Month: May 2018

The overlap of Judaism and Christianity begin from their sharing of the same holy text: the Old Testament. Interestingly, while the two religions use the same scribe as the basis of their respective faiths, they differ vastly in their understandings and analyses of the book. While the Jews claim significance in the disparate, explicitly written commandments of the Bible, the Christians extrapolate from their interpretations of the narratives in the text. This contrast leads to two distinct belief systems that monitor modern biomedicine and assisted reproductive technology (ART) in starkly dissimilar ways. I will explore Genesis, the first book of the Old Testament, to display the different interpretations from both religions and their definitions of kinship and human reproduction.

Genesis 1 tells the story of the beginning of life – as God created the world, He made man and woman, blessing them to “be fruitful and multiply.” The Jewish take this commandment literally – they believe that this is an obligation given to males, and, with the new opportunities provided by reproductive technology, even infertile couples have a chance at fulfilling this mandate. Thus, Israelis have eagerly accepted IVF as a method of procreation, and in fact, every Israeli is allowed unlimited trials at IVF before the birth of two children. The clinics, in which IVF takes place, are rampant in Israel, the most concentrated per capita than any other country, and they are described to be very personal settings, with transparency between the donors and acceptors. Homosexual couples are also accepted to perform IVF because marital status is unquestioned, which leads to their status of being parents to trump that of their sexualities.

This has led to a new definition for a Jewish family – not one consisting merely of heterosexual birth parents and children, but a term called fictive kinship, or the lack of association with genetic relationship and kin. According to Kahn, however, a Jewish child can only be born from a Jewish womb, which permits sperm donations but not eggs. In fact, it is considered Hebrew thought that the birth parents should be those who raise the child; but Jewish law and Hebrew thought are discrete entities. This distinction between Hebrew thought and Jewish law grant Jews the liberty to rely on assisted reproductive technology when necessary. Kahn describes a Jewish baby’s IVF birth from a virgin woman as “remarkable” – a clear indication of the support for ART within the Jewish community.

These standards of Judaism are vastly different from those of Christianity, which promotes continuity through blood. This belief of kinship stems from the relationship of Adam and Eve in Genesis, a monogamous, heterosexual, procreative marriage. As Christians tend to interpret the Bible with what is stated from the narratives, the bond between Adam and Eve is a reflection of what a marriage is defined as – leading to the creation of a family unit with procreation in the same way that was performed by the two. However, the same line in Genesis 1:28, “be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it” is not taken literally within the Christian community as it is for the Jewish. In fact, the Pope and the figures of the Catholic Church all practice abstinence, which is directly against the commandment of procreation. Even in Genesis 2, God states, “It is not good for the man to be alone” – yet the heads of the Catholic Church are unmarried. There is a clear difference in how the Catholics interpret Genesis from the Jews.

Likewise to the first couple, human procreation is believed to be the highest gift from God; children, like Adam, should be created in the “image” of their parents, as God created Adam in his “image” (Genesis 1:27 New International Version). Due to the honor associated with a child, human life should be respected from conception, and anything that disrupts this process, such as frozen embryos, is condemned. In addition, children are granted the respect to be raised with their birth parents, which prevents the church’s approval of surrogacy and heterologous IVF, which involves a third party’s donation of sperm or egg. In fact, out of all of the reproductive technologies, the only one that is allowed is homologous IVF, in which the gametes come from the parents who are to raise the child.

These Christian ideologies stem from the significance of the conjugal act that initiates conception; because assisted reproduction is withdrawing of this performance, children born this way are viewed as deprived of the value of body language. This body language stems from the story of how Eve as created: “that is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). This act of becoming “one flesh” is the equivalent as a prerequisite of marriage, kinship, and reproduction. ART also grants power to biology, doctors, and researchers in the creation of life – this strays from the principles that destiny is left to God, who, according to Genesis, created everything. Thus, based on the interpretations of the cosmology of this religion, kinship must be through consanguine relations or through marriage, and children should be raised by their birth parents that must be in the same type of relationship as of Adam and Eve.

Another example of a disparity in interpretation of the same Biblical text lies in the story of Sarah and Abraham: Sarah, the wife of Abraham, asked her servant to be the surrogate of her child. This relationship resulted with Sarah growing jealous of her servant and the attention her husband gave her. While Christians interpret this narrative as an implication that surrogacy is against God’s will, Jews see the surrogacy as an opportunity, a blessing that Sarah gave to her servant to fulfill the prophecy of fruitfulness.

However, there are some sources for the contrasting ideals of Christianity and Judaism besides the first two chapters of Genesis. In a sociological context, the Jewish seek to increase their birth rates, stemming from “pro-natalism” by the post-Holocaust Jews or the increase in that of Arabs (Seeman, 2010, p. 350). In addition, as the Jews believe in their right to the “holy land” promised to Abraham, they further promote their beliefs in reproduction. In the Bible, Abraham gifted as many children as the stars in the sky, and this grant supplements their ideas. Thus, through a combination of both social and religious factors, the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament may naturally favor the reproductive technologies that aid them to fulfill their obligation to procreate.

