Jesus’ alleged illegitimacy is one of the oldest polemical attacks against Christianity. Many later texts mention it, but, despite their late date, many scholars read these as referring to much older traditions. Additionally, the claim that Jesus’ true father was a pagan is an ancient one as well, which some read as a means of refuting the claim to Davidic descent in Matthew.
The reference to Pantera seems non-polemical but might have some relation to the remarks of Celsus, “born in a certain Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade because she was convicted of adultery; that after being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God” (Origen, Book 1, 28). I have maintained that the references to Pantera in the Tosefta are neutral, and continue to do so, but there is a possibility that there is a veiled reference here.
t. Chullin 2.20–24
Flesh which is found in the hand of a Gentile is allowed for use; in the hand of a heretic it is forbidden for use. That which comes from a house of idolatry, lo, this is the flesh of sacrifices of the dead, because they say, “Slaughtering by a heretic is idolatry, their bread is Samaritan bread, their wine is wine offered, their fruits are not tithed, their books are books of witchcraft, and their sons are bastards.” One does not sell to them or receive from them, or take from them or give to them; one does not teach their sons trades, and one does not obtain healing from them, either healing of property or healing of life. The case of Rabbi Eliazar ben Damah, whom a serpent bit. There came in Jacob, a man of Chephar Sama, to cure him in the name of Yeshua ben Pandira, but Rabbi Ishmael did not allow it. He said, “You are not permitted, ben Damah.”
He said, “I will bring you a proof that he may heal me.” But he had not finished bringing a proof when he died. Rabbi Ishmael said, “Happy you are, ben Damah, for you have departed in peace and have not broken through the ordinances of the wise; for upon every one who breaks through the fence of the wise, punishment comes at last, as it is written, ‘Whosoever breaks a fence, a serpent shall bite him’
Rabbi Eliezer was arrested for heresy (for which he was acquitted). Rabbi Akiva came to comfort his teacher after the trial, but Rabbi Eliezer did not want to be comforted because he was distraught by being associated with heresy. He then recalled an incident with the same Jacob, a famous Christian healer. The content of Jesus’ teaching is not presented here but is expanded upon in a later Talmudic reference. The purpose of this reference is not to illuminate Jesus’ teaching but to establish that he was a teacher and perhaps to criticize Rabbi Eliezer for associating too closely with the Judeo-Christians.
The case of R. Eliezer, who was arrested for heretics, and they brought him to the tribunal for judgment. The governor said to him, “Does an old man like you occupy himself with such things?” He said to him, “Faithful is the Judge concerning me.” The governor supposed that he only said this of him, but he was not thinking of any but his Father who is in Heaven. He said to him, “Since I am trusted concerning yourself, thus also I will be. I said, ‘Perhaps these societies err concerning these things.’ Dimissus, behold, you are released.” And when he had been released from the tribunal, he was troubled because he had been arrested for heresy. His disciples came in to console him, but he would not take comfort. Rabbi Aqiba came in and said to him, “Rabbi, shall I say to you why you are perhaps grieving?” He said to him, “Say on.” He said to him, “Perhaps one of the heretics has said to you a word of heresy and it has pleased you.” He said, “By Heaven, you have reminded me! Once I was walking along the street of Sepphoris, and I met Jacob of Kefar Sichnin and he said to me a word of heresy in the name of Yeshu ben Pantiri, and it pleased me. And I was arrested for words of heresy because I transgressed the words of Torah, ‘Keep your way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house’ (Proverbs 5:8), for ‘she has cast down many wounded’ (Proverbs 7:26).” And R. Eliezer used to say, “Ever let a man flee from what is hateful, and from that which resembles what is hateful.”
The Ben Pantera traditions are unlike the Ben Stada traditions in that it is undoubtedly a reference to Jesus, due to the traditions reported by Origen in the third century, which stemmed from the second century pagan author, Celsus. In the original material, Celsus presents the traditions about Jesus ben Pantera as coming from a Jew. Celsus authored the first critique of Christianity, called the ’Αληϑὴς λόγος “The True Word”. The text is usually dated to the latter half of the second century, perhaps around 180 CE. However, it only survives in Origen’s work Contra Celsum, typically dated to c. 250 CE. The name appears as Panthera in Celsus’ work. Lipiński ties this name to πανϑήρα which meant “net,” due to the ioticization, it would have been pronounced, Pantira.
