Category: Uncategorized

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 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.

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.

 

Examining Religious and Ethnographic Interpretation of Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Jewish and Christian Societies.

Human reproduction centers Jewish and Christian ideologies in the religion sphere and helps construct the concept of kinship and societal relations, as seen by examining the Book of Genesis. In chapter 1 of the Book of Genesis, God creates male and female (1:27), to who he “blesses” with the goal of reproduction, or so it is interpreted. When God blessed them in 1:22 to be “fruitful and multiply…”, the process of reproduction comes to light as a way to not only sustain the human population, but to carry on the words of God. God blessed them to give them a productive free will, one that will be used to make the right decision toward furthering the human race. 1:27 looks at this concept, of “So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” The term image can be interpreted diversely, as it could mean that humans take a quite physical image or at least similarity to the entity of God. Or the image could encompass how humans and God share an immortal soul that is far different from any other of God’s creations. The interpretation that seems to fit is the ability to morally discriminate between two choices. God created humans to “take dominion…” (1:26) over all creatures because he gave humans the very capability that he possesses in order to sustain his own unique creations.

How does reproduction play a role in these comparisons? Reproduction takes one of the central roles in this chapter knowing what God’s intent of creating humankind was. The whole purpose of the chapter was to create humankind and give them the ultimate power: to reproduce in his sacred image. This can be interpreted as reproduction causes the lineage of God to be carried, or moral discrimination to be upheld in human society. The view of human reproduction being highlighted is 1:28 shows that God said “”Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it,” which can be applied to the importance of reproduction as it is taken as God’s commandment which must be fulfilled through marriage. The end of chapter 2 signals how God made woman from, “[2:22] had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. [2:23] Then the man said, ‘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.’” How God created woman from man portrays the raw, intimate connection that the pair have been given.

Kinship, in the form of marriage, in religious context agrees with this context as marital union is sacred and one of the most important concepts in religion. A man was not complete by himself, he needed “a helper as his partner (2:18),” and after a woman from his flesh was created, he was complete. An interpretation of why God didn’t want man to be alone could be the birth of the concept of kinship. God creates a companion for man, a woman, for the rest of his life and to reproduce. A family is born. Kinship is created not only for the sole purpose of reproduction, but also for the diffusion of sorrow, happiness, and thoughts. A single human being has an infinite amount of feelings and thoughts, that kinship in any form, in my opinion, is crucial to the fostering of their growth. Similarly, reproduction is also not for the sole purpose of creating offspring but to create kin. The first two chapters of Genesis lead to how man and woman “become one flesh” (2:24) or join in a sacred act of matrimonial union to serve the needs of each other and to produce kin.

Interpretation of the religious text is critical to differences in understanding and forming opinions about human reproduction. Jewish and Christian interpretations revolve strictly around the commandment of being “fruitful and multiply”, mainly or usually through natural reproduction because marriage is a sacred precedent in both religions. The Christian uses of Genesis are clearly highlighted in Respect for Human Life, as the Congregation  for Doctrine of the Faith provides their opinions, to be taken from authority of the Church, to assistive reproductive technology outside of normal reproduction. Their main position emphasizes that assistive reproductive strategies can only be considered legitimate in the context of a legal marriage and no interference by a third party. For example, if they are unable to conceive naturally, the Church can allow implantation of sperm of husband in the wife, but any procedure that requires sperm or egg from third party or womb is illegitimate. The Congregation uses natural law, as opposed to Jewish Rabbis, to reason how there is agreement with religious scripture and justify religious teaching using rationale and authoritative answers, via the Magisterium. In Judaism, rabbis follow similar reasoning, but use more positivistic laws, as a result of not only religious scriptures, but also cultural ideologies and evolution.

From my understanding and research, most rabbis permit other options to reproduce when natural reproduction does not work. However, some believe similarly as the Church because the usage donor sperm and eggs are usually rejected as they create “halachic problems.” Some rabbis permit the usage of donor eggs as long as the husband gives consent. The problem arises when the identity of mother is decided, because Jewish lineage is passed through the mother. The status, if the genetic mother differs in her identity from the gestational mother, is hard to decipher. In a specific example from “Jewish Medical Ethics: Assisted Reproduction and Judaism,” Dr. Wahrman says that “Rabbi Moshe Heinemann, Rabbinic administrator of Star-K Kosher Certification states unequivocally that if the egg is from a Non-Jewish woman, then the baby is not Jewish. In this very stringent ruling, when a donor egg is used, the birth mother is not considered the halachic mother.” Rabbi Heinemann also stated that “the use of donor sperm was a private matter for the couple to decide, and in certain situations it would be recommended in order to fulfill the first commandment as well as to keep the marriage together.” (Silber 2010) To add, the majority of Jews nowadays accept the use of third party donor gametes due to the pro-natal nature of the state of Israel, as Rabbi Heinemann cites as the reason. The key to truly understanding how unnatural reproduction plays a role in society involves not only religion, but the ethnographic framework of a country or population.