In addition, it is possible that the reason for IVF acceptance in Judaism is due to the purity that can be associated with it. For a female to carry a child yet remain a virgin is exactly how Jesus, the figurehead of Christianity, came to be – this is also where Christianity and Judaism diverge. Because Christianity believes that Jesus was conceived as a gift from God through Virgin Mary, it is possible that their strict discipline against a potential for this form of reproduction stems from the similarity it holds to the story of Virgin Mary. It would be contradictory to promote this form of conception for any Christian female when it holds such parallel to the story that is the basis of their religion.

From an objective viewpoint, Genesis may simply be a story of how the world came to be. It tells the tale of how God created light and darkness, the heavens and the earth, the animals and first humans, and it displays a heterosexual marriage that was achieved by images of God. Yet from an ethnographic perspective, it can be further analyzed – as the Bible comes in various translations, each word holds a different connotation, an emphasis on different aspects of the cosmology, and an ethnographer can link how syntax plays a role in the foundation of an entire belief system. Thus, moral questions can be answered through the lenses of various religions because of how these faiths interpret the text, which can lead to differing outcomes, approvals, and prohibitions when technological advancements are made. Ultimately, the power is up to the individual to decide how they seek their values.

 

Citations

 

 

Kahn, S. M. (2000). Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel. Durham: Duke University Press.

 

Seeman, D. (2010). Kin, Gene, Community: Reproductive Technologies among Jewish Israelis (Vol. 19). New York: Berghahn Books. Retrieved from https://reserves.library.emory.edu/Shib/ares.dll?Action=10&Type=10&Value=447785.

 

Shannon, T. A., & Cahill, L. S. (1988). Religion and artificial reproduction: An inquiry into the Vatican “Instruction on respect for human life in its origin and on the dignity of human reproduction”. New York: Crossroad.

 

The first two chapters of Genesis focus a great deal on human reproduction and kinship. Foremost, the first chapter of Genesis emphasizes the idea than humankind was created from “His image” (1:27). Thus, all human reproduction is the replication of what God imagined it to be at the time of all creation. Moreover, God expects that humans be “fruitful”. They should reproduce and “have dominion” over all other forms of life (1:28). Through reproduction, it is expected the human population has a certain degree of dominance that will allow them to achieve legitimate leadership over other forms of life such as, but not limited to, fish and birds. With the use of the word ‘fruitful’, it is also implied that God believes humans would be beneficial, or helpful to society, if they reproduce. In other words, God focuses on human reproduction as a responsibility to the betterment of society. From the specific use of male and female throughout both chapters, I inferred that God imagined all people are born as either male or female. There are no other genders or sexualities that are reproduced. Additionally, I found it conflicting that chapter one implies male and female were created simultaneously as it states, “…male and female he created them” (1:27). On the other hand, chapter two implies that female came from male as the chapter cites, “…this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken” (2:23). Overall, while God emphasizes the value of reproduction, his view conflicts when considering the specifics of reproduction such as gender. In relation to kinship, chapter two specifically cites the relationship between both male and female: “And therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (2:24). I found this surprising in a cultural context because in most societies it is viewed that the wife is leaving her family to join her husband’s family. The idea that God inferred the opposite was an idea that I specifically noticed when reading the chapter.

The relationship between Jewish and Christian interpretations of the Genesis chapters is explained dominantly through the understanding of reproduction. As Dr. Seeman explained in his work, “Ethnography, Exegesis and Jewish Ethical Reflection: The New Reproductive Technologies in Israel”, a central idea of Genesis is emphasizing the need to “bring forth children from childlessness by almost any means” (Seeman 1998). That drive to no longer be childless for a man and a woman is one that is interpreted differently in Jewish and Christian cultures. In Judaism, the Genesis content is considered a command. By remaining childless, a couple is breaking the religious law. The interpretation of a command came from the fact that Hebrew has command forms for verbs. Because the original text was written in command form, it is interpreted that Jews must bear children. As a result, they must also get married as marriage is a prerequisite to children. On the contrary, the Catholic Church interprets the Genesis as describing children as a blessing. God allows people to enjoy blessings when he chooses to give them. But it is not mandatory in the eyes of Christianity; it is merely a suggestion. One of the most fundamental examples of this controversial interpretation of the same text is that religious folk, who identify as Jewish, tend to be married with multiple children while religious leaders, who identify as Christian, tend to remain unmarried and celibate.

While the translation of Genesis language most definitely plays a key role in differences between Jewish and Christian practices, it is also likely that cultural practices have enforced these differences. Ranging from kosher meals to church practices and international dominance of both cultures, it is important to understand that there are several variables at play. Regions of the world like Israel vary significantly from regions like Western Europe. The lifestyle of both nations is extremely different. As Dr. Seeman had explained in a prior lecture, in one trip to Israel he thought the family he was speaking to was referring to a blood-related brother but they were actually speaking of a non-relative. Who one identifies as family and how one chooses to interact with others is just one example of a cultural difference that influences religious differences. On a fundamental level, Jews and Christians view God differently. Jews see God as a commander and someone to abide by while Christians view God as a mentor and someone to take suggestions from. Ultimately, this difference in perspective explains the differences between both religions and how they are practiced.

