We need to talk about foobaw

Last Sunday, Miami Dolphins quarterback Tua Tagovailoa was knocked down in the second quarter of a game against the Buffalo Bills and hit the back of his head on the turf. He lay there for a few seconds, then tried to stand up on wobbly legs then he collapsed, obviously slobberknocked. They took him into the locker room, then sent him out to play the second half, claiming he had passed the concussion protocol and that he had collapsed due to a leg injury, which anybody could plainly see was a lie.

Last night, against the Cincinnati Bengals, he was again knocked down and hit the back of his head. This time he lay motionless for several minutes and was carted off the field. Yeah, he's paid tens of millions of dollars and the glamor and the glory are obviously worth it to a lot of young men, but . . . 

The list of former football players who have suffered from serious behavioral problems and dementia is far too long to even start. And you don't need to play in the NFL, or even big time college foobaw, to develop the disease called Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy. It can result from repeated small blows to the head which don't result in an apparent concussion, and those are an inevitable part of the game of North American Football. The helmet protects the scalp and the skull, but it doesn't protect the brain, that sloshes around inside the skull whenever there's a blow to the head. The helmet makes it more dangerous, not less.

Tua's a grown man so you may want to argue that he can make his own choices, although in this case the team doctor appears to have committed malpractice. But boys start playing football by the age of 8, and certainly 13. Of course there is some danger in all physical play and sport, but it's necessary to physical, emotional and mental development. Active and even rough play is part of being human -- or really any kind of mammal, they all do it. Sports are always going to come with injuries. 

 

But it's a matter of degree, and of kind. Bruises, sprained or even torn ligaments, dislocated joints, broken bones, you can recover from. And one or two concussions in your lifetime probably aren't going to matter. But a high chance of irretrievably turning your brain to mush is another matter. We don't exactly know how high but the results of autopsies of former NFL players are extremely disturbing. Basically, 99% had TCE. There's no comparison group and families were not doubt morel likely to donate the brains if they had worries about the person, but still. And BTW, it was also found in 45 of 53 college players who never played in the NFL.

High schools and colleges all over the country have to do some serious soul-searching about this. It's long past time.

More Recommended Reading

I posted a while ago about The Dawn of Everything, by David Graeber and David Wengrow; and I mentioned more recently that I was reading Sapiens, by Yuval Noah Harari, I have now finished it, and read Humankind, by Rutger Bregman.

These books overlap considerably in their concerns and arguments, although they have different emphases and narrative spines. They all argue, from one direction or another, that the path humanity has taken since the neolithic revolution, has led us to the wrong place, and that a different and better world is possible. In making this claim they all propose that the conventional understanding of prehistory is incorrect, as are equally the conventional modern understanding of human nature, and the structural requirements for a complex technological civilization.

I should note that they are not in agreement about everything, and both Graeber/Wegman and Bregman explicitly criticize Harari on some points. I'm not sure, however, that the disagreements are as substantive as the authors seem to think.

All of this is rather too complicated for a blog post, but one key to all of three books is an emphasis on the inherently cooperative and trustworthy nature of Homo sapiens. The conventional view, or at least the view of many, that we would mostly be egotistical thieves, liars and exploiters if not restrained by law and religion, is systematically debunked. The problem that exceptional people -- malignant narcissists and sadistic psychopaths -- often constitute much of a ruling class or even emerge as autocrats is a pathology of civilization. In small scale societies, such people are shunned, even exiled. They are the opposite of the kinds of people who gain influence and respect, who are characterize by rectitude, humility, compassion and generosity.

The consequences of this singular idea are complicated, and they include as many problems as they do possible solutions.  But I would say that whether or not you believe this is at the heart of our basic political differences. I will have more to say about it.

Wednesday Bible Study: Hit the snooze button again

More endless recitation of meaningless names. Still confusion about the sons of Benjamin. Don't bother to read.

8 Benjamin was the father of Bela his firstborn,

Ashbel the second son, Aharah the third,

² Nohah the fourth and Rapha the fifth.

³ The sons of Bela were:

Addar, Gera, Abihud,^{[a] 4} Abishua, Naaman, Ahoah, ⁵ Gera, Shephuphan and Huram.

⁶ These were the descendants of Ehud, who were heads of families of those living in Geba and were deported to Manahath:

⁷ Naaman, Ahijah, and Gera, who deported them and who was the father of Uzza and Ahihud.

⁸ Sons were born to Shaharaim in Moab after he had divorced his wives Hushim and Baara. ⁹ By his wife Hodesh he had Jobab, Zibia, Mesha, Malkam, ¹⁰ Jeuz, Sakia and Mirmah. These were his sons, heads of families. ¹¹ By Hushim he had Abitub and Elpaal.

¹² The sons of Elpaal:

Eber, Misham, Shemed (who built Ono and Lod with its surrounding villages), ¹³ and Beriah and Shema, who were heads of families of those living in Aijalon and who drove out the inhabitants of Gath.

¹⁴ Ahio, Shashak, Jeremoth, ¹⁵ Zebadiah, Arad, Eder, ¹⁶ Michael, Ishpah and Joha were the sons of Beriah.

¹⁷ Zebadiah, Meshullam, Hizki, Heber, ¹⁸ Ishmerai, Izliah and Jobab were the sons of Elpaal.

¹⁹ Jakim, Zikri, Zabdi, ²⁰ Elienai, Zillethai, Eliel, ²¹ Adaiah, Beraiah and Shimrath were the sons of Shimei.

²² Ishpan, Eber, Eliel, ²³ Abdon, Zikri, Hanan, ²⁴ Hananiah, Elam, Anthothijah, ²⁵ Iphdeiah and Penuel were the sons of Shashak.

²⁶ Shamsherai, Shehariah, Athaliah, ²⁷ Jaareshiah, Elijah and Zikri were the sons of Jeroham.

²⁸ All these were heads of families, chiefs as listed in their genealogy, and they lived in Jerusalem.

²⁹ Jeiel^[b] the father^[c] of Gibeon lived in Gibeon.

His wife’s name was Maakah, ³⁰ and his firstborn son was Abdon, followed by Zur, Kish, Baal, Ner,^[d] Nadab, ³¹ Gedor, Ahio, Zeker ³² and Mikloth, who was the father of Shimeah. They too lived near their relatives in Jerusalem.

³³ Ner was the father of Kish, Kish the father of Saul, and Saul the father of Jonathan, Malki-Shua, Abinadab and Esh-Baal.^[e]

³⁴ The son of Jonathan:

Merib-Baal,^[f] who was the father of Micah.

