The Unholy Whore: The Virgin Mary in the Talmuds

The Virgin Mary has long been one of the best-known and most revered figures in Christianity being the object of devotion of tens of millions of people as well as the focus for devotion of entire religious orders: both current and historic. Further Mary is also an object of devotion and love in Islam as the mother of the Prophet Yasu/Isa.

So far so good, but Judaism has a very different view of both Jesus and his mother Mary and while I am not religious – I sometimes get pilloried for being ‘too Christian’ and ‘too Pagan’ by different sides of the religious debate within nationalism but in truth my allegiance is to neither but rather to my race and the truth (as best as I can work out) per my credo of National Socialism – most of my race are and then the clear majority of them are some form – be it vaguely or specifically – of Christian and they should understand how much Judaism and the people who created it – remember things have creators and those creators have names and identities – hate the two principle figures in Christianity: Jesus and Mary.

Now most people – Christians and non-Christians - are unaware that Mary appears in the Talmuds – specifically the Babylonian Talmud which is the later of the two Talmuds (the other being the Jerusalem/Palestinian Talmud) – but appear she does. (1)

Nor is this incidental since to quote Peter Schafer the Talmud’s narrative on both Jesus and Mary was meant as ‘a powerful counternarrative that was meant to shake the foundations of the Christian message’. (2)

Since as he explains:

‘For, according to them, Jesus was born not from a virgin, as his followers claimed, but out of wedlock, the son of a whore and her lover, therefore, he could not be the Messiah of Davidic descent, let alone the son of God.’ (3)

Thus we can see that the commentary on Mary in the Talmuds is not just ‘incidental comment’, ‘not meant to be taken seriously’ and/or ‘not representative’ but is in fact the opposite: it is deliberate and systematic counter-narrative produced by the leading rabbis of the day and those rabbis and their ideas are the very foundation of Rabbinic Judaism since the Talmud is the ‘Written Torah’ which is the direct successor to (and clarification of) the ‘Oral Torah’ (what Christians call the Pentateuch; aka the first five books of the Old Testament). (4)

In other words: the hatred of Christians (as well as well as Pagans since Rabbinic Judaism views Christianity as a form of Paganism) (5) is baked into the very foundation of Judaism.

We can see this in absolute hatred showered on Mary when Folio 106a of Tractate Sanhedrin 106a states as follows:

‘Rav Yochanan said (regarding Balaam): In the beginning a prophet, in the end a sorcerer. Rav Papa said: As people say, “She was the descendant of princes and rulers, she played the harlot with carpenters.”’ (6)

Now the likely counter-response from jews and their ‘Judeo-Christian’ supporters you’ll encounter with this passage is that it says ‘Balaam’ not ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ or some known variant of Jesus’ name such as ‘Yeshua’ or ‘Ben Pandera’/’Ben Pantera’ as well as the assertion that most ‘modern scholars reject’ such a link between ‘Balaam’ and Jesus (7) but this is untrue as Schaefer has pointed out because those who claim there is ‘no link’ between – for example – ‘Balaam’ and Jesus have to demonstrate this from the evidence not simply come up with small objections. (8)

The main (and best) arguments against ‘Balaam’ acting as a coded reference to Jesus of Nazareth in the Talmud are that ‘Balaam’ is not of ‘the congregation of Israel’ (i.e., he was a jewish character and therefore because Jesus of Nazareth was jewish as understood by the rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud) (9) and that:

‘The wide field of Balaam references in the New Testament, Philo and rabbinic Judaism reflect a long polemical tradition that typologically identifies many people as “Balaam.” Its specific application to Jesus is untenable.’ (10)

To answer this second objection first; this is a misnomer in that the fact remains that just because ‘Balaam’ was used widely by jews to refer to different people doesn’t mean that doesn’t mean Jesus because it is ‘non-specific’ but rather what it means is that Jesus is one possible meaning of the use of ‘Balaam’ by jews of the time.

Precisely because ‘Balaam’ as a code-word/name is used by the rabbinic writers because:

‘Balaam is presented as an outsider who seduces the people of God to false religion, a traditional picture shared by rabbinic writers.’ (11)

And ‘Balaam’ is indeed often used interchangeably with ‘Jesus’ in the Babylonian Talmud (12) and ‘Balaam’ was considered to be most prominent culprit for evil by the jewish sages and writers of the time. (13)

Now moving on to the more weighty objection that ‘Balaam’ was not of the ‘congregation of Israel’ (i.e., he couldn’t be jewish) and Jesus of Nazareth - as understood by the Babylonian Talmud - was jewish; this is a selective and somewhat deceptive argument because ‘Balaam’ didn’t necessarily have to be a ‘gentile’ since ‘Balaam’ is referred to in Tractate Sanhedrin 10 as an ‘Israelite commoner’. (14) Thus, the rabbinic belief that Jesus was a jewish heretic - as suggested by Tractate Gittin 57a - (15) is no bar to Sanhedrin 106a’s reference to ‘Balaam’ being a ‘code word’ for Jesus.

