How the blood doctrine developed - one of the best descriptions I've seen...

by EndofMysteries 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

EdenOne

marked
adamah

TD said-With respect, that is the viewpoint of fundamentalist Christianity. Given that the Pharisees are the fathers of modern Judaism, it is sometimes offensive to practicing Jews today.

I'm aware of the issue, and fully admit it's an over-simplification. However, I'm not writing a treatise on the evolution of Hebraic thought on Sabbath policy before and after Jesus' life, since I'm writing not to convince Jews, but for JWs who are literally 'at-risk' of death if they remain under the WT's flawed blood policy.

TD said-That life should be saved on the Sabbath is something that no Pharisee would have ever argued with. Whether a withered hand was life threatening or not is something that would have generated controversy, since Phariseeism was divided into liberal and conservative factions at the time.

Sure, there were many factions of Judaism then, and hence different schools of thought.

At the risk of going OT, Jesus' defense was not so much that he was healing on the Sabbath to save a life, but that he was doing the work of his father by forgiving sins. Jesus also pointed out the example of alleviating distress and pain of an animal on the Sabbath, which may be more applicable to this issue, where if ameliorating distress was OK, then clearly the saving of a life of an animal was recognized as a valid reason for violating Sabbath.

But again, I'm writing for JWs, and coming at it from what THEY likely know and accept from within their teachings.

TD said-In Judaism, Sabbath is not violated. Danger to life can render the Sabbath either Dechuya (Suspended) or Hutra (Abrogated). It is not a violation of the Sabbath to act under these conditions and the halachic controversy over what precipitates them predates Jesus of the Bible.

But certainly Jesus words could be seen as speaking to the controversy, where the influence of Xianity had at least SOME effect on Pharasiacal policy (or, the words were written afterwards, thus making Jesus look like the genius).

TD said-Personally, I think it speaks volumes that the much maligned Pharisees would have disagreed with the JW blood doctrine.

True dat, but regardless, JWs see the Pharisees as the "bad guys" and hence use the word as a pejorative (just as Jesus did).

Understanding the subtle differences is going to require leaving the JWs, in the first place, in order to learn the actual history. I'm trying to persuade JWs as to WHY they are 'at risk' while they remain inside under the influence of the GB.

Adam
TD

I'm aware of the issue, and fully admit it's an over-simplification. However, I'm not writing a treatise on the evolution of Hebraic thought on Sabbath policy...

That's a fair point. Converting the nominitive term, 'Pharisee' into the adjective 'Pharisaical' is one of the anti-semtic trappings of fundamentalist Christainity that anyone capable of writing a treatise on halachic thought should avoid at all costs.

But certainly Jesus words could be seen as speaking to the controversy, where the influence of Xianity had at least SOME effect on Pharasiacal policy (or, the words were written afterwards, thus making Jesus look like the genius).

There's that word again. If I understand what you're saying here, Adam, you believe that it's possible that Jesus of the Bible had a moderating influence on Phariseeism (?) I think your second possibility here is more likely.

This is how Jewish scholars would probably respond:

"The Pharisees never included healing in their list of activities forbidden on the Sabbath; and Jesus’ methods of healing did not involve any of the activities that were forbidden. It is unlikely that they would have disapproved, even mildly, of Jesus’ Sabbath-healing. Moreover, the picture of bloodthirsty, murderous Pharisees given in the Gospels contradicts everything known about them from Josephus, from their own writings, and from the Judaism, still living today, which they created..." (Maccoby, Hyam Revolution in Judea: Jesus and the Jewish Resistance Taplinger Publishing Co. 1980 pp. 11-12)

"It is an amazing fact that, when we consult the Pharisee law books to find out what the Pharisees actually taught about healing on the sabbath, we find that they did not forbid it, and they even used the very same arguments that Jesus used to show that it was permitted. Moreover, Jesus' celebrated saying, 'The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath,' which has been hailed so many times as an epoch-making new insight proclaimed by Jesus, is found almost word for word in a Pharisee source, where it is used to support the Pharisee doctrine that the saving of life has precedence over the law of the sabbath. So it seems that whoever it was that Jesus was arguing against when he defended his sabbath healing, it cannot have been the Pharisees." (Maccoby, Hyam The Mythmaker Paul and the Invention of Christianity Barnes & Noble Publishing 1998 pp. 33-34)