³⁵ The sons of Micah:

Pithon, Melek, Tarea and Ahaz.

³⁶ Ahaz was the father of Jehoaddah, Jehoaddah was the father of Alemeth, Azmaveth and Zimri, and Zimri was the father of Moza. ³⁷ Moza was the father of Binea; Raphah was his son, Eleasah his son and Azel his son.

³⁸ Azel had six sons, and these were their names:

Azrikam, Bokeru, Ishmael, Sheariah, Obadiah and Hanan. All these were the sons of Azel.

³⁹ The sons of his brother Eshek:

Ulam his firstborn, Jeush the second son and Eliphelet the third. ⁴⁰ The sons of Ulam were brave warriors who could handle the bow. They had many sons and grandsons—150 in all.

All these were the descendants of Benjamin.

Footnotes

1. 1 Chronicles 8:3 Or Gera the father of Ehud
2. 1 Chronicles 8:29 Some Septuagint manuscripts (see also 9:35); Hebrew does not have Jeiel.
3. 1 Chronicles 8:29 Father may mean civic leader or military leader.
4. 1 Chronicles 8:30 Some Septuagint manuscripts (see also 9:36); Hebrew does not have Ner.
5. 1 Chronicles 8:33 Also known as Ish-Bosheth
6. 1 Chronicles 8:34 Also known as Mephibosheth

Freeze Peach and Lies

We've discussed here more than once the problematic aspects of the concept of free speech in general, and what the First Amendment means specifically. An excellent case in point is California Assembly Bill AB 2098. The link is to a post by physician David Gorski, who is  irredeemably long winded, bu the gist of it is:

It shall constitute unprofessional conduct for a physician and surgeon to disseminate misinformation or disinformation related to COVID-19, including false or misleading information regarding the nature and risks of the virus, its prevention and treatment; and the development, safety, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.

This allows the licensing boards to discipline medical professional who spread misinformation -- "false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care -- or disinformation -- "misinformation that the licensee deliberately disseminated with malicious intent or an intent to mislead."

 I probably don't need to tell you that the Covid-19 disinformation movement has raised cries of "censorship" and violation of free speech rights. I actually don't think the California Medical Licensing Board even needs this legislation to discipline physicians who try to kill their patients by telling them falsehoods about a potentially deadly virus, but this is legislation so it means the government is taking a position in favor of that happening. 

Medicine is, or strives to be, or purports to be, a science based profession. That Dr. Gorski's blog is called Science Based Medicine does indicate that in his view and that of his colleagues, this aspiration requires advocates. There are legitimate disputes within medical science, and there are also many standard or at least accepted practices that aren't well supported by evidence. It is a constant struggle to get medical providers to stop providing low value or ineffective treatments. 

Nevertheless, there is a whole lot of very strong, even incontrovertible evidence within medical science. If a physician told you that you could cure your malignant melanoma by swinging a dead cat around your head three times under the light of the full moon and then burying it under a rock with two bulbs of garlic, that would constitute malpractice. This is also exactly true if a physician tells you that Covid-19 vaccines are unsafe and/or ineffective; or that the disease can be effectively treated with ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine; or that the whole pandemic is a hoax to begin with.

Such people should not be practicing medicine. They should lose their licenses. End of story.

Err, no, Yes, licensed physicians can practice outside of their specialties -- actually they don't even nee to have a specialty -- and they can prescribe drugs off-label. But if they harm patients due to negligence or incompetence, that's malpractice, and they can lose their license, be otherwise disciplined, or be sued by the patient. A medical license is not a license to do whatever you want. Nope.

 

 

 

Sunday Sermonette: Hit the snooze button

I'm not going to say anything about Ch. 7, the rules are I have to post everything so here it is. There are three or four contradictions with Exodus and with Chronicles itself, but I won't bother with them. A meaningful post later today.

7 The sons of Issachar:

Tola, Puah, Jashub and Shimron—four in all.

² The sons of Tola:

Uzzi, Rephaiah, Jeriel, Jahmai, Ibsam and Samuel—heads of their families. During the reign of David, the descendants of Tola listed as fighting men in their genealogy numbered 22,600.

³ The son of Uzzi:

Izrahiah.

The sons of Izrahiah:

Michael, Obadiah, Joel and Ishiah. All five of them were chiefs. ⁴ According to their family genealogy, they had 36,000 men ready for battle, for they had many wives and children.

⁵ The relatives who were fighting men belonging to all the clans of Issachar, as listed in their genealogy, were 87,000 in all.

Benjamin

⁶ Three sons of Benjamin:

Bela, Beker and Jediael.

⁷ The sons of Bela:

Ezbon, Uzzi, Uzziel, Jerimoth and Iri, heads of families—five in all. Their genealogical record listed 22,034 fighting men.

⁸ The sons of Beker:

Zemirah, Joash, Eliezer, Elioenai, Omri, Jeremoth, Abijah, Anathoth and Alemeth. All these were the sons of Beker. ⁹ Their genealogical record listed the heads of families and 20,200 fighting men.

¹⁰ The son of Jediael:

Bilhan.

The sons of Bilhan:

Jeush, Benjamin, Ehud, Kenaanah, Zethan, Tarshish and Ahishahar. ¹¹ All these sons of Jediael were heads of families. There were 17,200 fighting men ready to go out to war.

¹² The Shuppites and Huppites were the descendants of Ir, and the Hushites^[a] the descendants of Aher.

Naphtali

¹³ The sons of Naphtali:

Jahziel, Guni, Jezer and Shillem^[b]—the descendants of Bilhah.

Manasseh

¹⁴ The descendants of Manasseh:

Asriel was his descendant through his Aramean concubine. She gave birth to Makir the father of Gilead. ¹⁵ Makir took a wife from among the Huppites and Shuppites. His sister’s name was Maakah.

Another descendant was named Zelophehad, who had only daughters.

¹⁶ Makir’s wife Maakah gave birth to a son and named him Peresh. His brother was named Sheresh, and his sons were Ulam and Rakem.

¹⁷ The son of Ulam:

Bedan.

These were the sons of Gilead son of Makir, the son of Manasseh. ¹⁸ His sister Hammoleketh gave birth to Ishhod, Abiezer and Mahlah.

¹⁹ The sons of Shemida were:

Ahian, Shechem, Likhi and Aniam.

Ephraim

²⁰ The descendants of Ephraim:

Shuthelah, Bered his son,

Tahath his son, Eleadah his son,

Tahath his son, ²¹ Zabad his son

and Shuthelah his son.