The issue of Jesus’ parentage is of supreme importance in trying to identify the historical man behind the myth that was created after his death. The Christian sources refer to Jesus as the “son of Mary” or the “son of Joseph”, with Mark atypically referring to Jesus by his mother’s name, causing doubt about the role of Joseph as his father. Other gospels correct this to avoid the assumptions that would naturally arise. Matthew’s gospel includes a genealogy for Joseph’s family true and Luke for Mary’s to prove Jesus’ genealogical lineage to David. Matthew’s genealogy includes references to many characters which also arouse suspicion.
Matthew mentions Tamar in v. 3. She was the daughter-in-law of Judah and the mother of two of his children: Perez and Zerah. Tamar was married to Er, Judah’s son, who was killed by God. Onan performed levirate marriage and married her. Onan “spilled his seed” and was also killed by God.
Matthew continues in naming unusual female characters (and male as we shall see) in his genealogy. Next, comes Rahab, the famous prostitute who helped the Israelites (Joshua 2:1). Ruth was a Moabite woman who was married to an Israelite man, who was ultimately the ancestor of King David, as his great-grandmother. Jewish tradition claims that she was a princess in Moab and converted to Judaism. In the time of the Judges, there was a great famine in Israel and the man, Elimelech and his wife, Naomi, decided to move to Moab, instead of to struggle in Israel. Ruth ended up marrying one of Elimelech’s sons but, unfortunately, both Elimelech and his sons died in Moab, leaving Naomi a poor widow. Ruth ended up leaving Moab with Naomi to live in a land that was not her own, Israel. Ruth and Naomi struggle and Ruth begins to collect the “leftover” barley and wheat from the man, Boaz’s fields, that is the pe’ah, the obligatory portion available to the poor in the community. Boaz fell in love with Ruth and married her. Their son, Obed, was the father of Jesse, the father of David. Ruth is consistently referred to as a “Moabite woman” (1:2,4; 2:5-6), “Ruth the Moabite” (1:22; 4:5,10) or a “foreigner” (2:10), even after this important moment in her story, even after accepting Israel’s God as her own (1:16). Bathsheba was the wife of Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 11). David becomes enamored with her and impregnates her and essentially has her husband killed in battle. It is considered as an example of rape in the Hebrew Bible.
The pattern in the text shifts from patrilineal lineage when it arrives to Mary and Joseph and says, “and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, who bore Jesus, who is called the Messiah.”
The Greek word behind the English translation “virgin” is parthenos. The word does not correlate exactly to what modern English speakers understand by the word “virgin.” It refers to a young woman in the Septuagint. For example, in Genesis 34:3 it refers to a victim of rape and Joel 1:8 to a young widow. Broader Greek literature seems to understand it as a mature young woman who has not had a child. It can refer to virginity but only in certain contexts, often with added qualifiers to make the meaning more clear (i.e. Luke 1:34). Ignatius of Antioch also uses it to refer to widows (Smyrneans 13:1). Matthew also uses it in this generic sense in 25:1-13 and the meaning is clearly that here.
Robert J. Miller draws a comparison between how Jesus is presented in 1:21 and the quotation in 1:23:
She will give birth to a son
and you will name him Jesus,
for he will save his people from their sins. (1:21)
She will give birth to a son
and they will name him Emmanuel,
which means “God is with us.” (1:23)
As Miller states, “”For Isaiah, the birth and unexpected survival of the child Immanuel in the house of David would be a sign that God was protecting his people and keeping faith with his promises. For Matthew, the birth of Jesus and his unlikely adoption by Joseph into the lineage of David was likewise a sign that God’s plan to save Israel was about to be fulfilled.”