By examining the cultural context of gamete donation and other assisted technologies, we can understand diverse analyses outside of solely relying on religious texts. Susan Kahn, in Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel, takes readers into her life researching and learning about new reproductive technology shaping Jews in Israel and her personal accounts of conducted work. She provides detailed insight of her anthropological work on IVF in Israel. The central importance of reproduction from Judaism is prominent in Jewish culture from how Kahn discusses specific examples and analyzes the Israeli acceptance of newer technologies to help in reproduction. She states how IVF is centralized through the government due to the high importance placed on fertility, in contrast to other countries where reproduction is decentralized, such as the U.S. Conducting research on “unmarried, secular, Jewish American woman without children,” observing fertility clinic activities, and interviewing rabbis on their opinion, Kahn explored the diverse atmosphere of opinions and beliefs about reproduction. Kahn states in her conclusion in chapter 2 that “Within a society where marriage is so deeply entrenched as a religious and divinely inspired institution and where it has been integrated as such into the secular legal foundation of the state, exposing it as a social construct may have particularly profound and subversive implications.” (Kahn 86)

Kahn’s statement constitutes how ethnography and religion are intertwined because extrapolation from religious texts makes up cultural expectations and policy. Moreover, Kahn emphasizes the positivistic outlook that remains in Jewish society, as she states, “From the rabbinic social practice of mining traditional texts for coherent kinship metaphors, to the ongoing efforts of contemporary Israeli Jews, both secular and religious, to make sense of this technology while using it to realize their reproductive futures, there is a range of coexisting kinship ideologies from which to choose in the ongoing cultural effort to reproduce Jews,” (Kahn 174). In conclusion, religious text interpretation establishes concrete context to reproductive importance set in place, but ethnographic context presents societal and adaptive insight to how evolving practices such as reproductive technologies can establish a malleable view on kinship and reproduction in a particular society.

 

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.

Wahrman, Miryam Z. “Jewish Medical Ethics: Assisted Reproduction and Judaism.” Claus Von Stauffenberg, www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/assisted-reproduction-and-judaism.

Silber, Sherman J. “Judaism and Reproductive Technology.” Advances in Pediatrics., U.S. National Library of Medicine, 2010, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3071555/.

For those who believe in a Biblical Cosmological origin story, we can trace the birth of our very existence to the Book of Genesis in the Old Testament, as it hits chapter one, verse 26. It reads, “And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth,” and is followed by verse 27, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God create he him; male and female created he them” (Bible.com). So, what was God’s first commandment to his people? According to this text, it was quite simple – be fruitful, and multiply. God had given us everything from cattle, to birds, etc., even the whole earth, under this one request. By chapter two of Genesis, God has created Adam and a woman (Eve), and offers the following insight to close the chapter: “… shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Bible.com). Objectively speaking, this is just about the entirety of light that is shed on the topic of marriage in these first two chapters of Genesis. The subjective meaning that religious peoples, whether Jewish, Christian, or more, have thereafter interpreted from whatever the original version of this text was intended to convey, has set the stage for each of their modern religious stances on matrimony.

 

As contradictory to the rather indefinite nature of the Old Testament, modern religious tradition regarding marriage and reproduction that has stemmed from Biblical Cosmology is quite contradictory. The most fundamental arguments regarding reproduction and use of modern technology differ nearly completely among two predominant Biblical people, both the Jewish peoples and the Christians (Catholics specific to this blog post). InDonum Vitae, an instruction manual for respect regarding human life through the lens of Catholicism, issued in 1987, there is a clear message against ulterior methods of reproduction beyond the more traditional route. Via interpretation of the Bible, the writers of Donum Vitae interject, “the procreation of a new person, whereby the man and the woman collaborate with the power of the Creator, must be the fruit and the sing of the mutual self-giving of the spouses, of their love and of their fidelity” (Donum Vitae). In italics, the writers further describe the fidelity spoken about as a between the spouses in the unity of marriage, and involving only reciprocal respect of their right to become a father and a mother only through each other.

 

Interestingly enough, Susan Martha Kahn’s book Reproducing Jews, which she wrote in the year 2000,actually offers a contradictory opinion on reproduction, through the lens of Judaism. The interesting twist is apparent – both beliefs are supposedly deduced from the Old Testament. Through ethnographic studies, Kahn concludes that by the Jewish teaching, “… genes are not the determinant of relatedness; nowhere in this belief more in evidence than in the fact that Jews are now deliberately reproduced with non-Jewish genetic material” (Reproducing Jews). By way of this, the focus turns the womb of the mother, and how genetically Jewish the woman might be. From the most basic commandment of “be fruitful and multiply, come two arguments that are rather conflicting.

 

The origin of these differences can be due to the very progression of time itself. According to various accounts, the Old Testament can range back to anywhere close to about 3,000 years ago. Say that is the case – Donum Vitaewas written about 2970 years after the Bible’s conception, with Reproducing Jews13 years behind that. The sheer amount of years that have passed, historical events that have occurred, and change that has progressed the entirety of the human race in that time is unprecedented. Taking this all into consideration, the events that have occurred to the groups we knew to then be the Jewish and Christian peoples are so drastically different, they almost surely prompt entirely different subsets of ideals and interpretations as they are reflected today. This is not even considering the fact that Christianity has yet to be conceived if we are basing our timing on the assumption that the Old Testament was devised Before Christ. Even in the past 2000 years, the number of separate events that have fundamentally defined each group of people are jaw-dropping.