Ezer and Elead were killed by the native-born men of Gath, when they went down to seize their livestock. ²² Their father Ephraim mourned for them many days, and his relatives came to comfort him. ²³ Then he made love to his wife again, and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. He named him Beriah,^[c] because there had been misfortune in his family. ²⁴ His daughter was Sheerah, who built Lower and Upper Beth Horon as well as Uzzen Sheerah.

²⁵ Rephah was his son, Resheph his son,^[d]

Telah his son, Tahan his son,

²⁶ Ladan his son, Ammihud his son,

Elishama his son, ²⁷ Nun his son

and Joshua his son.

²⁸ Their lands and settlements included Bethel and its surrounding villages, Naaran to the east, Gezer and its villages to the west, and Shechem and its villages all the way to Ayyah and its villages. ²⁹ Along the borders of Manasseh were Beth Shan, Taanach, Megiddo and Dor, together with their villages. The descendants of Joseph son of Israel lived in these towns.

Asher

³⁰ The sons of Asher:

Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi and Beriah. Their sister was Serah.

³¹ The sons of Beriah:

Heber and Malkiel, who was the father of Birzaith.

³² Heber was the father of Japhlet, Shomer and Hotham and of their sister Shua.

³³ The sons of Japhlet:

Pasak, Bimhal and Ashvath.

These were Japhlet’s sons.

³⁴ The sons of Shomer:

Ahi, Rohgah,^[e] Hubbah and Aram.

³⁵ The sons of his brother Helem:

Zophah, Imna, Shelesh and Amal.

³⁶ The sons of Zophah:

Suah, Harnepher, Shual, Beri, Imrah, ³⁷ Bezer, Hod, Shamma, Shilshah, Ithran^[f] and Beera.

³⁸ The sons of Jether:

Jephunneh, Pispah and Ara.

³⁹ The sons of Ulla:

Arah, Hanniel and Rizia.

⁴⁰ All these were descendants of Asher—heads of families, choice men, brave warriors and outstanding leaders. The number of men ready for battle, as listed in their genealogy, was 26,000.

Footnotes

1. 1 Chronicles 7:12 Or Ir. The sons of Dan: Hushim, (see Gen. 46:23); Hebrew does not have The sons of Dan.
2. 1 Chronicles 7:13 Some Hebrew and Septuagint manuscripts (see also Gen. 46:24 and Num. 26:49); most Hebrew manuscripts Shallum
3. 1 Chronicles 7:23 Beriah sounds like the Hebrew for misfortune.
4. 1 Chronicles 7:25 Some Septuagint manuscripts; Hebrew does not have his son.
5. 1 Chronicles 7:34 Or of his brother Shomer: Rohgah
6. 1 Chronicles 7:37 Possibly a variant of Jether

Dick Tater cont.

If you have a NYT read left, or subscribe, here's a multiple by-line piece on Putin's micromanagement of the war.

American officials briefed on highly sensitive intelligence said that behind the scenes Mr. Putin is taking on an even deeper role in the war, including telling commanders that strategic decisions in the field are his to make. Although Mr. Putin has accepted some recommendations from military commanders, including the mobilization of civilians, his involvement has created tensions, American officials said.

The officials said that Mr. Putin’s rejection of a military pullback from Kherson has also led to a decrease in morale among Russian troops who have been mostly cut off from their supply lines, and who appear to believe they could be left stranded against Ukrainian forces.

For background, Ukrainian forces have severed Russia's supply lines across the Dnipro river and threaten to trap Russian forces near Kherson without food or ammunition. Kherson is the only regional capital the Russians hold and in addition to the possibility that the Ukrainians will destroy Russian  units north of the Dnipro, capturing thousands of prisoners and a vast trove of equipment, a defeat there will be further humiliation for Putin. He has simply decreed that it won't happen. But it probably will. 

The disastrous war was a vanity project for the autocratic leader.  It's all about him -- his power, his glory. And it's leading the nation to ruin. But apparently this is what some 35-40% of Americans want to happen to us.

 

Dick Tater

The American right has long admired Vladimir Putin. The Former Guy's groveling to him is of course notorious. Many ascribe it to blackmail, and that might be part of it, but admiration for autocracy among American conservatives is real. Just witness the love for Hungarian strong man Victor Orban, who headlined the recent Conservative Political Action Conference. American conservatives particularly admire Putin because he symbolizes for them a form of machismo that they equate with national power and military effectiveness.

 

Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted last year that “[p]erhaps a woke, emasculated military is not the best idea,” as he fawned over a video comparing a hypermacho Russian military recruitment ad featuring shirtless, muscular Russian male recruits to a U.S. ad showcasing diverse American recruits representative of what the country actually looks like. In the same vein, BlazeTV host Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report said when comparing the U.S. and Russian recruitment videos: “We’re screwed, people. … Can you imagine that Russian guy coming up against that girl? … If you give me an East Village lesbian versus Vladimir Putin, who’s going to win?” A Fox News article surveying these responses to the opposing recruitment strategies between Russia and the United States highlighted posts by conservatives on Twitter, including one that read, “Pick your fighter.” 

Funny thing about that. 

The war has united Ukrainians. It's clear that protecting democratic and liberal values are the source of much of Ukraine's will. It's why Vlad Shast, has had no issue being openly LGBTQ while supporting the defence of his country. "I do not have to act like someone I am not here. No one cares about my identity or sexual orientation. There is a big goal - to win and make Russian troops leave our country. No one here cares about who I am, even the most conservative team members prioritize the fight for freedom over their personal views. Everyone is a human being, and there is a frontline for every soldier who joins the defense. We function as a whole body, where each person understands their value and responsibility. The reason for this is of course, the powerful goal to defend our national identity, dignity, and freedom.".

The Russian military has turned out to be grossly incompetent. It's as though the U.S. invaded Mexico and couldn't get past Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez. And the reason is autocracy. Nobody could tell Putin anything he didn't want to hear, while the military was organized to reward cronies, eliminate dissent and prevent the possibility of a coup. Russian soldiers have no idea why they are fighting, and their leadership is utterly incompetent. Even worse, Putin is giving orders directly to generals in the field, which has resulted in such debacles as the Battle of the Siverskyi Donets and the 49 mile long convoy in the failed attempt to take Kyiv. 

But, despite the grotesque failure of Putin's 3 day, now 210 day war, he remains in power. The Russian ship of state is going down with its captain. That is the wages of autocracy.

 

 

Wednesday Bible Study: Why?

