Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 02-06-2010, 07:21 AM

Just came across this article by chance. It kind of makes sense, IIRC most other mammals have penis bones, we don't, so Adam's "rib" (fnar fnar) kind of makes sense as an explanation for that. Anybody know whether this might be legitimate? The article mentions other euphemisms used in the Bible for sexual things, so maybe it makes sense in this instance?

An unconscious acknowledgement of the formidable nature of Jewish women in those days also (e.g. is woman made from the hardest part of man, therefore "unmanning" him in a sense)? Perhaps a subtle trace of prior matriarchy?

Toto · 02-06-2010, 09:16 AM

Ziony Zevit is no slouch.

Quote:

Dr. Zevit has published studies in almost every major American, European, and Israeli scholarly journal in his fields of interest and his bibliography lists more than 100 publications. In his first book, he studied the development of Hebrew spelling in the biblical period (Matres Lectionis in Ancient Hebrew Epigraphs). This enables scholars to date ancient writings on the basis of how words are spelled. In 1998, he published a second book clarifying problems in the verbal system of classical Hebrew (The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew). His research affects the way many biblical narratives are to be understood and interpreted. His most recent book published in 2001 is The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Parallactic Approach (or via: amazon.co.uk), a study of popular and folk religion in ancient Israel on the basis of both biblical and archaeological evidence. This book has now entered its third reprinting.

Except that the book is actually titled "Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches."

rob117 · 02-06-2010, 02:53 PM

If Zevit's suggestion of the story's etiological nature is true, it would suggest that the ancient Hebrews (and, by extension, other peoples of the ancient Near East) had a detailed enough knowledge of non-human animal anatomy for them to recognize that other animals had a penis bone. Were people even studying animals in that much detail before the Greeks?

Civil1z@tion · 02-06-2010, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

If Zevit's suggestion of the story's etiological nature is true, it would suggest that the ancient Hebrews (and, by extension, other peoples of the ancient Near East) had a detailed enough knowledge of non-human animal anatomy for them to recognize that other animals had a penis bone. Were people even studying animals in that much detail before the Greeks?

Of course. Butchers have been examining animals in detail since hunter-gatherer days.

rob117 · 02-06-2010, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civil1z@tion

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

If Zevit's suggestion of the story's etiological nature is true, it would suggest that the ancient Hebrews (and, by extension, other peoples of the ancient Near East) had a detailed enough knowledge of non-human animal anatomy for them to recognize that other animals had a penis bone. Were people even studying animals in that much detail before the Greeks?

Of course. Butchers have been examining animals in detail since hunter-gatherer days.

More to the point, how would they know about human anatomy? Weren't dead bodies unclean?

J842P · 02-06-2010, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civil1z@tion

Of course. Butchers have been examining animals in detail since hunter-gatherer days.

More to the point, how would they know about human anatomy? Weren't dead bodies unclean?

Well, I know I don't have a penis bone...

arnoldo · 02-06-2010, 04:02 PM

The following article also has some of Zevit's writings on this subject.

Quote:

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.

http://archaiologia.wordpress.com/

Civil1z@tion · 02-06-2010, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civil1z@tion

Of course. Butchers have been examining animals in detail since hunter-gatherer days.

More to the point, how would they know about human anatomy? Weren't dead bodies unclean?

Lots of human groups have been cannibals at some point.

rob117 · 02-06-2010, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civil1z@tion

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

More to the point, how would they know about human anatomy? Weren't dead bodies unclean?

Lots of human groups have been cannibals at some point.

None in the Ancient Near East that I know of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J842P

Well, I know I don't have a penis bone...

Yes, but 13-year old boys are not so well-informed. Where do you think the term "boner" comes from?

If kids in our own culture need to be told by health teachers that no, erections are not caused by a bone in the penis, then we have no reason to assume ancient Israelites would know this either, unless they were actively dissecting and studying human skeletons. Which they weren't, and neither were other ancient peoples. Even Galen in the 2nd century AD had to dissect monkeys because human dissection was forbidden. Aside from a few Greek physicians in the third century BC, people didn't start systematically carrying out human dissections until well into the Middle Ages. We didn't even know that men and women had the same number of ribs until the 16th century.

Civil1z@tion · 02-07-2010, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob117

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civil1z@tion

Lots of human groups have been cannibals at some point.

None in the Ancient Near East that I know of.

It may not get talked about much but this article would suggest that it happened.

Quote:

Originally Posted by From the article

A wealth of archeological and anthropological evidence discovered in Africa, Australia, New Zealand, the Far East and Middle East further suggests the far-reaching capabilities of cannibalistic practices. The motivations behind the practice of cannibalism vary cross-culturally and per situation and cannot be easily categorized. However, there are several forms of cannibalism that appear to be more prevalent in certain areas of the world and in certain situations.

(note: bold from me)

02-06-2010, 07:21 AM	#1
gurugeorge Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: London, UK Posts: 3,210	"Adam's rib" = penis bone? Just came across this article by chance. It kind of makes sense, IIRC most other mammals have penis bones, we don't, so Adam's "rib" (fnar fnar) kind of makes sense as an explanation for that. Anybody know whether this might be legitimate? The article mentions other euphemisms used in the Bible for sexual things, so maybe it makes sense in this instance? An unconscious acknowledgement of the formidable nature of Jewish women in those days also (e.g. is woman made from the hardest part of man, therefore "unmanning" him in a sense)? Perhaps a subtle trace of prior matriarchy?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-06-2010, 02:53 PM	#3
rob117 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: New York State Posts: 440	If Zevit's suggestion of the story's etiological nature is true, it would suggest that the ancient Hebrews (and, by extension, other peoples of the ancient Near East) had a detailed enough knowledge of non-human animal anatomy for them to recognize that other animals had a penis bone. Were people even studying animals in that much detail before the Greeks?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.