Miller then notes the uses of the word ek in the verse that states that Mary was “pregnant by the holy spirit” (1:18, 20). This word is used by John to denote believers being adopted or “begotten” by God (1:12-13; 1 John 2:29; 4:7). In the Hebrew Bible, this was used in the Septuagint to note a number of things: “Kings are called sons of God (Ps 2:6-7)… Adam had intercourse with his wife and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, saying, “I have made a man with the help of Yahweh.” (Genesis 4:1) Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. He had intercourse with her, Yahweh made her conceive, and she gave birth to a son. (Ruth 4:13) When Yahweh saw that Leah was unloved, he opened her womb. . . and Leah conceived and gave birth to a son. (Genesis 29:31–32) Then God remembered Rachel. He heard her prayer and opened her womb. She conceived and gave birth to a son. (Genesis 30:22–23).”
The presence of Tamar in the narrative, who was pregnant by fornication, is the intended conclusion to be drawn by the references to Mary’s pregnancy. The twist is that this pregnancy is indeed holy, regardless of how it came to be. God is using this woman and her womb to bring the messiah into the world. The other women, Rahab the prostitute, and Bathsheba the rape victim, point to this conclusion as well. However, God uses this tragic event to bring about the birth of Emanuel, “God with us.” As Miller states, “Conception “by the holy spirit” indicates not the absence of a human father, but rather God’s favor or blessing upon a normal human conception. Third, the women Matthew mentions in his genealogy of Jesus prepare us for sexual irregularity and a woman whose plight is set right, but clearly not for a miraculous virgin birth.”
Not all scholars agree with this conclusion. For example, McGrath suggests that Jesus does not have the social status of one assumed to be illegitimate but that of a respectable family, if poor, who was presumed to be the son of his purported father. Yet, later Jewish sources certainly maintain this tradition. It certainly does seem that Matthew is addressing issues of Jesus’ legitimacy in these passages, leading me to think that some early versions of the Jewish counter-narrative must have been commonly known at that time, especially by Jesus’ followers.
Another issue in Matthew’s genealogy might point to another issue in the Jewish counter-narrative. However, this is one that is not mentioned in rabbinic sources. The issue is Jesus’ supposed Davidic lineage, which is mentioned throughout the New Testament by the Gospel authors and Paul. However, Jesus’ connection to the Davidic line is through the “cursed” line of Jeconiah.
Jeremiah 22:30
Thus said the Lord:
Record this man as without succession,
One who shall never be found acceptable;
For no man of his offspring shall be accepted
To sit on the throne of David
And to rule again in Judah.
There is some complication to this curse because Jeconiah’s grandson, Zerubabbel became governor of Judah. Jeconiah himself prospered after being released from prison (Jeremiah 52:31-34). Matthew might be including this in the genealogy for a number of reasons. Perhaps it is Jesus’ legitimate lineage. It might also have later acquired a negative connotation as a less-than-ideal lineage for the messiah. Matthew could also be saying that the holy spirit is renewing this particular Davidic lineage. It is hard to know because rabbinic literature never mentions Jesus as a messianic claimant or heir of the Davidic line.
All of this suggests that the Christian sources are not entirely comfortable with the issue of Jesus’ family. Non-Christian sources indicate an entirely different tradition of who Jesus’ father was. This is found in the Pantera tradition, which is first found textually in the 2nd century CE with Celsus’ writings (preserved in Origen’s response) and the Tosefta, supplemental material to the collection of Jewish oral law known as the Mishnah. While Celsus’ work is only preserved in the later Origen, most scholars regard Origen’s preservation of the text as authentic. Celsus presents the idea that Mary had Jesus through a Roman soldier named Pantera.
Celsus presents this argument by impersonating a Jew. It seems likely, then, that this was common knowledge among Jews and a sort of anti-Gospel tradition about Jesus’ origins, perhaps reflecting their beliefs about his origins. However, the specifically Jewish sources from the earlier period do not reflect the idea that Pantera was a soldier. This was either rejected by the rabbis and they wanted to preserve the name Pantera without any sort of negativity attached to it or the story was so well-known that no mention of Pantera’s role as a soldier did not need to be explicitly stated.
Only one of the Gospels, Thomas, seemingly makes a direct mention of the Jewish tradition surrounding Jesus:
Thomas 105
He who knows the father and the mother will be all the son of a harlot.
A similar text appears in the fourth to fifth century CE text, Acts of Pilate, or the Gospel of Nicodemus.