Ch. 8 lists the purported male descendants of Benjamin, with particular attention to Saul and his progeny. As I noted last time, however, his sons are almost entirely different from the sons he had in the previous chapter, with the sole exception of Bela. So they can't both be right. If your eyes glaze over while you're reading about the descendants of Gibeon, don't worry, they're repeated exactly in the next chapter. Again, this guy needed an editor.

That aside, you're probably wondering why anybody would care about these lists of decontextualized, apparently meaningless names. There's currently a fad among Americans to research their ancestors, but they want more than names. They want stories -- professions, migrations, hopefully a title of nobility -- and maybe they'll even find some long lost cousins. Not that I think that actually matters either but you can see how it might interest people. Here, however, although there is an occasional aside about where somebody lived or the person being a mighty warrior or some such, mostly there is no information.

All I can say is that as we saw in the Torah, the society is organized into tribes and subsets of tribes called clans, based on patrilineal descent. Preservation of these male lines of descent is an obsession, such that there are special rules to insure it can continue when a man dies without male issue. If he has one or more wives, his brothers need to impregnate them, and an ensuing male baby is officially the son of the dead man. Onan's sin contrary to a common misimpression, was to refuse to perform this duty. If a man dies with only daughters and no potentially fertile wife, his daughters, in a rare exception to the rule, inherit the property. But at least one of them has to find a cousin to marry and then the male line is officially reestablished. This is essential to the ordering of society, and these lists appear intended to explain and legitimate the order at the time they were  written. For modern readers, however, including Jews, this is pretty much meaningless.

8 Benjamin was the father of Bela his firstborn,

Ashbel the second son, Aharah the third,

² Nohah the fourth and Rapha the fifth.

³ The sons of Bela were:

Addar, Gera, Abihud,^{[a] 4} Abishua, Naaman, Ahoah, ⁵ Gera, Shephuphan and Huram.

⁶ These were the descendants of Ehud, who were heads of families of those living in Geba and were deported to Manahath:

⁷ Naaman, Ahijah, and Gera, who deported them and who was the father of Uzza and Ahihud.

⁸ Sons were born to Shaharaim in Moab after he had divorced his wives Hushim and Baara. ⁹ By his wife Hodesh he had Jobab, Zibia, Mesha, Malkam, ¹⁰ Jeuz, Sakia and Mirmah. These were his sons, heads of families. ¹¹ By Hushim he had Abitub and Elpaal.

¹² The sons of Elpaal:

Eber, Misham, Shemed (who built Ono and Lod with its surrounding villages), ¹³ and Beriah and Shema, who were heads of families of those living in Aijalon and who drove out the inhabitants of Gath.

¹⁴ Ahio, Shashak, Jeremoth, ¹⁵ Zebadiah, Arad, Eder, ¹⁶ Michael, Ishpah and Joha were the sons of Beriah.

¹⁷ Zebadiah, Meshullam, Hizki, Heber, ¹⁸ Ishmerai, Izliah and Jobab were the sons of Elpaal.

¹⁹ Jakim, Zikri, Zabdi, ²⁰ Elienai, Zillethai, Eliel, ²¹ Adaiah, Beraiah and Shimrath were the sons of Shimei.

²² Ishpan, Eber, Eliel, ²³ Abdon, Zikri, Hanan, ²⁴ Hananiah, Elam, Anthothijah, ²⁵ Iphdeiah and Penuel were the sons of Shashak.

²⁶ Shamsherai, Shehariah, Athaliah, ²⁷ Jaareshiah, Elijah and Zikri were the sons of Jeroham.

²⁸ All these were heads of families, chiefs as listed in their genealogy, and they lived in Jerusalem.

²⁹ Jeiel^[b] the father^[c] of Gibeon lived in Gibeon.

His wife’s name was Maakah, ³⁰ and his firstborn son was Abdon, followed by Zur, Kish, Baal, Ner,^[d] Nadab, ³¹ Gedor, Ahio, Zeker ³² and Mikloth, who was the father of Shimeah. They too lived near their relatives in Jerusalem.

³³ Ner was the father of Kish, Kish the father of Saul, and Saul the father of Jonathan, Malki-Shua, Abinadab and Esh-Baal.^[e]

³⁴ The son of Jonathan:

Merib-Baal,^[f] who was the father of Micah.

³⁵ The sons of Micah:

Pithon, Melek, Tarea and Ahaz.

³⁶ Ahaz was the father of Jehoaddah, Jehoaddah was the father of Alemeth, Azmaveth and Zimri, and Zimri was the father of Moza. ³⁷ Moza was the father of Binea; Raphah was his son, Eleasah his son and Azel his son.

³⁸ Azel had six sons, and these were their names:

Azrikam, Bokeru, Ishmael, Sheariah, Obadiah and Hanan. All these were the sons of Azel.

³⁹ The sons of his brother Eshek:

Ulam his firstborn, Jeush the second son and Eliphelet the third. ⁴⁰ The sons of Ulam were brave warriors who could handle the bow. They had many sons and grandsons—150 in all.

All these were the descendants of Benjamin.

Footnotes

1. 1 Chronicles 8:3 Or Gera the father of Ehud
2. 1 Chronicles 8:29 Some Septuagint manuscripts (see also 9:35); Hebrew does not have Jeiel.
3. 1 Chronicles 8:29 Father may mean civic leader or military leader.
4. 1 Chronicles 8:30 Some Septuagint manuscripts (see also 9:36); Hebrew does not have Ner.
5. 1 Chronicles 8:33 Also known as Ish-Bosheth
6. 1 Chronicles 8:34 Also known as Mephibosheth

Moral philosophy

Philosophers and other kinds of deep thinkers have debated for as long as debates have been preserved in writing over whether people are inherently good or inherently bad. The answer too this very badly posed question has profound implications for how society should be structured and governed, how we should teach and raise our children, and how we should interact with others. 

If you think about it for a moment, which most people don't, you'll see a basic problem with the "people are inherently bad" position. In order to come to that conclusion, you must have a moral standard that allows you to make that judgment, so you must be inherently good. Hmm. Of course you could argue that people can know right from wrong, they just don't behave accordingly. That's still a difficult position to maintain logically but I don't want to get into analytic philosophy here, just reality. 

 

Studies have consistently shown that when disaster strikes, people become cooperative and even heroic in helping each other. The "veneer of civilization" doesn't break, and people don't start pushing women and children aside to get to the lifeboats or hoarding food while their neighbors starve or anything like that. Exactly the opposite. In laboratory experiments, people are usually fair to each other, even generous. Most people read Lord of the Flies in high school but hey, it's fiction. In real life, in the 1960s, a group of Tongan schoolboys were shipwrecked on a remote, rocky island and they created a highly cooperative, industrious little society that enabled them to survive in excellent health until they were rescued more than a year later.