The aforementioned incident that Dr. Seeman experienced is the perfect example of the value of ethnography. Understanding cultural contexts, that vary in each society and are not limited to just one religion, indicates the value of interpretation that ethnography-based experiences allow for. The implementation of each religious text in someones everyday life cannot be interpreted from just reading the text. Furthermore, modern-day application of all religious texts would be significantly different from the traditionally understood methods. As a whole, involvement and understanding of the meaning of religious texts can only come through ‘hands-on’ experience.

In the first two chapters of Genesis, ideas of kinship of human reproduction are mentioned and explored. In the first chapter, God tells the humans to, “be fruitful and multiply,” (Gn 1:28) and that they will have dominion over all the earth. This command is fulfilled in the ideals of a traditional marriage, including the goal of procreation, which is mentioned in Professor Seeman’s article on reproductive technologies in Israel. In the second chapter of Genesis, God creates a woman from the rib of the man after being unable to find him a suitable partner in the animals already created. The man says, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken” (Gn 2:23). These quotes provide a very interesting idea of kinship, that a man and woman united and marriage become one flesh with an inseparable bond. From this account, affinal kinship (that of a man and woman bonded through marriage) is very highly valued.

The Christian use of the book of Genesis explains the seemingly strict views on procreation that is mentioned above. A Jewish interpretation of the book of Genesis, then, looks more towards a literal and legal translation. Also in Professor Seeman’s article on reproductive technologies in Israel, he states, “Unlike Jewish writers, Catholic and Protestant writers who use the Bible tend to focus on what can be derived from narrative rather than legal portions of the biblical text” (Seeman 348). This is an interesting contrast because as mentioned earlier, the first two chapters of the book of Genesis focus on the affinal relationship between a man and woman. This concept intertwines the legal interpretations customary in Jewish culture in that the man and woman are not related through genetics but are still considered kin, while also relying on the narrative of the creation of man and woman prevalent in Christian values. In my understanding, a Jewish viewing of Genesis focuses on the limiting nature of these chapters, while a Christian interpretation is more open-ended (Seeman 349). Besides varying readings of the book of Genesis, varying life experiences and values may account for different interpretations of the same book.

In an ethnographic approach compared to an approach based on the reading of religious texts, the experience gained from participant observation is highly valued. It is one thing to study the text, but it is another thing to be in the field and to apply these lessons to situations that happen in everyday life. A compromise of this situation would be to plant roots in the text but adapt to real-life experiences that put to test the religious values. Even though there are varying interpretations of the book of Genesis in Christian and Jewish religions, they prove to be important in ethical and moral dilemmas.

Citations:

Don Seeman, “Ethnography, Exegesis and Jewish Ethical Reflection: The New Reproductive Technologies in Israel.” In Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli and Yoram S. Carmeli editors, Kin, Gene, Community: Reproductive Technologies Among Jewish Israelis (Berghahn Books, 2010), pp. 340-362.

The Bible. Authorized King James Version, Oxford UP, 1998.

The first two chapters of Genesis tell us of an origin story in which God speaks the world, facets of the world and humanity into existence. The Jewish and Christian uses of Genesis differ in that the Christian view found the most appropriate, holy, ideal form in celibacy, while the Jewish would encourage even their most celebrated Rabbi to ultimately marry and have children as was his calling. The Jewish took the instruction to procreate as obligatory – a man must marry and have children. To not pursue a family is a sin, to turn his back on a blessing. They felt to be fruitful was a conquest that must be pursued (albeit non-obligatory for women – a command for men explicitly written) and that it is “not good to be alone”, as written in chapter II. Christians feel that family is something to be pursued but, again, the most desired form would be found in a position in which one serves his holiness and is celibate, therefore placing less value on the family there (which should only be obtained through homologous relations). The Jewish use Genesis, expressly the commands to “Be fruitful and increase in number [and to] fill the earth and subdue it” to encourage and defend their understanding that all men are to not only marry (in classical times, men could even be forced to marry – this obligation to marry and have children could even transcend the marriage itself; a man would be, if no children were to be seen or made, obliged to leave the marriage and seek out a new, potentially fruitful union) but certainly produce children, namely ones who could also reproduce sometime, and also to encourage and press the need for a family. Christians took this more lightly in that they use it to back up the declaration of kinship as a wonderful gift which can sometimes be enjoyed (if either party is sterile, that sucks as far as church-approved methods of conceiving go) rather than a commandment to spawn (though if nothing should interfere with conception, sex would in theory result in a child that would by no means not be delivered) and also as a declaration of woman necessary as a helper, even subservient to man based on the party in question and the translation they are “acting” on. Likewise, Jewish interpretation and following of this command would not look to limit possibilities through which babies may be achieved, and this can be seen in Jewish leniency with alternative modes of conception – to be childless is not something one must live with in a world with solutions and technologies so readily available. The importance of family can be seen, too in, in the deeming of all children as legitimate regardless of alternative conception methods and reproductive technologies among several Jewish groups. As people and all parties do, using specific parts of whatever translation of the text to push the desired agenda is a reason other than literal different readings of the text that can account for differences in both perpetuating of the supposed word and following of it amidst certain populations. Regardless, it seems to be affirmed that Genesis declares of God his sovereignty, the goodness of creation and brings to note the honored status of humankind as his image bearers. In both Christian and Jewish views, children are to be born in his image and the family is a stressed (albeit differently and to differing degrees) unit from and within which children are received, man is given company and into which his being is funneled after leaving the family unit in which he is a child – man and wife “become one flesh” and embark together. An ethnographic approach adds the acknowledgement and welcoming of other interpretations as equally plausible rather than basing interpretations as anything other than such and designating them right/wrong – if one simply takes an initial read or the version they have sought as the original intent, they are failing to realize the true nature of the text, which is in and of itself a translation/interpretation of a translation/interpretation of a translation/interpretation, so on it goes. Interpreters make decisions, always, and these decisions can influence the flesh of a text.