Acts of Pilate 2:3
The elders of the Jews answered and said unto Jesus: What shall we see? Firstly, that thou wast born of fornication; secondly, that thy birth in Bethlehem was the cause of the slaying of children; thirdly, that thy father Joseph and thy mother Mary fled into Egypt because they had no confidence before the people.
Bauckham interprets this as suggesting that “the Jewish charge of illegitimacy against Jesus was due to his acknowledgment of his heavenly Father and Mother (rather than – presumably – his supposed earthly parents). Again Jesus is taken as a model for his disciples preferring heavenly to earthly relationships.”
This seems to echo an episode in John where the issue of Jesus’ father is referenced.
John 8:39-47
They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you are Abraham’s children, you would do[a] what Abraham did, 40 but now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. 41 You are indeed doing what your father does.” They said to him, “We are not illegitimate children; we have one Father, God himself.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God, and now I am here. I did not come on my own, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot accept my word. 44 You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.[b] 46 Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is from God hears the words of God. The reason you do not hear them is that you are not from God.”
The Gospel of the Hebrews refers to the Holy Spirit as Jesus’ mother:
Origen, Commentary on John 2.12.87 [on John 1:3]):
And if any accept the Gospel of the Hebrews — here the Savior says: Even so did my mother, the Holy Spirit, take me by one of my hairs and carry me away on to the great mountain Tabor.
Around the same time, Tertullian mentions the Jewish accusations against Jesus of him being either the carpenter’s or prostitute’s son and that he broke Jewish law (discussed later), all show that this was an old tradition in circulation among the Jews.
Tertullian, De spectaculis, 30:6
This, I shall say, this is that carpenter’s or prostitute’s son, that Sabbath-breaker, that Samaritan and devil-possessed! This is He whom you purchased from Judas! This is He whom you struck with reed and fist, whom you contemptuously spat upon, to whom you gave gall and vinegar to drink! This is He whom His disciples secretly stole away, that it might be said He had risen again.
Before discussing the Church Fathers’ response to this accusation, the idea that Pantera is a pun on the Greek, parthenos, used by Christians in their reading of the Septuagint to justify the idea that Jesus was born of a “virgin” as reflected in their understanding of biblical prophecy. While there are some cases of nicknames occurring in rabbinic literature, it is not a frequent occurrence. There are nicknames given to rabbis with the same name, for example, Yosef ben Shimon. There is the case of Shimon ben Nanos (Simon son of the midget), which is unusual in the Talmudic corpus and the nickname is directed to the father.
The Rabbis certainly knew Greek. The number of Greek loanwords into Hebrew increased during the Rabbinic period, although Aramaic was the primary language of rabbinic circles, with the Mishnah being primarily composed in Hebrew and the Gemaras of Palestine and Babylon being composed in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic. The Mishnah is a multilingual text, even if the majority of the text is composed in Hebrew. There are a number of passages composed in Aramaic. There are aphorisms attributed to early sages, such as the Hasmonean Rabbi Yose son of Yoezer, Rabbi Hillel, and Ben Bagbag. The other Aramaic material in the Mishnah are statements made by common people in court, which are obviously not meant to be transcriptions of actual court proceedings.
Several thousand Greek loanwords are found throughout rabbinic literature in the Mishnah, Talmuds, etc. covering material culture, civil and legal administration, military, and architecture, including lexical categories that are easily borrowed, such as adjectives, adverbs, verbs, and nouns. The type and frequency of borrowing suggests a prolonged multilingual contact between languages.
Yehudah HaNasi called Greek a “beautiful language” (b. Sotah 49b) and the collection baskets in the Temple treasury used the Greek alphabet to organize the contents (m. Shekalim 3:2). However, after the wars, Rabbi Yishmael (in the Bavli) or Rabbi Joshua (in the Yerushalmi), make the following statement, “Ben Damah the son of R. Ishmael’s sister once asked R. Ishmael, May one such as I who have studied the whole of the Torah learn Greek wisdom? He thereupon read to him the following verse, ‘This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day.’ Go then and find a time that is neither day nor night and learn then Greek wisdom (b. Menahot 99b; cf y. Peah 1:1:21).”