One problem is that people watch the teevee news. If it bleeds, it leads. Good news is no news, because when people are well behaved and nothing bad happens, that's just normal. Crime, betrayal, and lies are news precisely because they aren't the norm. What makes us most different from the other apes is precisely that we are so cooperative. The bad news is that for too many people, this stops at the tribe's edge. Our most important challenge, our highest imperative, is to expand people's circle of humanity, to get people to see all others as also equally worthy of dignity, respect and generosity, not just those within some arbitrary enclosure. Can we do it before it's too late?

What is science?

Sapiens, by Yuval Harari, is subtitled A brief history of humankind, and that's exactly what it is. It's mostly stuff I already knew in broad strokes, although obviously it has a lot of specific detail and illustrative examples I wasn't familiar with. I don't agree with everything he says -- for one thing, he seems not to have read the Tanakh, which is a bit surprising, and I do not accept his characterization of liberal humanism -- but it pulls together the major strands and important events of history compellingly and it's quite illuminating.

Obviously, if you want to get compellingly illuminated, read the book. But what I want to note here is the fundamental importance of ideology in driving overt events that most history writing is about. Underlying the European conquest of much of the world that started in the 16th Century, in Harari's telling, was, in a nutshell, the acceptance of ignorance and the quest to fill it in with knowledge. Obviously, as people spread out from Africa and occupied new territory they had to gain immense amounts of new information and develop innovative ways of life. But once they got settled down, at least since the neolithic revolution, they mostly decided they knew everything they needed to. 

 

Technological innovation was very slow, and resulted from small discoveries by individual artisans or farmers -- a slightly better way of doing things, transfer of an application from one realm to another. While there were bursts of intellectual creativity here and there, knowledge and beliefs were mostly static for centuries or millennia. Once the Greeks came up with their versions of cosmology, medicine, and physics, the way to learn about those subjects was to read their books -- for about 2,000 years. The order of Society, ancient history and the causes of events were to be found in the Bible (or whatever your holy book) as interpreted by the priesthood. People had very little interest in exploration beyond their familiar neighborhoods, except for purposes of conquest, but the conquerors didn't usually bother learn much from the conquered. 

Something  caused that to change in western Europe in the 16th Century, when people rather suddenly decided that they didn't know everything after all and they very much wanted to learn. The ancient books were overthrown, exploration was still driven in part by the desire for conquest but it was accompanied equally by the pursuit of knowledge -- and of course learning about exotic lands and people made conquest more successful. Scientific discovery and technological innovation went hand in hand. The idea that we have a lot  to learn about the nature of reality also implied that we could find better ways of doing things. The rest of the world didn't know what hit it until it was too late.

So, fundamentally, science is that attitude of ignorance. It's about believing that there is a  whole lot you don't know, and what you think you know might be wrong.* And so, yes, in that sense, ignorance is strength. But in a sense opposite to The Party wanted to tell people in 1984. What I mean to say is that the admission, the recognition, of ignorance is strength. Unfortunately, for many people, that is much too difficult.

*Just to be clear, just because you know you don't know everything doesn't mean there aren't some things you do know, to as near a certainty as you can get. Being able to tell the difference is equally important.

Sunday Sermonette: Again, don't bother

Ch. 7 just keeps on listing genealogies of the remaining tribes. I'll just note that there are four lists of the sons of Benjamin in the Bible and they all radically disagree.  What is most bizarre is that the list here in Ch. 7, is completely different from the list  in the first verse of the very next chapter of the same book, which has five sons, only one of which is common to both. So it appears the Chronicler needed an editor.

7 The sons of Issachar:

Tola, Puah, Jashub and Shimron—four in all.

² The sons of Tola:

Uzzi, Rephaiah, Jeriel, Jahmai, Ibsam and Samuel—heads of their families. During the reign of David, the descendants of Tola listed as fighting men in their genealogy numbered 22,600.

³ The son of Uzzi:

Izrahiah.

The sons of Izrahiah:

Michael, Obadiah, Joel and Ishiah. All five of them were chiefs. ⁴ According to their family genealogy, they had 36,000 men ready for battle, for they had many wives and children.

⁵ The relatives who were fighting men belonging to all the clans of Issachar, as listed in their genealogy, were 87,000 in all.

Benjamin

⁶ Three sons of Benjamin:

Bela, Beker and Jediael.

⁷ The sons of Bela:

Ezbon, Uzzi, Uzziel, Jerimoth and Iri, heads of families—five in all. Their genealogical record listed 22,034 fighting men.

⁸ The sons of Beker:

Zemirah, Joash, Eliezer, Elioenai, Omri, Jeremoth, Abijah, Anathoth and Alemeth. All these were the sons of Beker. ⁹ Their genealogical record listed the heads of families and 20,200 fighting men.

¹⁰ The son of Jediael:

Bilhan.

The sons of Bilhan:

Jeush, Benjamin, Ehud, Kenaanah, Zethan, Tarshish and Ahishahar. ¹¹ All these sons of Jediael were heads of families. There were 17,200 fighting men ready to go out to war.

¹² The Shuppites and Huppites were the descendants of Ir, and the Hushites^[a] the descendants of Aher.

Naphtali

¹³ The sons of Naphtali:

Jahziel, Guni, Jezer and Shillem^[b]—the descendants of Bilhah.

Manasseh

¹⁴ The descendants of Manasseh:

Asriel was his descendant through his Aramean concubine. She gave birth to Makir the father of Gilead. ¹⁵ Makir took a wife from among the Huppites and Shuppites. His sister’s name was Maakah.

Another descendant was named Zelophehad, who had only daughters.

¹⁶ Makir’s wife Maakah gave birth to a son and named him Peresh. His brother was named Sheresh, and his sons were Ulam and Rakem.

¹⁷ The son of Ulam:

Bedan.

These were the sons of Gilead son of Makir, the son of Manasseh. ¹⁸ His sister Hammoleketh gave birth to Ishhod, Abiezer and Mahlah.

¹⁹ The sons of Shemida were:

Ahian, Shechem, Likhi and Aniam.

Ephraim

²⁰ The descendants of Ephraim:

Shuthelah, Bered his son,

Tahath his son, Eleadah his son,

Tahath his son, ²¹ Zabad his son

and Shuthelah his son.