I have noticed other posts reflect less specifically on Genesis and more on the other sources, but I am going to submit this initial blog post and will update it after 1) finishing Reproducing Jews (now) and 2) class to clarify. Thanks!

According to the verse 1:27, humankind is introduced as an image of God and in the next verse reproduction is addressed. It is stated in verse 1:28, “God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth,” this demonstrates that God in a way has instructed humankind to reproduce since they are unique in relation to other living things. The usage of the word “blessed” showcases that reproduction and perhaps having kin is a blessing from God and a gift. This gift of life may also be more of a blessing since the two verses (1:27 and 1:28) highlight that humankind differs from other living things since having sovereignty and control over other living things is stated. Continuing in the second chapter, the notion of reproduction becomes more detailed as the story of Adam and his rib being used to create Eve is stated here. “And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man,” through this linear notion of creation, human reproduction is acknowledged again. Verses 2:23 and 2:24 showcase the strength of kinship by using words lie “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” and introducing familial lineage by using father, mother, wife and saying that they all become one flesh. This shows that kinship is valued and there is a sense of importance placed on lineage and family relations.

When looking at the language and differences of interpretation used with these verses, however, differences in the Jewish and Christian uses of Genesis arise. For instance, in verse 1:28, Judaism views “Be fruitful and multiply” as a commandment. We discussed in class how not reproducing would in sense be a sin since it essentially going against a commandment of God. This simple understanding of the interpretation has shifted and heavily influenced how human reproduction, kinship, and fertility are valued in Jewish communities as a whole. This approach to human reproduction has shaped how the Jewish community is more favorable towards alternative reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization (Seeman 346). Additionally, just looking at the fact that Israel has the highest Jewish population and is also leading in IVF technologies by supplying the highest amount of IVF clinics just demonstrates how that biblical ideology has manifested into modern practice. However, the idea of kinship and marriage has deviated from traditional interpretation despite the concept of reproducing still remaining central. In Susan Kahn’s work Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel, the stories of the women showcases that varying idea of kinship. These women are all single and would like to have kids enforcing the fact there is no need for marriage especially with the existing technologies in order to have a child. In fact, the idea of having a child seems to be embedded in what is expected in marriage as one woman tells the story of how she found out her husband was infertile and divorced him a few years later (Kahn 11). Although it doesn’t explicitly say that was her motivation for divorcing him, it is implied and this showcases that was a large factor in her decision.

As for the Christian usage of Genesis specifically within the first two chapters, the same verse (1:28) is interpreted as a sense of encouragement but not a mandate. Human reproduction and a child is seen as a gift and blessing, but not a mandatory practice. Since the language “gift” and “blessing” is used (157), that in a sense hints at selectivity since a gift is not meant for everyone and something is no longer a blessing if it is granted to everyone. In class, we discussed how purity and celibacy are valued more, especially in the Catholic church. Additionally, the Catholic church is not as supportive of alternative measures for reproduction as Judaism is, which is apparent in the Donum Vitae. There is a sense of apprehension over the use of science and technology when interfering with human reproduction as stated, “science and technology are valuable resources for man…but they cannot themselves show the meaning of existence and human progress.” When it comes to specific artificial reproduction technologies, the Catholic church prohibits all practices except for homologous in vitro fertilization since other practices such as heterologous IVF is seen as “contrary to the unity of marriage, the dignity of spouses & vocation proper to parents.” It appears that there is an emphasis placed on familial ties and ensuring that the child has a family, which I interpreted an emphasis placed on kinship in general. The Donum Vitae also adds that artificial reproduction cannot interfere with the natural process of reproduction and is not meant to be used by single women where they need sperm or egg from an external individual (159).

By looking at the Donum Vitae, the Book of Genesis and from class discussion, I was able to draw conclusions that within the Jewish community there is an emphasis placed on human reproduction and having a child over the unity of marriage and having a traditional family, while the Catholic Church placed an emphasis on maintaining the moral integrity of the child and ensuring that the child is not hurt and has filial relationships with parental origins. Although I understand there are a lot more complexities and nuances to artificial fertilization and how both the Church and Judaism have differing perspectives, I decided to focus on continuing interpretations of the first two chapters of Genesis to align with discussions we had in class on Tuesday.