Rabbinic literature presents a complicated relationship with the Greek language. It is condemned in certain texts, especially after 66 CE. A prohibition is associated with the time of the War of Quietus (116 CE), in which the Rabbis prohibited teaching one’s son Greek. However, the text of the Mishnah uses the Greek word for “war” within the text of the Mishnah itself. The Gemara comments on this Mishnah and predates the prohibition of teaching Greek wisdom to the first century BCE (65 BCE) during the siege of Jerusalem. The Sages interpret the Mishnah’s prohibition as arising from the Hasmonean civil war and the siege of Jerusalem by Hyrcanus. Ultimately, there are extenuating circumstances regarding the study of Greek by the rabbinic circle. For instance, those “close to the government”, like Rabban Gamaliel, were permitted to study Greek, presumably to facilitate communication with the Gentile authorities who spoke that language.
The prohibition of learning Greek wisdom is preserved in other places in the rabbinic corpus. However, there are also positive feelings expressed towards the Greek language and wisdom. These contrary opinions indicate that the effect of the prohibitions was not universally accepted. Even more so, there is an indication that Greek was used liturgically by some Jews associated with the rabbinic movement.
However, there is little evidence for the idea of the Rabbis coining a pun from one language into the other, as would need to be the case for the “Pantera = parthenos” pun.
The Church Fathers felt it necessary to respond to these traditions. In general, the general pattern is observed that the Rabbis were less outspoken about Christianity than the Church Fathers about Judaism. The general approach is to claim that “Pantera” was a family name of Jesus’, either from his maternal or paternal lineage. Epiphanius seems to link this to Joseph, while later writers, such as John of Damascus link it to Mary’s lineage. The reference in Epiphanius was interpreted by Lauterbach as referring to the Talmudic idea that grandchildren are like children (b. Yevamot 62b) and that the name Panther became a patronym applied to Jesus. Jaffé notes that by the time of these writers, the name Pantera did not imply any insult to Jesus.
Epiphanius, St. Anastasii, Questiones, MPG: Vol. 89. Col. 811
For thus, on the one hand, Joseph was the brother of Cleophas, while on the other he was the son of Jacob, of whom additionally was called by the surname Panther. So that these two were born from the one surnamed Panthera.
Eusebius also dismisses the allegation as Jewish slander and offers Hosea 5:14 as a proof text against that view (Ecl. Proph. 3:10). In the Ethiopic tradition, the name Pantos was associated with Jesus’ father, due to his position as an anti-Seleucid Jewish soldier (1 Maccabees 2–5 Ethiopian; Ethiopian Synaxarion [Tahisas 25]).
John of Damascus
“Panther begat Barpanther, so called. This Barpanther begat Joachim: Joachim begat the holy Mother of God.
From an early period, Christians began exalting Mary’s virginity in texts such as the Protevangelium of James (11:2–3) or in the Ascension of Isaiah (11:5) which both emphasize the virginity of Mary.
The Toldot Yeshu narratives are variously dated to the fifth-century , or even earlier to the fourth century. Schonfeld theorizes that it was written in the fourth century as a parody on the Gospel of the Hebrews. This is quite a speculative view and the more plausible option is a tenth century origin. There are a variety of manuscripts in this tradition that rework the Talmudic material in different ways. This body of tradition is distinct from the Talmud and a full treatment of these materials is not possible within a book intended to explore the passages that refer to Jesus in the Talmud. In that case, a brief reference to it will situate some of the ways that these traditions have been used in Jewish polemics. Suffice it to say that the Toldot Yeshu takes the scant references to Jesus in the body of Talmudic literature and rearranges and enhances it into a fully-functioning narrative, serving as a Jewish anti-Gospel. This body of tradition leans heavily into the accusations of adultery against Mary and the illicit union that produced Jesus. In the Vienna manuscript, Mary’s lover is Yohanan and her husband is Joseph bar Pandera, whereas in the Strasburg, Wagenseil, and Huldreich versions, the names are inverted.
Scholarly Views regarding Pantera
The name, Pantera, seems to have been a common Roman name, especially in the military, based on an analysis of Latin inscriptions. Scholars have sought to explain the Pantera traditions in a number of ways, some more plausible than others. The name could have been a corruption of the Greek, Παρθένος, virgin, which is probably the most common explanation of Pantera. In this view, Jews would have been making a pun on the idea of the virgin birth by deriding Jesus with the nickname, “ben Pantera,” i.e. son of a panther. The υἱὸς τῆς παρθένου becomes ben pantera. Others tie the origins of this epithet to Jewish opposition to the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth. However, there are many other suggestions that have been offered that should be considered alongside this one.
