Midsummer Nights Dream.”

    Obviously if a couple is willing to accept an arranged marriage in the first place you would expect the divorce rate to be small – but that doesn’t automatically mean the marriages are happier.

    ANYWAY – the point of “arranged marriages” would have been “strong marriages.” SO if the idea is that the parents of bride and groom “know better” and will pick a compatible couple THAT still requires some level of “non negative chemistry”

    “Gut reactions” can be overcome – but most of the time going with your gut isn’t a bad choice – i.e. your “gut” is probably picking up on something and is just waiting on your brain to figure it out.

    i.e. “instantly liking” someone is probably not as strong a positive indicator as “instantly DISLIKING” is a negative indicator – but I’m certainly not a matchmaker.

    fwiw: one of my “sitting and thinking” visual aids “way back when” is based loosely on Paul’s epistles (Ephesians 5) – MY thought was a reaction to people saying they wanted someone to “meet them halfway in a relationship”

    The problem with “meeting halfway” is that it can look like a head on collision if both sides approach the marriage/relationship as a contest of wills. Imagine two fists smashing into each other – THAT is “meet me halfway.”

    Then if one side feels the need to compete/dominate then you open one hand and smash the fist into the open hand — in THAT case the “fist” might be getting what they want, but probably not the open hand.

    With the ideal then being two open hands meeting and intertwining fingers – i.e. each side is 100% for the OTHER side. Which becomes an applied example of “loving your neighbor as yourself”

    or as that great philosopher once said

    “You can’t go too far wrong looking out for the other fella”

  • cheesy and sympathetic

    I recently made an observation that “cheesy and sympathetic” never go out of style – with the implied punch line being that “cheesy” can never go OUT of style because by definition it is never IN style.

    The folks at Merriam-Webster tell me that the non-dairy definition of “cheesy” is “shabby, cheap.” SO something that we call “cheesy” (again in a non-dietary subject) tends to be “low budget” and probably “low quality” – e.g. Plan 9 From Outer Space is a “cheesy movie” – SO cheesy that it is funny.

    The path cheesy took to mean “cheap” is almost certainly American slang:

    cheesy (adj.) Meaning “cheap, inferior” is attested from 1896, perhaps originally U.S. student slang, along with cheese (n.) “an ignorant, stupid person.”

    I’m also told at the time across the pond:

    In late 19c. British slang, cheesy was “fine, showy” (1858), probably from cheese

    That quote about the United States and the United Kingdom being “separated by a common language” comes to mind …

    “England and America are two countries separated by the same language!”

    George Bernard Shaw

    Not always bad …

    It should be pointed out that cheesy doesn’t automatically mean “bad.” Guilty pleasures often have a high “cheesy” content. Why are they “guilty pleasures?” – probably because they are “cheap and underappreciated”

    From a “food” point of view – adding cheese/cheese like substance can transform “blah” to “gimme more” — think of the difference between plain nachos vs nachos AND cheese dip.

    An “artistic work” that strives for simplicity AND entertainment will almost certainly get labelled “cheesy.” e.g. for MOST of U.S. history “romance novels” have been the best selling genre – and of course “rom-coms” as a movie genre are so popular they have channels dedicated to them – and BOTH are extremely cheesy by design.

    Just how MUCH “cheesy” is acceptable can change – but just because it is cheesy doesn’t mean it is worthless.

    e.g. Pick up a copy of an Edgar Rice Burroughs adventure story or a Max Brand western and “Cheesy but fun” will be an accurate description 99% of the time.

    Giving the audience what they want is always a path to short term profit – but almost never long term respect. e.g. “Max Brand” was a pen name for Frederick Faust to begin with – and is still a brand name today – pick up a Max Brand paper back and the title of the individual book is probably smaller on the cover than “Max Brand”

    Edgar Rice Burroughs created Tarzan – and the history of THAT iconic (and cheesy) character is beyond the scope of this article …

    Beautiful simplicity

    If “simple and entertaining” is done at a high level it might get the “elegant” label.

    At first glance elegance and cheesy are polar opposites – but the difference is in the implementation and individual interpretation.

