Christians have reacted with fury after a religious academic suggested Eve was not made from Adam's rib, but was instead formed using his penis.

The theory, put forward by revered biblical professor Ziony Zevit, suggests God made Eve from Adam's baculum, or penis bone.

Professor Zevit said this explains why man has no baculum, unlike most mammals, and why men don't have an uneven number of ribs compared to women.

Christians have reacted with fury after a religious academic suggested Eve was not made from Adam's rib, but was instead formed using his penis. The theory, put forward by biblical professor Ziony Zevit, suggests God made Eve from Adam's baculum - and this explains why man has no penis bone, unlike most mammals

To support his theory, Professor Zevit from the American Jewish University in Maryland said the Hebrew word 'tsela', taken from the Old Testament, does not translate as 'rib' and instead 'refers to limbs sticking out sideways from an upright human body.'

The word 'tzela' or 'tsela' appears a number of times and in different contexts in the Old Testament, and Professor Zevit said this is what led translators astray.

PROFESSOR ZEVIT'S PENIS THEORY The theory, put forward by revered biblical professor Ziony Zevit, suggests God made Eve from Adam's baculum, or penis bone. To support his theory, Professor Zevit said the Hebrew word 'tsela', taken from the Old Testament, does not translate as 'rib' and instead 'refers to limbs sticking out sideways from an upright human body.' The word 'tzela' or 'tsela' appears a number of times and in different contexts in the Old Testament, and Professor Zevit said this is what led translators astray. He claims that the word was used for any part of anatomy protruding from the body, including feet, arms and penis. Professor Zevit said this explains why man has no baculum, unlike most mammals, and why men don't have an uneven number of ribs compared to women. Elsewhere, he added that Genesis 2:21, in which God closes the flesh beneath the 'tsela', refers to the flesh that exists on the underside of the penis. Defending his theory, he wrote that his understanding of how Eve was formed is based on analysis of the use of Hebrew in the Garden story. Advertisement

He claims that the word was used for any part of anatomy protruding from the body, including feet, arms and penis.

'Of these appendages, the only one lacking a bone is the penis,' he explained in his book What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden?

Elsewhere, he added that Genesis 2:21, in which God closes the flesh beneath the 'tsela', refers to the flesh that exists on the underside of the penis.

However, according to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the theory is unlikely to be correct.

It is clear that the Genesis passage refers to something which Adam has many of, for example, which more closely fits the idea that Eve was made from a rib rather than a baculum.

In addition, the plural of 'tzela' - 'tzlaot' - would be a collective noun applicable for hands, feet and penises. But this doesn't exist.

And indeed, similar rib stories appear in other ancient religions, such as in Sumer.

But the most significant counter argument is the fact that 'tzela' is still used in post-biblical Hebrew to mean 'rib'.

A review of Professor Zevit's book was recently published in The Biblical Archaeological Review magazine.

Reader Sue Glaze from Oakland, Maryland, said: 'I write to express my disappointment with your magazine. I wish to cancel my subscription.

'Come on now, Eve being created from Adam's penis bone, rather than his rib?

A review of Ziony Zevit's book, What really happened in the Garden of Eden? recently appeared in The Biblical Archaeological Review (pictured). The publication gave Zevit a chance to defend his position after the book's position angered readers

PASSAGE IN GENESIS CHAPTER 2 Professor Zevit studied the Hebrew account of the Garden of Eden story. The translated version taken from Genesis 2:21 to 2:24 in the King James bible reads: 'And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 'And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 'And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 'Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.' Advertisement

'That is plainly not a Bible teaching. I do not need and will not read articles that damage my faith or attempts to cause me to doubt what I know is the truth from the Bible.'

Another reader, Rev Randall L Krabill, wrote: 'How does Ziony Zevit's article have anything to do with Biblical archaeology?

'I have never purchased a tabloid magazine in my life - and I have no intention of ever doing so.

'I certainly didn't realize that was what I was doing when I subscribed to BAR.'

And Rev Don Brubacher, from Canada, dismissed the theory as 'totally unconvincing', 'laughable' and 'outlandish'.

He said: 'As Jesus scathingly said: 'You blind guides! You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.' (Matthew 23:24).'

Defending his theory, Professor Zevit wrote that his understanding of how Eve was formed is based on analysis of the use of Hebrew in the Garden story.

Other correspondents were less critical of the theory.

Peter Bentley, from Hong Kong, said: 'Zevit transports one 'literally' into the garden of Eden. 'A totally extraordinary literary - and, dare I say, 'religious' - experience.'

The Garden of Earthly delights by Hieronymus Bosch's, depicts Adam and Eve in heaven (pictured, left panel). Adam and Eve are central to the biblical view of creation, being the first people created on Earth and the descendants of all peoples

In the left panel of this tryptic painting, Bosch depicts the introduction of Adam and Eve (pictured) by God. In the King James Bible it states that God took one of Adam's ribs while he slept and used it to form Eve

While many animals do have a baculum, humans aren’t the only mammal without one.

We are part of a boneless group that includes whales, horses, rhinos, rabbits and spider monkeys, all of which have evolved without the penis bone.

In his book, The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkin’s suggested that selective sexual pressure may have led to the bone disappearing in humans.

A possible explanation could be the move from quick, opportunistic mating to more complex socio-sexual behaviour in our evolution and paternity.

This move allowed for more frequent, but shorter duration mating.