Ezer and Elead were killed by the native-born men of Gath, when they went down to seize their livestock. ²² Their father Ephraim mourned for them many days, and his relatives came to comfort him. ²³ Then he made love to his wife again, and she became pregnant and gave birth to a son. He named him Beriah,^[c] because there had been misfortune in his family. ²⁴ His daughter was Sheerah, who built Lower and Upper Beth Horon as well as Uzzen Sheerah.

²⁵ Rephah was his son, Resheph his son,^[d]

Telah his son, Tahan his son,

²⁶ Ladan his son, Ammihud his son,

Elishama his son, ²⁷ Nun his son

and Joshua his son.

²⁸ Their lands and settlements included Bethel and its surrounding villages, Naaran to the east, Gezer and its villages to the west, and Shechem and its villages all the way to Ayyah and its villages. ²⁹ Along the borders of Manasseh were Beth Shan, Taanach, Megiddo and Dor, together with their villages. The descendants of Joseph son of Israel lived in these towns.

Asher

³⁰ The sons of Asher:

Imnah, Ishvah, Ishvi and Beriah. Their sister was Serah.

³¹ The sons of Beriah:

Heber and Malkiel, who was the father of Birzaith.

³² Heber was the father of Japhlet, Shomer and Hotham and of their sister Shua.

³³ The sons of Japhlet:

Pasak, Bimhal and Ashvath.

These were Japhlet’s sons.

³⁴ The sons of Shomer:

Ahi, Rohgah,^[e] Hubbah and Aram.

³⁵ The sons of his brother Helem:

Zophah, Imna, Shelesh and Amal.

³⁶ The sons of Zophah:

Suah, Harnepher, Shual, Beri, Imrah, ³⁷ Bezer, Hod, Shamma, Shilshah, Ithran^[f] and Beera.

³⁸ The sons of Jether:

Jephunneh, Pispah and Ara.

³⁹ The sons of Ulla:

Arah, Hanniel and Rizia.

⁴⁰ All these were descendants of Asher—heads of families, choice men, brave warriors and outstanding leaders. The number of men ready for battle, as listed in their genealogy, was 26,000.

Footnotes

1. 1 Chronicles 7:12 Or Ir. The sons of Dan: Hushim, (see Gen. 46:23); Hebrew does not have The sons of Dan.
2. 1 Chronicles 7:13 Some Hebrew and Septuagint manuscripts (see also Gen. 46:24 and Num. 26:49); most Hebrew manuscripts Shallum
3. 1 Chronicles 7:23 Beriah sounds like the Hebrew for misfortune.
4. 1 Chronicles 7:25 Some Septuagint manuscripts; Hebrew does not have his son.
5. 1 Chronicles 7:34 Or of his brother Shomer: Rohgah
6. 1 Chronicles 7:37 Possibly a variant of Jether

A few more words about music

As our esteemed commenter discusses, the history of music is entwined with the history of culture and, in the U.S. in particular, the history of ethnicity and caste. The U.S. has been extremely fertile musically, birthing several new musical genres which have become globally influential. I would say there are three main tributaries that came together to create the river of American music. The most important is of course the musical tradition of west Africa. The second is European art music -- you know, the stuff that's now ossified in Symphony Hall -- and the third the folk music of the British isles. 

Enslaved Africans presumably heard European chamber music coming from the big house, or while they worked as servants at parties and weddings and so on. Their enslavers probably didn't think anything of the call and response chants they heard coming from the field or the songs from the slave quarters in the evening, but the slaves started to put the sounds together and developed new forms that put their traditional scales, syncopation and polyphony over a modified version of European harmonies. After abolition, African American music developed into early forms of blues and gospel. Of course white people didn't listen to any of it and presumably considered the music barbaric.

In New Orleans, a city where there had been many free Black people even before abolition,  many people of mixed heritage, and a relatively prosperous Black entrepreneurial and professional class, people had access to musical instruments, and opportunities to perform for pay (most famously, but not exclusively, in brothels) jazz emerged in the early 20th Century. I won't get into the details of the origins of jazz or the musical influences it incorporated -- see the above paragraph which gives the main idea -- but I will add that improvisation and spontaneity were also essential elements. As I said yesterday, the music had so much vitality and force that by the 1920s, it emerged from the ghetto to become the dominant form of popular music in the U.S. 

At this point I have to specifically mentioned the trumpeter Louis Armstrong, who pretty much single-handedly developed the art of improvising new melodies over chord changes, which became a defining characteristic of jazz. While he became one of the most famous musicians in the world, African American jazz performers still could not stay in the hotels, or sit in the audiences in the  venues where they played for white audiences. And white musicians like Glen Miller  and Benny Goodman appropriated jazz, made it into dance music, and made the really big bucks. Meanwhile, other genres of African American music persisted, that white people continued to scorn. Rural people maintained and developed the blues, which in the 1920s was seldom recorded. A recorded genre called race music grew out of blues, ragtime and church music and eventually developed into Rhythm and Blues, but white people didn't buy the records.

Which brings us to Elvis, of course. As Memphis record producer Sam Phillips famously said in 1954, "If I could find a white man who had the Negro sound and the Negro feel, I could make a billion dollars." Along came Elvis, and the rest is history. 

Just to finish up for now, the folk music of the British isles was the music of poor and rural white people, as the blues was for similarly situated black people. It evolved into what we now call country music, which still has a pretty much exclusively white audience as such, but has also influenced rock and pop. So we have a genre called Rockabilly. Bruce Springsteen, whose early album The Wild, The Innocent and the E Street Shuffle was heavily influenced by jazz and blues, could go on to record a pure white folk music album (the Seeger Sessions); and meanwhile famous English rock bands play what is essentially the electrified blues that went up the river from the Mississippi delta to Chicago. 

So the moral of this story is that the confluence of musical cultures in the U.S. is what created the most commercially important musical forms of today. But the commercial rewards did not flow proportionately to the communities that contributed. Big Mama Thornton got one check for $200 for her recording of Hound Dog, while Elvis probably made millions. She died impoverished in a flop house. Eric Clapton and the Allman Brothers play the music of Robert Johnson, who never had a nickel. I had a conversation with a friend recently about the relative affluence of John Coltrane and Al Hirt. Granted, one important difference  is that Hirt was trying to sell records whereas Coltrane was trying to find the innermost truth, but still. Nowadays many, if not most (I haven't been counting) of the most commercially successful American musicians are Black, so maybe times have changed. But don't forget history.

Ramsey Lewis

As you probably know, if he was someone you paid attention to, Ramsey died a couple of days ago. The In Crowd was one of the first albums I bought, when I was in high school. This got me thinking about music history in the US of A. This is just out of my head, I'm not looking anything up or linking to anything, so weigh tin if you think I get anything wrong.