    The first Star Wars (A New Hope) comes to mind – I loved the movie as an adventure story when I was 10 years old. By the time I was 20 it had become a little cheesy. When I re-watched it at 40 I notice the “meat and potatoes” under the cheese.

    The story being “implemented” in Star Wars has deep mythological roots – what changed was MY individual interpretation of the movie …

    While I’m at it Casablanca (1942) AND Citizen Kane (1941) routinely make the list of “great American movies” and both have a certain amount of “cheesy” in them –

    AND don’t get me started on The Great Gatsby – (either the 1925 novel OR the movie interpretations) – The 1974 Robert Redford and Mia Farrow version captures the “feel” of the novel – which is VERY “cheesy and sympathetic”

    yes, The Great Gatsby is a great novel. – Baz Luhrmann might deserve the “king of cheesy” title, but you know – different subject …

    So yes “classics” can be cheesy. BUT in general noticeable “cheesy-ness” is going to be interpreted as profiteering and maybe exploitation. i.e. a little cheesy goes a long way and TOO much ruins the product.

    When I was a child …

    1 Corinthians 13:11(“When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”) drives home the point that “cheesy youthful moral reasoning” is always bad.

    Youthful arrogance and prejudice should give way to more mature (and humble) attitudes developed by experience and education. It is a lot easier to “know everything” when your world is relatively small and experience is limited.

    In THOSE cases the “cheesy” probably gets consumed with the assumption that it is the norm. Which was kinda the point of Bob Dylan’s “My Back Pages” – but that is a different subject …

    Ah, but I was so much older then I’m younger than that now

    Bob Dylan


    That youthful ignorance of the “cheesy” should naturally dissipate with time and exposure to the NOT “cheesy” — BUT just because you enjoyed something when you were “a child” doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy it when you “grow up.”

    That enjoyment should be re-framed and not glorified by nostalgia – i.e. “I remember loving this when I was smaller” vs “Things today will never be as good as my memory of ‘whatever’”

    A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
    Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
    There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
    And drinking largely sobers us again.

    Alexander Pope

    Nostalgia isn’t evil …

    There has been “research” done that pinpoints the age at which “musical tastes” get locked in.

    As I remember the study – they came to the conclusion that the music we are exposed to under the age of 10 tends to have a watershed type effect – i.e. it can have a positive OR a negative impact on later musical preferences.

    My guess is that “parental relationships” become a lurking variable — if music reminds someone of their parents THAT is what they are reacting to, not the music.

    e.g. “I LOVE that song my mother/father used to play that all the time” vs “I hate that song my mother/father used to play it ALL the time”

    Childhood memories aside – the human brain keeps developing into our late 20s – and it is around that time when “band names start sounding the same” and “music just isn’t as good as it used to be” to the average person.

    If someone works in the “music industry” in some form – then their tastes may not calcify as much as non-music industry folks. However that is also going to be an exercise in the “expert mind” vs the “amateur mind” – which is also a different subject.

    SO if someone hears a song AND it reminds them of being in the 7th grade (13ish) – MY guess is that the song will FEEL “cheesy” to them simply because they are being reminded of that time in their life.

    “Beautiful” by Christina Aguilera came up a “cheesy and sympathetic” – yes, it is one of those songs that has a very high perceived “cheesy” content level – but get past the “cheese” and it is about self acceptance and independence. Scratch the surface and the message is “think for yourself” and/or be a critical thinking individual

    Ms Aguilera was 19ish when she recorded/released the song in 2002 – and I’m gonna guess that at 44ish in 2025 SHE probably has a different view of “Beautiful” – but my point is that there is “meat” under the “cheesy”

    umm, but for me I still hear “talented 19 year old” because I’m that guy in the back of the room yelling “Play Freebird!” 😉

  • Was Jesus an illegal immigrant?

    Well, short answer: no.

    The longer answer starts with a reference to a book published in 1992 titled: “When Did Wild Poodles Roam the Earth? An Imponderables Book”

    Poodles

    Back in the times “before Google” books full of answers to “weird” questions were popular. The “imponderables” series were funny and sold well – I don’t think the author of the series David Feldmen is the same David Feldmen (comedian) but it isn’t important.