 

If we are talking about Catholicism and Judaism, the dichotomy is simple – each group has split their own way, and created a culture that has nurtured a set of beliefs, separate from each other, which each represent what they believe to be the best fit interpretation of Genesis and the word of God. Any number of events that happened across these group’s timelines could account for interpretations, whether it be as far back as Moses freeing the Israelites from Egypt, or many thousands of years later during the Protestant Reformation, etc. Each group has a unique story that has been uniquely shaped over time due unique circumstances, and each hold a unique view point and set of beliefs based on their own unique justifications.

 

Regarding an ethnographic approach to understanding this discrepancy between religions, one is almost certainly able to better understand a culture by personally delving into its inner workings rather than simply viewing its most basic religious texts. Culture is a summation of many factors, religion included. Understanding religious texts can generate some sort of important understanding of a religious culture, but for it to truly be understood one must involve themselves it in to a further extent. Ethnography can answer the questions that most readings can’t.

Genesis is an important chapter within the Bible. Scholars throughout history have used this chapter as a moral argument for marriage, gender, and even reproduction. With everyone reading one single document, a person could naturally assume that every rational person would come to the same conclusion. However, this notion is false. Many different religions have different outlooks on reproduction and marriage that are based from the very same text. These differences seem to grow much deeper when asking individual members of different religious communities instead of just analyzing what religious leaders suggest that their religious communities should believe. Two of the religions who seem to completely agree on the understanding but somehow manage to disagree on the usage of the Book of Genesis are the Jewish and Christian religions. According to the second chapter of the Book of Genesis, man was created alone and then God decided he needed a partner. In order to fill this void God created woman from the rib of man. It then states that a man will leave his parents and find a wife. When he finds this wife, they will become one flesh. This is usually interpreted to mean that man and woman, when married, become one flesh. From that flesh, new life can be made. In other words, only from marriage can a baby be made. The conflict comes when discussing in what ways a married couple can make a baby. Specifically, when looking at technology in procreation religions have to consider how far is too far when involving technology in procreation. Jewish communities tend to be more supporting of ideas such as surrogacy because it was so prevalent in the bible. According to Don Seeman’s text, Ethnography, Exegesis, and Jewish Ethical Reflection: The New Reproductive Technologies in Israel, “One of the inescapably dominant themes in Genesis is in fact the desperate attempt by both men and women to bring forth children from childlessness by almost any means (Seeman 1998). In Genesis 16, for example, the matriarch Sarah gives her Egyptian servant Hagar to her husband Abraham in what we today would probably call a “traditional surrogacy” arrangement to produce the child that had eluded her.” In fact, Seeman notes that the entire Book of Genesis is saturated with women who were dealing with barrenness and struggles with pregnancy in some way or another. It was very common for wealthier more well-off women to then pay or force their servants to become impregnated by their husbands. The housemaids would then give birth to the child and the women would consider it their own child. This was effectively the earliest version of surrogacy. This was the norm in biblical times and therefore, many Jewish identifying men and women consider surrogacy and assisted birthing methods to be normal. Christianity, and more specifically, Catholicism, have a completely contradictory viewpoint. They believe, as stated by the Donum Vitae in section I Line 22, “The Congregation recalls the teachings found in the Declaration on Procured Abortion: “From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. “. The question for them becomes whether or not technology assisted birth is not normal, but rather whether or not it is morally acceptable or in some way harming or disrespecting this new life. In the eyes of the Catholic church, the only acceptable method is homologous invitro fertilization where the egg is donated from the wife and the sperm is donated from her husband. All other forms of technology assisted birth are immoral. Either the child will be created outside of wedlock which, as stated at the beginning of this post, goes against God’s intentions for the creation of life, or unused embryo which are not used will be frozen or thrown away which is equivalent to abortion. The Catholic church believes in respect for every and all human life at the moment of conception, therefore, any thing that they believe will somehow degrade or negatively affect a human life, even as an embryo they consider to be immoral and wrong. The important thing to consider here is much deeper than whether Jewish or Catholic religions actually support these methods of technology assisted births. The important thing to consider is that these vastly different approaches to the same issue are based around the same text. How then, is it possible to even begin to study or come to some consensus on this problem? Questions like this bring out the importance of ethnographic studies. What religious leaders may say does not always translate to what religious people actually practice. This point was made clear in the ethnographic study of Muslims in Lebanon. While religious leaders in the Islamic community believe that adoption, IVF, and sperm donation are against the teachings of Islam, some of the Muslim men who were interviewed still proceeded with these processes despite that knowledge. This brings up a very important difference between analyzation and practice. While religious leaders are trusted to analyze important religious documents and the points they make, the people who follow that religion are the ones who have to ultimately decide what and how they will practice the decisions of religious leaders. By using ethnography, religious and cultural scholars are able to get a more realistic view of the diversity within a religion as well as how certain religious ideals are actually practiced.