 

Catholic Church. Congregatio Pro Doctrina Fidei. Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day. Washington, D.C.: Office of and Promotion Services, United States Catholic Conference, 1987. Print.

 

Kahn, Susan Martha. Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel. Durham [N.C.]: Duke UP, 2000. Print. Body, Commodity, Text.

 

Seeman, Don. “Ethnography, Exegesis, and Jewish Ethical Reflection.” Ethnography, Exegesis, and Jewish Ethical Reflection: The New Reproductive Technologies in Israel. 2010. Kin, Gene, Community (2010) 340-362. Print.

       The biblical story of creation is recounted in the first two chapters of its very first book Genesis. This perspective of cosmology introduces ideas of kinship and reproduction that followers of biblically-based religions have interpreted in various manners. When the specific beliefs and understandings of this holy text are applied to the manifestation of moral laws set forth by religious leaders, such as ethical perspectives on in vitro fertilization, surrogacy, and abortion, the discord among spiritual communities becomes more apparent despite their utilization of comparable textual origins. Whether this may be accounted for by the inconsistency of translations, variances in interpretations, or another outlying factors is left to the discretion of the individual, although I will propose support for either explanation later on. Discrepancies and comparisons between the Jewish and Christian faith will be demonstrated throughout this post as well, as an example of two religions with contrasting opinions on ethical values that are positioned from the same text.

       Though ethical perspectives on controversial actions differ, the textual application for understanding ideas of kinship and human reproduction from the first two chapters of Genesis can be described quite literally. For example, God, a religious father figure for both Christians and Jews, “created mankind in his own image…male and female he created them” (New International Version, Gen. 1:27). This verse not only emphasizes the binary system for gender classification but also demonstrates a linkage between mankind and God the Creator. Although the intent is unclear in terms of this image being physical or figurative, many have interpreted this connection with God and mankind’s likeness to be spiritual and internal. The specific differentiation of genders implies that the initial intent for mankind was for sexual relationships to be between man and woman. The book continues by stating God’s command to His people, blessing them and directing them to “be fruitful and increase in number” (Gen. 1:28). The deep, unified connection for kinship between men and women is further elucidated in the second chapter of Genesis where the man’s wife was formed from one of the his ribs, becoming “bone of [his] bones and flesh of [his] flesh” (Gen. 2:23). This exemplifies the biblical proposal of kin relationships as direct and physically connecting, in addition to a spiritual binding through God. Furthermore, the reproductive right is hinted to be a God-granted blessing and command to a relationship between a man and his wife.

       This cosmological story shows the creation of man in God’s image. However, Jewish and Christian interpretation of at what stage this likeness exists is significantly different. In other words, these two religions disagree on the status of a fetus and when it is considered to fully be “the only creature on earth that God has ‘wished for himself’ and the spiritual soul of each man is ‘immediately created’ by God” (“Respect for Human Life” 147). The Catholic church views an embryo as a person with a soul “from the very first instant of his existence,” or from the very moment of conception (148). In contrast, Jewish Israelis show that “fetuses are not commonly represented as babies until much later in pregnancy or even at birth” (Seeman 355). These conflicting interpretations of the beginning of human life come into play when deciding an ethical stance on actions such as abortion and prenatal diagnosis.

       The Jewish faith also differs from the Catholic church in regards to their perspective on surrogacy and in vitro fertilization. The Jewish Israelis’ acceptance to the goals of these modern technologies is apparent through Israel’s recognition as the “first country in the world to legalize surrogate mother agreements” and the fact that  reproductive technologies “are subsidized by Israeli national health insurances” (Kahn 61). Opposing this openness to modern reproductive innovations is the Catholic church’s perspective that surrogacy disrupts the connection “between genetic and gestational parenthood,… between the child and its embodied connection to its heritage,… and between the body and personhood” (Seeman 347). In the Catholic church’s view, the “one flesh” idea introduced in the second book of Genesis requires a connection between all of these stages for a child’s life in the eyes of God. the Catholic church emphasizes the necessity of reproduction to transpire within a marriage between man and wife, thus placing heavy importance on the binary system stated within the first two books of Genesis (“Respect for Human Life” 157). In short, the allowances of the Jewish faith can be somewhat attributed to the faith’s heavy emphasis on the “be fruitful and multiply” command while the Catholic church’s focus on the binary and coupling relationship of Adam and Eve influences their view of current ethical debate.

       In addition to specific textual foci and interpretations, the variance of the Jewish faith could be socially and politically driven. The strong internal desire for Jewish woman to become mothers is encouraged by the culture’s inherent belief “that motherhood is the most primal and natural goal for women” (Kahn 11). This is also exemplified by the public’s sympathy for the case of Ruti Nahmani, which continued to support the religion’s “unquestioned popular belief that childlessness is a pitiable state that must be ‘cured’ by any means necessary’ (69). This belief is sustained by the government’s promotion and support for single mothers and overall reproduction of Jewish children, such as reinforcement through the agreement that unmarried woman can still birth legitimate, full accepted Jewish children (13). Jewish mothers appear to have a dutiful and perhaps coercive attraction towards motherhood through social and political attitudes that have ultimately influenced the social acceptance and even promotion of the issue.