Others have offered different explanations for the Pantera tradition. For example, Kaminski believed “Yeshua ben Pantera” was a corrupted form of “Yeshua ben Sira.” This relies on a complicated etymological relationship between “pantera” with “panther” and the Greek word, θηρός, meaning “savage beast.” Perhaps there are analogies with Trojan Pandaros, who shot an arrow at Menelaos (Iliad V), which would tie to Jesus’ role as “King of the Jews,” which ended the peace between the Jews and Romans. Others posit that the name Yeshua ben Pantera is a corruption of the name Yehoshua ben Perachiah, Jesus’ teacher in the rabbinic narrative. Yehoshua was also mentioned in the magical incantation bowls.
Lauterbach proposes a connection between Pantera and Πενθερός, which means father-in-law or fiancé, implying that Jesus was the product of a union whereby Miriam was engaged but had not yet completed the marriage ceremony. This would make ben pantera mean, son of the fiancé/father-in-law. Lauterbach derives this from the terminology used to describe Miriam as an arusa and not a nesuah, meaning that she had completed the first stage of the marriage contract, erusin, but had not been fully married. In a similar fashion, Lipiński ties the etymology of Pantera to the adjective, pattira, with several possible connotations: a dismissed or sold servant, a divorced wife, a dead wife or mother, or a freewoman. This leads to the correct form being Pantira, found in some manuscript variants. The rabbinic and pre-rabbinic narrative heard by Celsus, rely on this meaning of a divorced woman. However, due to phonetic assimilation and change, the original meaning was lost, which led to the stories of impropriety. The earliest reference to Yeshu Pantiri in t. Hullin 2:24 reflects this original Galilean Aramaic meaning of son of a divorcee.
Zeichmann discusses the issue of Jesus’ illegitimacy from a historical perspective, offering reflections on the historicity of the Pantera account. Inscriptions bearing the name Pantera were found in Germany that roughly match the time in which Jesus would have lived. These are used in a recent attempt by some scholars to reconsider the authenticity of the Pantera traditions. The inscription reads in translation: Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera from Sidon, aged 62 years, served 40 years, former standard bearer of cohors I sagittariorum lies here. The idea that this was the true father of Jesus was explored by Deissmann, among others. The name was also found in a number of other civilian inscriptions. Morton Smith and James D. Tabor have also suggested that these traditions might have some degree of authenticity. Tabor implies that Pantera, who was born in Sidon (in Lebanon) was stationed in Palestine around 9 CE. Others have not committed to the hypothesis, but are open to its suggestion. However, others are harshly critical of this hypothesis.
Zeichmann reads epigraphic and literary data to discuss some aspects of the historical Pantera’s military service (referring to the Roman soldier in the inscription). This man was an auxiliary soldier. Being an auxiliary meant that Pantera was not a Roman citizen before his conscription but was awarded citizenship for his military service. The scant historical details that can be gleaned from this inscription are important, not necessarily in any attempt to claim that this was Jesus’ father, but to underline the implications of saying that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier.
Jaffé proposes that the Ben Pantera traditions are a Jewish representation of Christianity, stemming from the second century, implying that Celsus was reflecting Jewish views of his day. It was a widespread form of mockery used by Jews to express their disbelief in Jesus and the virginal conception attributed to him. The later Midrash links Christianity itself to prostitution, meaning that the new religion was like the seduction of a prostitute, from which one must distance themselves, as the following passage shows.