    SO just when DID “wild poodles roam the earth?” The answer is “never.” People have been “domesticating” dogs for a LONG time (at least 15,000 years). Poodles were bred as water retrieving hunting dogs in 17th Century France.

    That distinctive “poodle haircut” started for practical reasons as well – to help the dog dry faster after retrieving something from the water.

    To connect the dots – the title of the book was a joke. The author had (probably) been asked the question in some form about various modern dog breeds – and the answer is basically “it is easy for humans to breed dogs for selected characteristics.”

    MY guess is that most “smaller non working” dog breeds started out as “companion animals” for people – and part of the “companionship” might have included killing rats.

    e.g. Chihuahuas didn’t descendant from tiny dogs fighting for survival against larger dogs. There were NEVER packs of wild Chihuahuas roaming ancient Mexico.

    Of course one of the big geographic differences between ancient Mexico/Central/South America and Africa/Europe/Asia was that they didn’t have a lot of large land animals. Which meant that smaller dog breeds were common in Mexico/Central/South America. e.g. The Aztecs used selective breeding to start us on the way to modern Chihuahuas.

    Random thought: when the indigenous tribal folks in North America first saw the horses that Europeans brought over that called them “big dogs.” Most of the cattle in North America also descended from animals brought over by Christopher Columbus et al –

    The point being that the JOKE starts by how the question is framed. More to the point “Was Jesus an illegal immigrant?” STARTS with errors in the framing of the question.

    Illegal Immigration

    SO any MODERN “illegal immigration” question starts with two assumptions:

    1. that “nation States” exist with defined borders, AND they are actively monitoring/policing those borders
    2. large numbers of people are “immigrating”

    You cannot have “illegal” immigration unless there are laws to break. There cannot be “immigration laws” to break unless there are “nation States.” Makes sense right?

    THEN the way “human devised laws” tend to come about is that there is a problem that folks in power want to stop – so then then make a law prohibiting “whatever the problem was.”

    Did the Ancient Roman Empire or Egypt at that time have laws prohibiting immigration? Well, not like WE think of them.

    Of course travelling long distances easily, safely, and relatively secure didn’t become possible until relatively recently in human history. Arguments could be made on a specific date – but the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th Century is as good a place as any to pinpoint as the beginning of “modern” travel.

    Fun to point out: if folks are “happy and prosperous” they aren’t thinking about immigrating. If folks are starving and oppressed THEN they start thinking about immigration.

    In the United States MOST people lived and died within 20 miles of where they were born until trains and automobiles made it safe and easy to move about the countryside.

    The history of “immigration” laws in the U.S. starts out as “descriptive” BEFORE it became “restrictive.” The early laws were much more about defining who was a citizen for voting purposes. The early U.S. actively encouraged immigration from outside the U.S. simply because there was a lot of empty land out west – and the need to laborers was high.

    It wasn’t until the 1800 when laws restricting entry to the U.S. started happening. BUT that is also a different subject …

    Where was Jesus born?

    Now, I get the impression that a lot of folks that are asking the “was Jesus an illegal immigrant” question PROBABLY aren’t historically literate or familiar with the Biblical texts.

    SO I’ll point out that what commonly gets called the “New Testament” starts with four books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). Collectively they are called the “Gospels.”

    Doing a “harmony of the Gospels” is beyond MY limited ability – I’ll just point out that the four texts tell the story of Jesus’ life and ministry and death. The four texts “dovetail” together – but the part important for THIS discussion starts in the second chapter of Matthew verse 1

    Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, 

    SO where was “Bethlehem of Judea?”

    The Google AI overview tells me “In the 1st century CE, Bethlehem of Judea was a small, humble village situated about six miles south of Jerusalem, in the fertile hill country of Judea, near the border of the Judean desert. “

    Roman officials had ruled the area since 63 BCE – at that time THEY would have referred to it as the “province of Judaea”

    Where residents of the Province of Judaea Roman Citizens?

    No. Most of the permanent residents were Jewish – which was defined by tradition, religion, and language not by geographic borders.