Hence Schaefer’s point that ‘Balaam’ isn’t a hard and fast category which in order for ‘Balaam’ not to be a ‘code word’ for Jesus it has to be, because unless ‘Balaam’ is a hard and fast category then ‘Balaam’ could be a ‘code word’ for Jesus and thus invalidates both of the main (and best) arguments that ‘Balaam’ in Sanhedrin 106a cannot refer to Jesus of Nazareth. (16)

But what of positive evidence for this thesis?

Well Sanhedrin 106a states that ‘Balaam’ was a sorcerer, and we know from other mentions of Jesus of Nazareth which are also in Tractate Sanhedrin (43a and 67a respectively) (17) as well as Tractate Shabbat in folio 104b. (18)

In Sanhedrin 106a we also see a reference to ‘Balaam’s’ lineage where his mother is described as being ‘the descendant of princes and rulers’ which fits with Christian interpretations from the Gospel of Luke about Mary’s kingly descent from King David’s tribe of Judah (19) that is also evidenced by the fact that the rabbis of the Talmud also know the narrative from the Gospel of John (20) so we my reasonably assume they were familiar with the narrative from the Gospel of Luke.

In addition, Sanhedrin 106a also insults the mother of ‘Balaam’ as having ‘played the harlot with carpenters’ despite being of kingly jewish ancestry, which is difficult to read as anything other than an indirect reference to Jesus’ (official) father and Mary’s husband Joseph who is referred to repeatedly throughout the gospels as a ‘carpenter’. (21)

Thus, we can see it is nigh on impossible – because we have significant positive evidence, and all objections are essentially based on a deceptively selective reading of the Babylonian Talmud and/or unfounded appeals to mystery – not to read Tractate Sanhedrin 106a as a direct reference to the Virgin Mary - Jesus of Nazareth’s mother – as being in effect ‘a dirty whore’.

This is an effective jewish counter-narrative because it:

‘Takes up the contradictions within the New Testament story about Jesus’ origins and ridicules the claim that he was born from a virgin (parthenogenesis). The New Testament itself is remarkably vague about this claim. Matthew, having established Jesus’ genealogy from Abraham down to Joseph, concludes with Jacob who “father Joseph, the husband of Mary who gave birth to Jesus, who is called Messiah” (Mt. 1:16). This is clear enough: Jesus is the son of the couple Joseph and Mary, and the Davidic lineage comes from his father Joseph, not from his mother. Only under this premise, that Joseph was his real father, does the emphasis put on his genealogy make sense. Yet after this dramatic beginning Matthew suddenly reveals that Mary was not married to Joseph but just betrothed and that she expected a child before they were legally married (1:18). This discovery troubled Joseph, who was a just man, and he decided to dismiss her (1:19) – but in a dream it was revealed to him that her child was “from the Holy Spirit (1:20). When he woke up from his dream, Joseph took Mary as his legal wife and accepted her son (1:24f).

The Jewish counternarrative points to the inconsistences within Matthew’s birth story. It does not spend time on the legal intricacies of betrothal and marriage but maintains that Joseph and Mary were indeed married, not just betrothed. The bizarre idea of having the Holy Spirit intervene to make him the father of Mary’s child is nothing but a cover-up of the truth, it maintains, namely that Mary, Joseph’s legal wife, had a secret lover and that her child was just a bastard like any other bastard. Joseph’s suspicion, whether he was Mary’s husband or her betrothed, was absolutely warranted. Mary had indeed been unfaithful to him. He should have dismissed her immediately as was customary according to Jewish law.’ (22)

Understanding this and fact that it is a ‘hideous distortion’ of the Gospel’s account of the immaculate conception (23) is important because it illustrates the power of the counter-narrative offered by the jews against one the most important pillars of Christian belief.

Indeed, there is another coded parody of Mary’s virgin birth in Tractate Berakhot where we read a strange story about a sterile mule.

We read:

‘There was this mule which gave birth, and [round its neck] was hanging a document upon which was written, “there is a claim against my father’s house of one hundred thousand Zuz.” They [the Athenian sages] asked him: “Can a mule give birth?” He [R. Yehoshua] answered them: “This is one of these fiction stories.”