From the 1920s, actually slightly before, through the 1950s jazz and popular music were closely akin. In fact jazz was popular music. Performers like Louis Armstrong, Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday, and the Duke Ellington, Count Basie and Cab Calloway big bands had large white audiences. White musicians developed a style on the borderline of jazz called swing, but general audiences didn't make much of a distinction. It was all the popular entertainment and dance music of the times, and the 20s and 30s became known as the Jazz Age. Of course, even though white people listened to Black musicians, the audiences were segregated, but that's another story.

In the 1950s and '60s, however, jazz and popular music -- both Black and white -- started to evolve apart. The important jazz musicians of the times -- Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Dizzy Gillespie, and others -- developed a style that was challenging to listeners of traditional jazz and American popular music and found themselves with a niche audience. The wildly popular rock music that emerged at that time was rooted more directly in blues than in jazz; and popular Black music, rhythm and blues that evolved into the Motown sound, was also rooted more in gospel and blues. 

It's not that musicians weren't listening to each other. There were attempts at jazz-rock fusion, such as Weather Report, Herbie Hancock, and even Miles took a stab at it, though he didn't really get very far. The movement petered out by the 1980s.  Miles Davis was in fact a close friend of Joni Mitchell, whose music was certainly jazz influenced, and they'd spend time together listening to records. But when she asked him to perform on one of her albums, he declined. He said he didn't want to bigfoot her but I expect he really just thought they were in different places.

Anyway, to finally get to the point from the '70s through the '90s there were a few musicians who managed to live on the borderline, to play in jazz clubs and have their records in the jazz bin (remember record stores?) but also get top 40s airplay. Ramsey Lewis was one of them, along with George Benson, Grover Washington Jr., and Al Jarreau. Jazz purists tended to look down on them, as being shallow or sellouts or something like that. I think Ramsey started getting more cred when he stopped being popular. (Of course their radio hits weren't actually improvisational, so if you think it isn't jazz if it doesn't feature improvised solos then we just have a problem of definition.) 

 I think this is really unfortunate. Grover Washington's duet with Bill Withers, "Just the Two of Us," was not only a huge hit but an interesting piece of music. (It's really a Bill Withers song but it's on a Grover Washington album.) Anyway these crossover types had pretty much disappeared by the turn of the century. They could have given people a path back to jazz, if they had taken it, and if jazz musicians had offered a welcome to a rock and pop audience.

Nowadays, unless you're specifically a fan, it's unlikely you've heard of any contemporary who is considered a jazz musician per se, with the likely exception of Wynton Marsalis, whose name you know but whose music you probably do not.  (He's actually committed to classical jazz, not modern or innovative forms.) Yeah, there's Esperanza Spalding who is maybe somewhere on the borderline and a few others but they aren't big sellers. I'm waiting to see if the current jazz community, incubating underground, won't emerge to produce more popular music for the new era. Anyway, Ramsey Lewis was a really great performer.

Wednesday Bible Study: Ignore this post

If I were you, I wouldn't bother to read Ch. 6. The Chronicler provides a genealogy of the Levite priesthood, which is just a recitation of meaningless names; then digresses to name David's temple musicians, then gives a specific genealogy of the descendants of Aaron who are the kohanim, who can perform the sacrifices. Then he tells us what lands they were given. There are several minor discrepancies between this accounting and the Deuteronomist history, but they aren't worth pointing out. Presumably the writer includes Levi and possibly Aaron in his own genealogy but he doesn't identify himself.

6 ^[a]The sons of Levi:

Gershon, Kohath and Merari.

² The sons of Kohath:

Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel.

³ The children of Amram:

Aaron, Moses and Miriam.

The sons of Aaron:

Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar.

⁴ Eleazar was the father of Phinehas,

Phinehas the father of Abishua,

⁵ Abishua the father of Bukki,

Bukki the father of Uzzi,

⁶ Uzzi the father of Zerahiah,

Zerahiah the father of Meraioth,

⁷ Meraioth the father of Amariah,

Amariah the father of Ahitub,

⁸ Ahitub the father of Zadok,

Zadok the father of Ahimaaz,

⁹ Ahimaaz the father of Azariah,

Azariah the father of Johanan,

¹⁰ Johanan the father of Azariah (it was he who served as priest in the temple Solomon built in Jerusalem),

¹¹ Azariah the father of Amariah,

Amariah the father of Ahitub,

¹² Ahitub the father of Zadok,

Zadok the father of Shallum,

¹³ Shallum the father of Hilkiah,

Hilkiah the father of Azariah,

¹⁴ Azariah the father of Seraiah,

and Seraiah the father of Jozadak.^[b]

¹⁵ Jozadak was deported when the Lord sent Judah and Jerusalem into exile by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.

¹⁶ The sons of Levi:

Gershon,^[c] Kohath and Merari.

¹⁷ These are the names of the sons of Gershon:

Libni and Shimei.

¹⁸ The sons of Kohath:

Amram, Izhar, Hebron and Uzziel.

¹⁹ The sons of Merari:

Mahli and Mushi.

These are the clans of the Levites listed according to their fathers:

²⁰ Of Gershon:

Libni his son, Jahath his son,

Zimmah his son, ²¹ Joah his son,

Iddo his son, Zerah his son

and Jeatherai his son.

²² The descendants of Kohath:

Amminadab his son, Korah his son,

Assir his son, ²³ Elkanah his son,

Ebiasaph his son, Assir his son,

²⁴ Tahath his son, Uriel his son,

Uzziah his son and Shaul his son.

²⁵ The descendants of Elkanah:

Amasai, Ahimoth,

²⁶ Elkanah his son,^[d] Zophai his son,

Nahath his son, ²⁷ Eliab his son,

Jeroham his son, Elkanah his son

and Samuel his son.^[e]

²⁸ The sons of Samuel:

Joel^[f] the firstborn

and Abijah the second son.

²⁹ The descendants of Merari:

Mahli, Libni his son,

Shimei his son, Uzzah his son,

³⁰ Shimea his son, Haggiah his son

and Asaiah his son.

The Temple Musicians

³¹ These are the men David put in charge of the music in the house of the Lord after the ark came to rest there. ³² They ministered with music before the tabernacle, the tent of meeting, until Solomon built the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem. They performed their duties according to the regulations laid down for them.