       Furthermore, an ethnographic approach to studying the topics of kinship and procreation would reveal these  underlying beliefs as well. While studying texts will provide fundamental understanding of the population’s ideas and beliefs, the researcher’s understandings of the text are subject to bias as well as varied interpretation. An ethnographic approach, however, will give insight to the perspectives of multiple individuals. It will also provide hints of the sociological and political processes that influence the acceptance or rejection of some of the religion’s beliefs. Through the personal testimonies of participants, one may gain insight to the direct interpretation of a religious follower and will additionally observe other factors that may come into play when determining one’s stance on an issue.

 

Instruction on Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day. Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1987.

Kahn, Susan Martha. Reproducing Jews: a Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel. Duke Univ. Press, 2006.

New International Version. Biblica, 2011.  BibleGateway.com, www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/#booklist.

Seeman, Don. “Ethnography, Exegesis, and Jewish Ethical Reflection: The New Reproductive Technologies in Israel.” Kin, Gene, and Community Reproductive Technologies Among Jewish Israelis, edited by Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli and Yoram S. Carmeli, 2010, pp.340-361.

The first 2 chapters of Genesis depict the procedure that G-d used to create the world, they describe what happened in each day of the 7 days of creation. The concept of creation and production of the ‘own kind’ is introduced in the 3rd day, where it describes “plants each yielding its own kind of seed, and trees each producing its own kind of seed-bearing fruit”. Furthermore, in verse 22 of the 1st chapter, it talks about the reproduction of animals “Be fruitful, multiply and fill the water of the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” However, it does not mention the reproduction of humankind until verse 28 in the first chapter where it commands to “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth…”. The first 2 chapters of Genesis do not yet speak about reproduction as an act of love or affection but merely as a purposeful act, to reproduce and fill the earth. In contrast to humankind’s mission, it describes that animals should fill the water of the seas and birds should multiply on earth, but it does not mention that they should “fill the earth”.
In terms of kinship, I found 2 examples that represent the relationship among the living animals or plants with humankind as well as humankind within itself. First, towards the end of the first chapter, it is mentioned that the humankind should “Rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the air and every living creature that crawls on the earth.”. When I apply today’s definitions and types of kinship it is evident that this relationship is in no way consanguineal nor affinal, but fictive. I determined this is fictive kinship simply because it does not fit into the other 2 groups, in the first 2 chapters of Genesis there is ‘creation’ out of what appears to be nothing, there is no blood relationship between the living things and the is no affinity or situation in which there is a social process to attribute the relationship between all living things. This initial relationship was imposed by G-d and not agreed upon the living creations. However, in the 18th verse of the second chapter, it says that it is not good for the person to be alone, it needs a “companion”, so it created a “woman-person” and brought it to the man. In comparison with the previous kinship example, this can be considered consanguineal relation. It mentions that the “woman-person” was created from the man’s rib, in fact, in the 22nd verse of the second chapter it says that the woman-person is “…flesh from my flesh.”, in relation to the man-person.
The Jewish and the Cristian Genesis is essentially the same. Both faiths believe in one G-d (Genesis 1:1), hold marriage (companionship) as defined by G-d in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 1:27) and have a basis for logic, knowledge, and the truth since we are made in the in the image of a logical, truthful G-d (Genesis 1:26). The differences start showing up when analyzing the uses of the beforementioned text, in Christianity the narrative in the Old Testament is used to describe the text is used to ultimately, in the New Testament, introduce the figure of the ‘son of G-d’ by the name of Jesus (Jesus Christ) as the biggest spiritual representation on earth and expand on all of his teachings and the first-century Christianity. In contrast, in Judaism, Genesis is used as the narrative to explain the creation of the world and everything that came with it, such as animals, plants and then humans as well as to introduce the story of the Jewish people rather than a single personality.
Moreover, the differences are also based on the interpretation of the texts rather than a formal normative dispute. This difference can be evaluated when disputing reproductive systems and considering both perspectives. The ‘Donum Vitae’, considered to be the single most famous Christian statement on reproductive technologies. This text explicitly states the prohibition of any use of reproductive technologies with the seldom exception of homologous artificial insemination (IVF) using only the husband’s sperm. The explanation for the restriction is mostly based upon the reading of Genesis verse 24 in chapter 1 where it says, “in one flesh”, this is interpreted as if any of the reproductive techniques were meant to rupture the traditional or the meant-to-be way of reproducing.