Abot de Rabbi Nathan 2a
What is the hedge which the Holy Writings made about their words ? Lo, it says, Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house (Prov 5, 8). Remove thy way from her refers to minuth. When a man is told, “Go not among the minim and enter not into their midst, lest thou stumble through them” he might retort, “I have confidence in myself that, although I enter into their midst, I shall not stumble through them” (or) perhaps thou mightest say, “I will listen to their talk and then retire”. Therefore the verse says, None that go unto her return, neither do they attain unto the paths of life (Prov 2, 19). It is written, She hath prepared her meat, she hath mingled her wine : she hath also furnished her table (Prov 9, 2). Such are the wicked (reshaim).54 For when a man enters into their circle, they feed him and give him drink and clothe him and shelter him and give him much money. As soon as he becomes one of them, they each claim their own and take it away from him. And of them it is said, Till an arrow strike through the liver ; as a bird hasteneth to the snare — and knoweth not that it is at the cost of his life (Prov 7, 23). Another interpretation. Remove thy way far from her refers to a harlot. For a man is told, “Walk not in this market place and enter not this lane, for a comely and far-farmed harlot is there”. And if he says, I have confidence in myself that, although I go there, I shall not stumble because of her, he is told, although thou hast confidence in thyself, walk not there lest thou stumble through her. For lo, the Sages have said that a man should not get into the habit of passing by a harlot’s door, for it is said, For she hath cast down many wounded ; yea, a mighty host are all her slain (Prov 7, 26).
Jaffé reads this text in light of the earlier rabbinic material to ascertain the attitude of the Sages towards Christians. He equates minim with Christian heretics here, a reading that is not necessarily agreed upon by everyone, most notably the author of this book. However, for the sake of hearing Jaffé’s argument, we proceed. Prostitution is an “archetype” of temptation and the Sages saw Christianity as a type of archetype of heretical temptation. The representation of Jesus as “ben Pantera” is the choice to show him as representative of the religion of Christianity. The naming of Jesus in this manner is part of the larger “parting of ways” between the two religions. Jaffé, then, ultimately reads this polemical discussion in the light of the parting of ways. He proposes that Jewish forms of Christianity would have been attractive to Jews, given the close interactions between the two communities, especially in the earlier centuries. This was probably especially true of those Jews who lived far from rabbinic centers in Babylonia. Finkelstein reads the Abot de Rabbi Nathan passage in a historical context vis-a-vis the missionary activities of Christians and proposes that the reading is to resist that temptation, implying that the minim provided food, drink, and clothing to those who joined their groups.
The traditions associated with Pantera (and Stada) show a remarkable overlap between the account of Celsus, as preserved in Origen, and the Talmudic narrative. The aspects that are included in the overlap are the accusation of adultery on the part of Jesus’ mother and Jesus’ sojourn in Egypt to learn magic. Celsus himself claims that his account comes from an unnamed Jew, and similar accounts by Christian authors show similarity to this account. The mention of Jesus’ parents’ poverty by Celsus is supported by some statements in the New Testament, although the Talmud is silent on their socioeconomic status, even though the reference to Mary as a “braider of women” might refer to her profession as a hairdresser and imply a lower-class status. Kalmin notes the strong parallels between Celsus and the Talmud and notes that they are closer than the parallels between Celsus and the New Testament. He proposes that the Talmud used Celsus as a source for their own material, either through Celsus’ text itself, via Origen, or via common oral traditions. The possibility of the Rabbis knowing Celsus’ work is intriguing, especially if that was via Origen. It is unclear if Contra Celsum was available in Syriac, although some of Origen’s work was directly translated. This would buttress the claim that the Rabbis were intimately familiar with Christian sources.The Pantera traditions are some of the older elements of the Jewish counter-Gospel that remain preserved in the Talmud. While the implication of the name, Pantera, does seem to have originally been quite polemical in nature and meant to be an insult to Christian belief, the scholarly literature does not take into account enough the lightening of this association by the third century, as noted by Jaffé’s discussion of the term in the Church Fathers’ writings. If Christian authors did not interpret Pantera in a derogatory manner about their own savior, then it would be much less likely for the Rabbis to interpret this negatively. This might be why the earliest layer of material in the Tosefta, perhaps redacted around 200 CE, was less polemical in nature with its reference to Pantera, which seems to be nothing more than a mention of the character’s name. However, as time progressed, the name reverted to its polemical roots and the explicit nature of the charges of infidelity was made clear by the Babylonian Rabbis in a different context. Scholarly attempts to assign historicity to these narratives are ultimately superfluous, because the nature of these narratives is ahistorical and primarily polemical, even if there is reason to presuppose some noteworthy circumstances around Jesus’ parentage and birth.
A Jewish View 