³³ Here are the men who served, together with their sons:

From the Kohathites:

Heman, the musician,

the son of Joel, the son of Samuel,

³⁴ the son of Elkanah, the son of Jeroham,

the son of Eliel, the son of Toah,

³⁵ the son of Zuph, the son of Elkanah,

the son of Mahath, the son of Amasai,

³⁶ the son of Elkanah, the son of Joel,

the son of Azariah, the son of Zephaniah,

³⁷ the son of Tahath, the son of Assir,

the son of Ebiasaph, the son of Korah,

³⁸ the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath,

the son of Levi, the son of Israel;

³⁹ and Heman’s associate Asaph, who served at his right hand:

Asaph son of Berekiah, the son of Shimea,

⁴⁰ the son of Michael, the son of Baaseiah,^[g]

the son of Malkijah, ⁴¹ the son of Ethni,

the son of Zerah, the son of Adaiah,

⁴² the son of Ethan, the son of Zimmah,

the son of Shimei, ⁴³ the son of Jahath,

the son of Gershon, the son of Levi;

⁴⁴ and from their associates, the Merarites, at his left hand:

Ethan son of Kishi, the son of Abdi,

the son of Malluk, ⁴⁵ the son of Hashabiah,

the son of Amaziah, the son of Hilkiah,

⁴⁶ the son of Amzi, the son of Bani,

the son of Shemer, ⁴⁷ the son of Mahli,

the son of Mushi, the son of Merari,

the son of Levi.

⁴⁸ Their fellow Levites were assigned to all the other duties of the tabernacle, the house of God. ⁴⁹ But Aaron and his descendants were the ones who presented offerings on the altar of burnt offering and on the altar of incense in connection with all that was done in the Most Holy Place, making atonement for Israel, in accordance with all that Moses the servant of God had commanded.

⁵⁰ These were the descendants of Aaron:

Eleazar his son, Phinehas his son,

Abishua his son, ⁵¹ Bukki his son,

Uzzi his son, Zerahiah his son,

⁵² Meraioth his son, Amariah his son,

Ahitub his son, ⁵³ Zadok his son

and Ahimaaz his son.

⁵⁴ These were the locations of their settlements allotted as their territory (they were assigned to the descendants of Aaron who were from the Kohathite clan, because the first lot was for them):

⁵⁵ They were given Hebron in Judah with its surrounding pasturelands. ⁵⁶ But the fields and villages around the city were given to Caleb son of Jephunneh.

⁵⁷ So the descendants of Aaron were given Hebron (a city of refuge), and Libnah,^[h] Jattir, Eshtemoa, ⁵⁸ Hilen, Debir, ⁵⁹ Ashan, Juttah^[i] and Beth Shemesh, together with their pasturelands. ⁶⁰ And from the tribe of Benjamin they were given Gibeon,^[j] Geba, Alemeth and Anathoth, together with their pasturelands.

The total number of towns distributed among the Kohathite clans came to thirteen.

⁶¹ The rest of Kohath’s descendants were allotted ten towns from the clans of half the tribe of Manasseh.

⁶² The descendants of Gershon, clan by clan, were allotted thirteen towns from the tribes of Issachar, Asher and Naphtali, and from the part of the tribe of Manasseh that is in Bashan.

⁶³ The descendants of Merari, clan by clan, were allotted twelve towns from the tribes of Reuben, Gad and Zebulun.

⁶⁴ So the Israelites gave the Levites these towns and their pasturelands. ⁶⁵ From the tribes of Judah, Simeon and Benjamin they allotted the previously named towns.

⁶⁶ Some of the Kohathite clans were given as their territory towns from the tribe of Ephraim.

⁶⁷ In the hill country of Ephraim they were given Shechem (a city of refuge), and Gezer,^{[k] 68} Jokmeam, Beth Horon, ⁶⁹ Aijalon and Gath Rimmon, together with their pasturelands.

⁷⁰ And from half the tribe of Manasseh the Israelites gave Aner and Bileam, together with their pasturelands, to the rest of the Kohathite clans.

⁷¹ The Gershonites received the following:

From the clan of the half-tribe of Manasseh

they received Golan in Bashan and also Ashtaroth, together with their pasturelands;

⁷² from the tribe of Issachar

they received Kedesh, Daberath, ⁷³ Ramoth and Anem, together with their pasturelands;

⁷⁴ from the tribe of Asher

they received Mashal, Abdon, ⁷⁵ Hukok and Rehob, together with their pasturelands;

⁷⁶ and from the tribe of Naphtali

they received Kedesh in Galilee, Hammon and Kiriathaim, together with their pasturelands.

⁷⁷ The Merarites (the rest of the Levites) received the following:

From the tribe of Zebulun

they received Jokneam, Kartah,^[l] Rimmono and Tabor, together with their pasturelands;

⁷⁸ from the tribe of Reuben across the Jordan east of Jericho

they received Bezer in the wilderness, Jahzah, ⁷⁹ Kedemoth and Mephaath, together with their pasturelands;

⁸⁰ and from the tribe of Gad

they received Ramoth in Gilead, Mahanaim, ⁸¹ Heshbon and Jazer, together with their pasturelands.

Footnotes

1. 1 Chronicles 6:1 In Hebrew texts 6:1-15 is numbered 5:27-41, and 6:16-81 is numbered 6:1-66.
2. 1 Chronicles 6:14 Hebrew Jehozadak, a variant of Jozadak; also in verse 15
3. 1 Chronicles 6:16 Hebrew Gershom, a variant of Gershon; also in verses 17, 20, 43, 62 and 71
4. 1 Chronicles 6:26 Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Syriac; most Hebrew manuscripts Ahimoth ²⁶ and Elkanah. The sons of Elkanah:
5. 1 Chronicles 6:27 Some Septuagint manuscripts (see also 1 Samuel 1:19,20 and 1 Chron. 6:33,34); Hebrew does not have and Samuel his son.
6. 1 Chronicles 6:28 Some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac (see also 1 Samuel 8:2 and 1 Chron. 6:33); Hebrew does not have Joel.
7. 1 Chronicles 6:40 Most Hebrew manuscripts; some Hebrew manuscripts, one Septuagint manuscript and Syriac Maaseiah
8. 1 Chronicles 6:57 See Joshua 21:13; Hebrew given the cities of refuge: Hebron, Libnah.
9. 1 Chronicles 6:59 Syriac (see also Septuagint and Joshua 21:16); Hebrew does not have Juttah.
10. 1 Chronicles 6:60 See Joshua 21:17; Hebrew does not have Gibeon.
11. 1 Chronicles 6:67 See Joshua 21:21; Hebrew given the cities of refuge: Shechem, Gezer.
12. 1 Chronicles 6:77 See Septuagint and Joshua 21:34; Hebrew does not have Jokneam, Kartah.