"To look at the Gospel accounts of Jesus' healing on the Sabbath in the light of Jewish teachings may help us to understand the behavior and attitudes to which these Christian accounts testify. They also show us the antiquity of laws which otherwise might be mistaken for late rabbinic innovations. In all cases, it is likely that Jesus' healing in itself constitutes nothing that many scribes or Pharisees, if not all, would have found as breaking Torah law." (Basser, Herbert W. Studies In Exegesis: Christian Critiques of Jewish Law and Rabbinic Responses 70-300 C.E. Brill 2000 pp. 17-18)

"It seems that the Evangelists had little idea about the details of Jewish laws, and only by careful analysis can we establish what lay behind their words. We must note that in all cases in legal debates about Sabbath in the Synoptics, the question of dispute revolves around scribal laws and whether or not the questioning Pharisees know these laws as well as they think they do. (Basser, Herbert W. Studies In Exegesis: Christian Critiques of Jewish Law and Rabbinic Responses 70-300 C.E. Brill 2000 pp. 26-27)

"A common misperception is that healing was permitted on the Sabbath only in the most extreme circumstances only when life was in danger. When this supposition is applied to these controversies, one inevitably concludes that the issue was Jesus' humanitarianism versus the inflexibility on the part of the Pharisees to bend the Law in the face of human need or suffering. But according to Mishnah, the rubic on Sabbath healing is "whenever there is doubt whether life is in danger, this overrides the Sabbath" (Yoma 8:6) The discussion shows how very lenient was the interpretation of "doubt" including ravenous hunger, a sore throat, or a pregnant woman's craving for food." (Salmon, Marilyn J. Preaching Without Contempt: Overcoming Unintended Anti-Judaism Fortress Press 2006 p. 90)

"The case is more dubious for Matthew, a gospel which is commonly dated in the 80's or 90's at a time when the Pharisees appear to have risen in prominence and power (though to what extent remains debatable), and a time when the relationship between Jews and Jewish Christians collapsed. That late first-century setting provides a possible Sitz im Leben for Matthew's gospel, which suggest to many scholars that rather than providing historical information about the Pharisees of Second Temple Judaism, Matthew's portrayal of the Pharisees is really a representation of the Jewish leadership toward the end of the first century." (Neusner, Jacob; Chilton, Bruce In Quest of the Historical Pharisees Baylor University Press 2007 p. 67)

True dat, but regardless, JWs see the Pharisees as the "bad guys" and hence use the word as a pejorative (just as Jesus did).

There is a pretty strong case to be made that Jesus of the Bible was a Pharisee himself. Some of the criticisms that are aimed at him by Pharisees don't make much sense otherwise.
adamah

Adam said- I'm aware of the issue, and fully admit it's an over-simplification. However, I'm not writing a treatise on the evolution of Hebraic thought on Sabbath policy...

TD said- That's a fair point. Converting the nominitive term, 'Pharisee' into the adjective 'Pharisaical' is one of the anti-semtic trappings of fundamentalist Christainity that anyone capable of writing a treatise on halachic thought should avoid at all costs.

Thanks, and when/if I care to write such a treatise, I'll keep it in mind. But as I explained above, I'm writing for JWs, who consider themselves Xians, and the usage is common in Christianity (which kinda goes back to the irony of JWs understanding Acts 15 as an attempt not to stumble Jewish Xians in the 1st Century, but not realizing how the same scripture used in the 20th Century would only have the paradoxical effect by placing the desire to follow the actual words found in Acts 15 above even the original intent of the scripture).

Adam said- But certainly Jesus words could be seen as speaking to the controversy, where the influence of Xianity had at least SOME effect on Pharasiacal policy (or, the words were written afterwards, thus making Jesus look like the genius).

TD said- If I understand what you're saying here, Adam, you believe that it's possible that Jesus of the Bible had a moderating influence on Phariseeism (?) I think your second possibility here is more likely.

Not quite: I believe Xians commonly believe Jesus' teachings had a moderating influence on Judaism after his death. My personal beliefs have nothing to do with it (note that I'm an atheist).