[Again, the Athenian Sages asked:] “When salt become unsavoury, wherewith is it salted”? He replied: “With the afterbirth of a mule.” – “And is there an afterbirth of a mule?” – “And can salt become unsavoury?”’ (24)

This can be read as a parody upon the virgin birth narrative of Jesus using the famous Sermon of Mount passage from Matthew 5:13:

‘You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything but is thrown out and trampled underfoot.’ (25)

If we understand the salt being referenced in Berakhot 8 is the salt being referred to by Jesus in Matthew 5:13 this renders it as:

‘A pungent a parody of the New Testament claim of Jesus’ followers as the new salt of the earth: these Christians, it argues, maintain that the salt of the old covenant has become insipid, and hence useless, and that its taste was restored by the people of the new covenant – through the afterbirth of a mile! But we all know that there is no such thing as the afterbirth of a mule because the mule does not given birth as much as we know that salt does not lose its taste.’ (26)

Further:

‘It can well be understood as a parody of Jesus’ miraculous birth from a virgin an offspring from a mule. The Christians’ claim of Jesus’ birth from a virgin and without a father belongs to the category of fiction stories, fairy tales just for fun. Moreover, this punch line of the second story: Jesus’ followers, who claim to be the new salt of the earth, are nothing but the afterbirth of that imagined offspring of the mule, a fiction of a fiction. Read this way, out two little Balvi stories become indeed much more than an amusing exchange between the rabbis and the Greek sages; rather, they offer another biting ridicule of one of the cornerstones of Christian theology.’ (27)

This focus on Mary being betrayed as… well… a whore is also seen in the name given to her lover by the rabbis: Panthera/Pantera/Pandera/Pantiri.

To wit the rabbis:

‘Scathing attack on the Christian claim of parthenogenesis may well explain the use of the strange name Panthera/Pantera/Pandera/Pantiri in most of its variations for Miriam’s lover and Jesus’ real father (in Greek as well as in rabbinic sources). The last derivation among all the possibilities that Maier discusses, and that he finds “captivating at first glance” but nevertheless dismisses, is the assumption of an intentional distortion of parthenos (“virgin”) to pantheros (“panther”). This explanation, first suggested by F. Nietzsche and followed by quite a number of scholars is indeed more plausible than the derivation from porneia (“fornication”) which is philologically difficult (Panthera/Pandera as a corruption of pornos/porne/porneia). In fact, it is in fact the perfect deliberate distortion of the word parthenos since it is a reverse reading of the letters “r”, “th”, and “n”: pantheros. So Boyarin is absolutely right in arguing that what we encounter here is the well-known rabbinic practice of mocking pagan or Christian holy names by changing them pejoratively, such as penei elah (“face of god”) that becomes penei kelev (“face of the dog”. But the punch line in our case is the reverse reading of the consonants within the Greek word – not by coincidence following the magical practice of reading a word backwards (le-mafrea): by changing parthenos to pantheros, the rabbis do not just practice a case of “cacopheism” rather, they utter a magical spell, or an exorcism, and “transform” Jesus’ birth from a virgin to that of a common Roman soldier named Panther.’ (28)

So put another the Babylonian Talmud not only refers to the Virgin Mary as a whore and to Jesus as the result of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera/Pantera/Pandera/Pantiri but the name of the Roman soldier used by the rabbis is actually a way of mocking the virgin birth as well as a coded magical spell intended to exorcise the ‘evil spirit’ of Mary’s son Jesus.

References

(1) Peter Schaefer, 2007, ‘Jesus in the Talmud’, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, p. 2

(2) Ibid., p. 10

(3) Idem.

(4) I.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

(5) On this see my articles: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/idolaters-and-the-abomination-in and https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-jewish-supremacism-of-the-aleinu

(6) Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 106a; for a slightly different but not differing in terms of sense translation see Robert Van Voorst, 2000, ‘Jesus Outside The New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence’, 1st Edition, William B. Eerdmanns: Grand Rapids, p. 128

(7) Van Voorst, Op. Cit., pp. 114-116

(8) Schaefer, Op. Cit., p. 7

(9) Van Voorst, Op. Cit., pp. 114-116

(10) Ibid., p. 115

(11) Ibid., p. 110, n. 76

(12) Schaefer, Op. Cit., pp. 32-33; Frederick Fyvie Bruce, 1974, ‘Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament’, 1st Edition, Hodder and Stoughton: London, p. 59; also see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/validating-the-jesus-is-boiling-in-470

(13) Schaefer, Op. Cit., p. 31

(14) Van Vorst, Op. Cit., p. 115

(15) On these see: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/validating-the-jesus-is-boiling-in and https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/validating-the-jesus-is-boiling-in-470

(16) Schaefer, Op. Cit., p. 86

(17) See my articles: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/validating-the-jesus-was-a-sorcerer and https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/validating-the-jesus-was-a-sorcerer-2de

(18) See my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/validating-the-jesus-was-a-sorcerer-2de

(19) Luke 3:23-38 (RSV); ref. Matt.1:1-16 (RSV)

(20) Schaefer, Op. Cit., pp. 72-73

(21) For example: Matthew 13:55 (RSV), Mark 6:3 (RSV) and Luke 24:10 (RSV)

(22) Schaefer, Op. Cit., pp. 21-22

(23) Ibid., p. 22

(24) Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berakhot 8b

(25) Matthew 15:13 (RSV)

(26) Schaefer, Op. Cit., pp. 23-24

(27) Ibid., p. 24

(28) Ibid., p. 98