    Jews could become Roman Citizens. e.g. The book of Acts follows the Gospels in the New Testament. The conversion of Saul/Paul of Tarsus and then the start of his travels/ministry are in the second half of Acts – at one point Paul is about to be flogged and his Roman Citizenship prevents the flogging.

    i.e. without a doubt being a Roman Citizen had benefits – but just living in a province ruled by Rome did NOT automatically make someone a Roman citizen

    Wise men from the East

    Ok, pop quiz – how many “wise men from the East” brought the infant Jesus gifts?

    I can confidently say that – having seen countless “Nativity scenes” with three wise men – MOST folks will say three.

    Notice that the text doesn’t say how many “wise men came from the East” – it says they brought three gifts (gold, frankincense, and myrrh) BUT doesn’t give a number of “wise men from the East.”

    Oh, yes, there is symbolism to those gifts – but that is a different subject.

    Under the category of “just me guessing” – travelling long distances at the time would have been dangerous and difficult, it is hard to imagine ONLY three people making ANY long trip especially one with this significance. I imagine a small armed entourage attached to each “gift.” All of which is conjecture on my part …

    Flight to Egypt

    The “wise men” part of the Gospel of Matthew account also provides the background for WHY Jesus and family went to Egypt – i.e. Herod – the secular leader of the Jews at the time – wanted to harm the child:

    13 Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.”

    14 When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, 15 and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, “Out of Egypt I called My Son.”

    … and when the “wise men” didn’t return and tell Herod where Jesus was …

    16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was deceived by the wise men, was exceedingly angry; and he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the wise men.

    Old Testament Prophecy

    Notice that Gospels refer to parts of the “Old Testament” as prophecy that was being fulfilled. The expectation at the time in 1st Century Judaea was that the Messiah was going to appear – but those 1st Century Jews were probably expecting a “King David” type to come and defeat the Romans.

    umm, and that is another “Harmony of the Gospels” things …

    Was Jesus an “illegal immigrant” in Egypt?

    again, no.

    Egypt at the time was ALSO a province of Rome. You know, Cleopatra, Marc Anthony and all that.

    Again, “conjecture on my part” – There was probably a “Jewish community” in Egypt that Joseph and Mary were able to blend into without much difficulty. Obviously just because MOST of the residents of Judaea were Jewish doesn’t mean that ALL of the Jewish population lived there.

    THEN Joseph has a few “divine dreams” directing him where to go and another Prophecy gets fulfilled:

    23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, “He shall be called a Nazarene.”

    21st Century immigration

    What baffles me is exactly what the folks who are pushing “Jesus was an illegal immigrant” think they are going to accomplish.

    Ok, I get that THEY think they have found a metaphorical “loose brick” in the argument of their political opponents. BUT it comes across as “Jesus was an illegal immigrant so open the borders!”

    Personally I think the “west” needs to make it easier for LEGAL immigrants to come here and work.

    Part of that process should include assimilation training for immigrants. Voting privileges and access to the “welfare state” are things that must be earned.

    i.e. honest hard working immigrant willing to risk their lives to come to the “west” should be treated as a positive resource to be optimized NOT a disease to be eradicated.

    I’m in favor of making it harder on the human traffickers preying on immigrates — but it also needs to be recognized that “immigration WITHOUT assimilation” is an “invasion”

    The best selling book of 1925

    Yes, I’ve read the entire Bible more than once – no I am NOT a minister. I’ve got some resources for individual Bible study on the top menu – (https://www.iterudio.com/?page_id=830)

    as always the only “authoritative source” for Bible study should be the Bible – finding a modern translation is useful – e.g. my Bible quotes are from the “New King James”

    fwiw: I found a database of different Bible versions and I have been working on generating pdfs – which will get posted on this site when completed.

    I’m looking for work and always willing to accept big checks for bloviating on this or that – spam comments get treated like spam

    communication, inquires, job offers sent to iterudio at clancameron.us will get looked at – but I’m gonna assume it is spam so you need to make an effort to convince me you AREN’T spam –

    I enjoyed reading The Man Nobody Knows – which was the bestselling book of 1925. I wrote a short introduction that points out some of the “1925 references.”

    Back in 1925 the contemporary image of Jesus was (probably) derived from famous Renaissance art works – the author of the book was working in the early days of “modern advertising” and takes a “Jesus as modern organizational leader” view.