When analyzing the role of reproductive models, there are varied perspectives to be considered. In one side, the Catholic perspective considers the differentiation between the model described in the earlier chapters of Genesis in comparison to the model described when touching upon the biblical families of Abraham and Jacob, the first one described as true. On the other hand, the Jewish perspective is that the reproduction model used by the patriarchs and matriarchs is to be similarly implemented, most times Jewish writers refer to the commandment of “be fruitful and multiply”. Regardless of the method, even if it is homologous or heterologous IVF the person has fulfilled the requirement to reproduce, it is not concerned about the reproductive method used.
In a more general sense, perspectives on Genesis can be developed using 2 interpretations. The first one is the “literally” interpretation which is intended to pursue a straightforward meaning of a verse of a phrase. The second one is the “allegorically” interpretation which is intended to pursue a more thought-out perspective on a verse or a phrase in the Bible. For example, we can evidence this difference in perspectives when looking at the reference to the length of the creation in the first 2 chapters of the Bible. It is said that the world was created in 6 days and then there was an extra day for rest. In a literal interpretation we would not consider the meaning of the words themselves but the world, “should be constituted in accordance with a perfect number, namely six”. However, in an allegorical interpretation, we would consider the meaning of the words in the verse. With this type of interpretation, the meaning of “days” is put into question the metaphysical meaning of what a day is and how it is used in that context. In the Jewish “Understanding of Genesis 1 to 3” by Justin Martin, it says that the term “days” is symbolic rather than literal.
In the same way that the concepts of ‘literal’ and ‘allegorical’ interpretations are applied to the explanation of the Bible, they can be applied to kinship and its respective analysis. In the ‘Donum Vitae,’ there is a vast reference to the concept of family and most times, alongside it, there is a reference to marriage. Its definition is based on the initial framework stated in the “Charter of the Rights of the Family” made only 4 years before the “Donum Vitae”. Without going deep into the charter, in the preamble, the 2nd phrase reads “the family is based on marriage… between a man and a woman…” and then the 3rd phrase reads “marriage is the natural institution to which the mission of transmitting life is exclusively entrusted”. Going back to what Genesis says “be fruitful and multiply” but since it is established ‘literally’ in the charter, the only way of reproducing and transmitting life is marriage and it naturally leads to forming a family. Christianity establishes a very simple and seemingly unobstructed to creating life, leaving out the most form of reproductive systems which are not within marriage. On the opposite hand, in the Jewish perspective, there are 2 different words that are used to symbolize family. The first one is the literal translation of the word ‘family’ to Hebrew (mishpachah) with it is used to describe the larger patriarchal clan including those persons related by blood, marriage, slave ship, and even animals (Exodus 20:10). The second word is referred to in various parts of the Bible, “bayith” or household is also used to refer to kinship in different ways. For example, it represents the clan of descendants or property and people of a determined place or residence on which and on whom one depended. Moreover, in Genesis 7:1 Noah and his household enter the ark, but the concept of household is not limited to just the people that live with him in his physical house, but a larger concept that encompasses the larger clan, the tribe and the nation which, in this case, were descendants of Abraham. In the Jewish interpretation of the concept of family is not a predetermined concept but more of an allegory that can be explained or symbolized in a unique way.
Different faiths are based on beliefs and ideas that satisfy and sometimes take advantage of a population’s lack of understanding of the variety of phenomenon that has occurred and will occur through history. They try to make sense of what seems to be nonsensical or attempt to provide guidelines to live a life that’s ‘good’ or ‘purposeful’. The interpretative differences between Judaism and Christianity are noticeable when analyzing the language and by the way, the messages are conveyed. Both faiths provide guidelines for life, however, the difference arises when these guidelines are interpreted, and their message is preached. Most times, Judaism encourages different interpretations and understandings of the same writings, every year scholarly people of the Tanach go over and study the sacred scripts from top to bottom. This allows a reset of the mind and further compilation of knowledge that can be used to connect the dots in a way that may have never been done before. However, in Christianity, there is no such procedure to further develop understanding. The main method of knowledge impartment is through preaching and persuasion, most times actions are attributed to G-d or Jesus if there is a lack of explanation and the explanations are left to a side. Meanwhile, in Judaism, there might be similar allegations, often there are one or more possible explanations attached to the outcome of a situation. Regardless of their differences, it important to remember that they both come from the same basis. The book of Genesis explains how both of the stories came upon and the narrative changes due to human reasoning and interpretation.