TD said- This is how Jewish scholars would probably respond:

"The Pharisees never included healing in their list of activities forbidden on the Sabbath; and Jesus’ methods of healing did not involve any of the activities that were forbidden.

That's a questionable claim, considering that eg John 9 contains Jesus' method of curing blindness by 'kneading', i.e. mixing dirt with his saliva (!) and placing the mud poultice into the person's eyes. As you know, making such curative mud-pies on the day of rest is arguably a violation, per oral Pharasaic tradition.

Also don't forget about the incident in John 5, where Jesus cured a lame person on the Sabbath and instructed him to carry his bed home (carrying being a violation of the Sabbath). So while not personally violating the Sabbath, Jesus ordered someone else to do so (and per the account, the Jewish leaders at the time considered it a violation, as well as Jesus' blasphemous talk of referring to God as "his Father").

Adam said- True dat, but regardless, JWs see the Pharisees as the "bad guys" and hence use the word as a pejorative (just as Jesus did).

TD said- There is a pretty strong case to be made that Jesus of the Bible was a Pharisee himself. Some of the criticisms that are aimed at him by Pharisees don't make much sense otherwise.

Sure, but there's an even-stronger case to be made for Jesus having major doctrinal issues with BOTH the Sadducees and Pharisees, so he simply 'cherry-picked' beliefs, and in the process, managed to alienate both (one would almost get the distinct impression that Jesus wasn't a team player? Maybe more of the leader type, and not so much a follower)?

Being neither fish nor fowl, Jesus wasn't exactly welcomed with open arms into either group (and we all know what happened next).

Adam
suavojr

Marking to read later... Thank you very much
TD

Adam,

Thanks, and when/if I care to write such a treatise, I'll keep it in mind. But as I explained above, I'm writing for JWs, who consider themselves Xians, and the usage is common in Christianity....

I understand speaking in a language your audience understands, but seriously; Who would use words like "Hymie", "Kike", or "Hebe" amongst a bunch of rednecks in the deep south just because they're okay with it?

That's a questionable claim, considering that eg John 9 contains Jesus' method of curing blindness by 'kneading', i.e. mixing dirt with his saliva (!) and placing the mud poultice into the person's eyes. As you know, making such curative mud-pies on the day of rest is arguably a violation, per oral Pharasaic tradition.

Blindess would be considered choleh she'ayn bo sakanah, rendering the Sabbath dechuya. It woud be as if the Sabbath did not exist at all in regard to the entire situation, so any and all effort expended directly towards the cure would have been exempt. This would include the preparation of any medicinal concoction, however unorthodox it may be.

Also don't forget about the incident in John 5, where Jesus cured a lame person on the Sabbath and instructed him to carry his bed home (carrying being a violation of the Sabbath). So while not personally violating the Sabbath, Jesus ordered someone else to do so (and per the account, the Jewish leaders at the time considered it a violation...)

In this story, the situational context is a bunch of ill and infirm people congregated around the Bethesda pool waiting for the waters to be disturbed because of the supposed curative qualities during the disturbance. Any and all associated activity including physically carrying a lame person into or out of the water, vacating your place and moving your cot, if it faciliated someone else getting closer to the supposed cure would probably have been exempt. The text says nothing about Pharisees in regard to the allegation, it simply says, Jews. This is the type of question that would have been brought before a Rabbi for resolution.

Sure, but there's an even-stronger case to be made for Jesus having major doctrinal issues with BOTH the Sadducees and Pharisees, so he simply 'cherry-picked' beliefs, and in the process, managed to alienate both (one would almost get the distinct impression that Jesus wasn't a team player? Maybe more of the leader type, and not so much a follower)?

Even stronger? How so?

In Jesus’ discussions with the Sadducees, it is obvious that he had a lot of serious doctrinal problems with them including the existence of angels and demons, the resurrection, judgment on the last day, the coming of a Messiah, and the necessity for preserving and keeping the Law.

