Adam’s Baculum

A paper in the American Journal of Medical Genetics tackles a thorny issue.
Congenital human baculum deficiency: the generative bone of Genesis 2:21-23.

It seems to be more about the metaphysical aspects of the absence of the baculum from human anatomy in terms of the Judeo-Christian creation myth.

Wikipedia has the list of mammals with and without a baculum or baubellum

Mammals having a penile bone (in males) and a clitoral bone (in females) include various eutherians:

It is absent in humans, equids, elephants, monotremes, marsupials, lagomorphs, hyenas, and cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), among others.

I don’t have access to the paper, but there is a discussion of the it over at Discover Magazine’s Discoblog. The post doesn’t really lend itself to extraction, so I am going to repost it in its entirety here.

Congenital human baculum deficiency: the generative bone of Genesis 2:21-23.

“Another genetic condition, extending to 100% of human males, is the congenital lack of a baculum. Whereas most mammals (including common species such as dogs and mice) and most other primates (excepting spider monkeys) have a penile bone, human males lack this bone and must rely on fluid hydraulics to maintain erections. This is not an insignificant bone. The baculum of a large dog can be 10 cm long x 1.3 cm wide x 1 cm thick… Human bacula have been reported, usually in association with other congenital diseases or penile abnormalities.

One of the creation stories in Genesis may be an explanatory myth wherein the Bible attempts to find a cause for why human males lack this particular bone. Our opinion is that Adam did not lose a rib in the creation of Eve. Any ancient Israelite (or for that matter, any American child) would be expected to know that there is an equal (and even) number of ribs in both men and women. Moreover, ribs lack any intrinsic generative capacity. We think it is far more probable that it was Adam’s baculum that was removed in order to make Eve. That would explain why human males, of all the primates and most other mammals, did not have one. The Hebrew noun translated as “rib,” tzela (tzade, lamed, ayin), can indeed mean a costal rib. It can also mean the rib of a hill (2 Samuel 16:13), the side chambers (enclosing the temple like ribs, as in 1 Kings 6:5,6), or the supporting columns of trees, like cedars or firs, or the planks in buildings and doors (1 Kings 6:15,16). So the word could be used to indicate a structural support beam. Interestingly, Biblical Hebrew, unlike later rabbinic Hebrew, had no technical term for the penis and referred to it through many circumlocutions. When rendered into Greek, sometime in the second century BCE, the translators used the word pleura, which means “side,” and would connote a body rib (as the medical term pleura still does). This translation, enshrined in the Septuagint, the Greek Bible of the early church, fixed the meaning for most of western civilization, even though the Hebrew was not so specific.

In addition, Genesis 2:21 contains another etiological detail: “The Lord God closed up the flesh.” This detail would explain the peculiar visible sign on the penis and scrotum of human males—the raphé . In the human penis and scrotum, the edges of the urogenital folds come together over the urogenital sinus (urethral groove) to form a seam, the raphé. If this seam does not form, hypospadias of the glans, penis, and scrotum can result. The origin of this seam on the external genitalia was “explained” by the story of the closing of Adam’s flesh. Again, the wound associated with the generation of Eve is connected to Adam’s penis and not his rib.

A rib has no particular potency nor is it associated mythologically or symbolically with any human generative act. Needless to say, the penis has always been associated with generation, in practice, in mythology, and in the popular imagination. Therefore, the literal, metaphorical, and euphemistic use of the word tzela make the baculum a good candidate for the singular bone taken from Adam to generate Eve.”

Given the Biblical tradition of treating women as breeders it makes sense that early myths would have seen the absence of a penis bone as having some significance.  What this interpretation means for the Evangelicals in our midst is anyone’s guess. Most likely they will ignore it, the same as they ignore anything that contradicts their beliefs.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Science and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s