Essentially, human reproduction and kinship varies cross culturally due to various interpretations of religious texts and diverse societal expectations and standards. For instance, in the first two chapters of Genesis,  God creates man “in his own image” (Genesis 1). This phrase can  have multiple interpretations such as humans look like God, humans have rationality like God, or that humans can morally discriminate like God, and different cultures possess various understandings of how humans are in God’s image. Fundamentally, the first two chapters of genesis function as a cosmology, a theory of how elements and aspects in the universe fit together, and this cosmology  exemplifies kinship and marriage values as well as gender roles. In marriage, males should dominate the household to enforce good, and the wife should follow the leadership of the man. Also, the wife and husband relationship is depicted as a union of souls rather than two people making a commitment to one another. In addition, since the woman was the first of the humans to commit a sin, it is also a stepping stone for the male to become the dominant gender in order to subdue his wife’s darkest desires. Moreover, because woman was created from man, it displays and evokes a sense of male dominance. Furthermore, in Genesis, God tells man and woman “to be fruitful and multiply”(Genesis 4). In Jewish tradition, the Rabbi interprets this phrase as humans are obligated to reproduce. However, the Catholic Church believes having children is a privilege not an obligation. Additionally, Catholics follow natural law, which is both an agreement with scripture and an agreement with reasoning, and natural law prompts them to believe that assisted reproductive technology is permissible when it is in the context of a legitimate marriage (marriage recognized by biology and society) and does not allow the third party to intervene with the marriage’s moral and social values. The Catholic church also believes, in respect to natural law, that reproductive technology enables man to dominate the process of procreation, which impels him to surpass the limits of ” reasonable dominion” over nature (Cahill 2). However, natural law in Judaism is much less central than in Catholicism; instead, Judaism abides by positivistic law, which examines loopholes in religious text in order to ensure the well-being and happiness of society. For instance, in Israel, motherhood is believed to be the most primal and natural goal for women, which is why Israel is a pro-natal state and the Israeli government funds access to reproductive technology. Additionally, in Israeli society, most women chose artificial insemination because they believed it was better than having sexual relations with a man, it was less expensive and less complex than adoption, and it presented the opportunity to have one’s own genetic children who are respected in society as ” legitimate, full-fledged Jews” (Kahn 141). In contrast, the Catholic church believes artificial fertilization constitutes a violation of reciprocal commitment of the spouses and it violates the rights of the child by depriving him of his true personal identity and his parents. These differences are partially attributed to specific characteristics and motivations of a society. For example, the majority of Israeli society is secular, and they make decisions and take actions based on what maximizes their happiness rather than what fulfills their religious obligations.  Chiefly, the Catholic church advocates that political authority should guarantee juridical protection to the institution of the nuclear family, which society is based upon. This is quite disparate from how the Israeli government subsides assisted reproductive technology, but these two societies have different goals: The catholic church wants to preserve the foundation of the nuclear family while the Israeli Jews desire to pursue motherhood as it is the most central goal of the country and it is what makes them content. Overall,  human reproduction and kinship varies across cultures due to diverse understandings of religious texts and various societal values and customs.

 

Citations:

Book of Genesis, chapters 1-2 <www.webpages.uidaho.edu/PDF/166/20Genesis.pdf)>.

Donum Vitae In Shanon, Thomas A. and Lisa Sowle Cahill, Religion and Artificial Reproduction: An Inquiry into the Vatican “Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Reproduction.” (Crossroad, 1988).

Susan Martha Kahn, Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel (Duke University Press, 2000).

The first two chapters of Genesis tell us of an origin story in which God speaks the world, facets of the world and humanity into existence. The Jewish and Christian uses of Genesis differ in that the Christian view found the most appropriate, holy, ideal form in celibacy, while the Jewish would encourage even their most celebrated Rabbi to ultimately marry and have children as was his calling. The Jewish took the instruction to procreate as obligatory – a man must marry and have children. To not pursue a family is a sin, to turn his back on a blessing. They felt to be fruitful was a conquest that must be pursued (albeit non-obligatory for women – a command for men explicitly written) and that it is “not good to be alone”, as written in chapter II. Christians feel that family is something to be pursued but, again, the most desired form would be found in a position in which one serves his holiness and is celibate, therefore placing less value on the family there (which should only be obtained through homologous relations). The Jewish use Genesis, expressly the commands to “Be fruitful and increase in number [and to] fill the earth and subdue it” to encourage and defend their understanding that all men are to not only marry (in classical times, men could even be forced to marry – this obligation to marry and have children could even transcend the marriage itself; a man would be, if no children were to be seen or made, obliged to leave the marriage and seek out a new, potentially fruitful union) but certainly produce children, namely ones who could also reproduce sometime, and also to encourage and press the need for a family. Christians took this more lightly in that they use it to back up the declaration of kinship as a wonderful gift which can sometimes be enjoyed (if either party is sterile, that sucks as far as church-approved methods of conceiving go) rather than a commandment to spawn (though if nothing should interfere with conception, sex would in theory result in a child that would by no means not be delivered) and also as a declaration of woman necessary as a helper, even subservient to man based on the party in question and the translation they are “acting” on. As people and all parties do, using specific parts of whatever translation of the text to push the desired agenda is a reason other than literal different readings of the text that can account for differences in both perpetuating of the supposed word and following of it amidst certain populations. Regardless, it seems to be affirmed that Genesis declares of God his sovereignty, the goodness of creation and brings to note the honored status of humankind as his image bearers. In both Christian and Jewish views, children are to be born in his image and the family is a stressed (albeit differently and to differing degrees) unit from and within which children are received, man is given company and into which his being is funneled after leaving the family unit in which he is a child – man and wife “become one flesh” and embark together. An ethnographic approach adds the acknowledgement and welcoming of other interpretations as equally plausible rather than basing interpretations as anything other than such and designating them right/wrong – if one simply takes an initial read or the version they have sought as the original intent, they are failing to realize the true nature of the text, which is in and of itself a translation/interpretation of a translation/interpretation of a translation/interpretation, so on it goes. Interpreters make decisions, always, and these decisions can influence the flesh of a text.