However throughout the gospel accounts, Jesus is close to the Pharisees. One of the more striking examples is that while the Pharisees were forbidden to dine with anyone outside of their order, (cf. Berakot 43b) the Lukan account holds that on several occasions Jesus was extended (And accepted) the dinner invitations of Pharisees. (7:36; 11:37; 14:1) Another is that it was the Pharisees (Who according to Christians, all wanted Jesus dead) who warned him of Herod's intent to kill him (13:31; cf. Acts 5:34).

Jesus has other friendly contact with Pharisees as well. (Mark 12:28-34) Also among the Pharisees were some who admired and respected Jesus. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, who become followers of Jesus, were almost certainly Pharisees and a number of other early converts to Christianity were definitely Pharisees. (John 3:1; 7:50;: 19:38,39) In the early years of Christianity, the boundary between Christian and Pharisee appears to have been permeable. (Acts 15:5)

Like the Pharisees, Jesus held himself apart from non-Jews, referring to them as swine or dogs. (Matthew 7:6;15:26; Mark 7:27) He exhibits a knowledge of both written and oral law (Idiosyncratic to Pharisaism as opposed to Sadducism and Essenism) and appears to accept as binding, at least some of the requirements of the latter. (i.e. Rulings that can't be found anywhere in the Torah or Tanakh --Matthew 12:5; 24:20; 23:16) He holds an almost fanantical devotion to the Torah, declaring in Matthew that:

"..whoever goes against the smallest of the laws of Moses, teaching men to do the same, will be named least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who keeps the Law of Moses, teaching others to keep them, will be named great in the kingdom of heaven." (5:19)

He repeatedly affirmed the Pharisee doctrine of the resurrection of the body and the eternal life of the soul. Normative Pharisee teachings are echoed again and again in his words. Phrases such as "No one can serve two masters," "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s," and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" are all directly traceable to Pharisaism.

I honestly can't think of similar ties between the Biblical Jesus and any of the other Jewish factions at the time.

The only real difference Jesus appears to have with some of the Pharisees, is in matters of how the Law should be kept. And in reading those stories, I think Christians often fail to grasp Jewish culture and how much we enjoy a robust discussion (Not so very different than what we have here) and how rich the polemic can get.

At any rate, I do appreciate the opportunity, as an 'unbelieving' Jewish spouse of a JW to vent a little bit.
nonjwspouse

when oa search of birdwoman2 postings on yuku.com exjehovahs withness commuity you will find how she has done/still doing extensive research into the blood issue and even working on leads she is finding on the dates of the patent for the cell saver machine, who the patent was aquired by, and the timing of the "no blood" policy. In effect creating a logical reason for the ban on transfusious creating a ready and willing test population for using this cell saver machine.

She has come across some prettty darn good info for an arguement that this could be a valid part of this blood ban becoming a disfellowshipping offense.
adamah

TD said- I understand speaking in a language your audience understands, but seriously; Who would use words like "Hymie", "Kike", or "Hebe" amongst a bunch of rednecks in the deep south just because they're okay with it?

You're not creating a false equivalency here, claiming the term 'Phariasical' is offensive, but then claiming terms like 'Pharisaic' or 'Pharisaism' (which you use) is NOT?

Not only that, but you're then comparing words containing 'Phara-xxx' to those that clearly ARE intended to be derogatory terms (eg Kike)?

Well, you'd better notify these folks, for one:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pharisaical

phar·i·sa·ic (fr-sk) also phar·i·sa·i·cal (-s-kl)

adj.

1. Pharisaic also Pharisaical Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Pharisees.
2. Hypocritically self-righteous and condemnatory.

Here's the definition of pharisaism:

phar·i·sa·ism (fr-s-zm) also phar·i·see·ism (-s-zm)

n.1. Pharisaism also Phariseeism The doctrines and practices of the Pharisees.
2. Hypocritical observance of the letter of religious or moral law without regard for the spirit; sanctimoniousness.

It seems you may have a problem with ANY word that contains, 'pharis-xxx' (including Pharisee), which has become forever associated with hypocrisy and sanctimony as the 2nd definition (at least, in the minds of many Xians). Like it or not, that's standard usage in English language, largely thanks to the NT's frequent citing of Jesus' famous denounciation of the Pharisees as "brood of vipers", and the ever-popular, "woe to you scribes and Pharisees!".

I'd think Jesus' denounciation defines the cult of the Pharisees in the minds of many Xians, in ANY PERMUTATION in which it appears (where most Xians wouldn't be able to identify anything about their beliefs of the Pharisees, or explain what role they played in Hebrew society, etc; they only know that Jesus said they were 'bad and evil men').

TD said- Blindess would be considered choleh she'ayn bo sakanah, rendering the Sabbath dechuya. It woud be as if the Sabbath did not exist at all in regard to the entire situation, so any and all effort expended directly towards the cure would have been exempt. This would include the preparation of any medicinal concoction, however unorthodox it may be.

As tempting it is to engage in a discussion and re-litigate a fictionalized account of a legend from 2,000 yrs ago (!), I respectfully decline (I'm a tad preoccupied engaging in an on-line argument elsewhere over whom the eldest being in the LOTR's Middle Earth is: Tom Bombadil or Treebeard!).

I'm looking at this issue in the context of blood transfusion policy TODAY, and what the NT account itself says: Jews (in some cases, the Jewish leadership) felt it was a violation of the Sabbath, and we all know what happened at the end. Anyone who feels there was an error made in the NT can submit their complaint(s) to the author(s) of the specific gospel(s) or the CEO (Jehovah), and perhaps the long-dead authors will issue a retraction and/or apology and the WTBTS will include it in an update of their inevitable Newer Newest Revision of the New World Translation.

TD said- And in reading those stories, I think Christians often fail to grasp Jewish culture and how much we enjoy a robust discussion (Not so very different than what we have here) and how rich the polemic can get.

Yup, which reinforces the point of JWs missing the whole point of Acts 15 by refusing blood transfusions some 1,900 yrs PAST the point when it arguably could have been effective for not stumbling Jewish Xians and/or "interested ones" of Jewish faith (that is, IF blood transfusions existed 1,900 yrs ago). Obviously it's anachronistic and pointless to argue for WHY they should not accept BT BEFORE they were invented yet, but it's relevant to argue against the policy NOW, since JWs DO die for the policy.

TD said- At any rate, I do appreciate the opportunity, as an 'unbelieving' Jewish spouse of a JW to vent a little bit.

Thanks for venting and all the BTT's.

BTW, here's an image I ran across recently which I'd say is a real eye-brow raiser as an example of continuing Xian anti-Semitism, depicting the Devil in one panel (with arched eyebrows and large nose), and showing an image of a Jew in the next, as if the juxtaposition is accidental:

http://chick.com/reading/tracts/1073/1073_01.asp

Adam
TD

Adam,

You're not creating a false equivalency here, claiming the term 'Phariasical' is offensive, but then claiming terms like 'Pharisaic' or 'Pharisaism' (which you use) is NOT?

Not at all. There is a difference in language between nouns and the adjectives that spring from them. There is a difference between naming various races, ethnicities and religions in the nominative case and attributing attitudes and characteristics to them.

The two adjectival forms, (i.e. Pharisaical, Pharisaic) are pejoratives in modern English when they describe anything other than the existence of a Jewish group by that name.

Your statement below is not simply an oversimplification; it is both incorrect and offensive. --Incorrect because abrogation and suspension of the Sabbath predate Jesus of the Bible considerably and offensive because the usage of pharisaical is most clear when it describes an inflexible, heartless policy. --All the more so when that attitude it is attributed to all of Judaism.

Jesus actually had the effect of changing Judaism's Pharasical policies after his death, when Judaism finally admitted that saving a life was a valid reason to violate Sabbath.
Finkelstein

Things became more definite in 1948:

"According to God's law, humans are not to take into their system the blood of others. In addition to the danger of disobeying God's law, blood transfusion involves health hazards." (Awake! 1948 October 22 p.12)

The WTS. men superimposed their own laws as if it was god's law laid out in scripture, not surprising really

when considering that they self proclaimed themselves as god's earthly mouthpiece.

This old Hebraic law was established solely as a dietary law and is still practiced today in Kosher meat preparations.

When ignorant men take it upon themselves as being spirit directed servants of god solely within themselves,

there's going to be inherently occurring problems coming from that imaginative aspiration.

How the blood doctrine developed - one of the best descriptions I've seen...

Share this