Mary also gave virgin birth to the Messiah Jesus Christ. Yousef Kouriyhe and David Kiltz refer to the allegorical association of Mary with Aaron as the founder of the priestly dynasty, which is widespread in the Syriac-language sermon literature of late antiquity (Cf. Yousef Kouriyhe, Michael Marx, David Kiltz, Lehrgedicht über die Gottesmutter (Sermo de Genetrice Dei I) – TUK_0051. In: Texts from the Environment of the Qur’an, edited by the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities by Michael Marx. Also TUK_0073, TUK_0071, TUK_0072 and TUK_0037). According to this, Aaron’s staff, for example, which miraculously begins to sprout and testifies to his election (Num 17:16-26), is allegorically interpreted as referring to Mary’s virginity:

The rod of Aaron sprouted, and the dry wood brought forth fruit. This Mystery found its explanation today: It is the virgin womb that gave birth (Yousef Kouriyhe, David Kiltz, Hymns on the Birth of Jesus (De Nativitate) 1:17 – TUK_0073. In: Texts from the Environment of the Qur’an, edited by the BerlinBrandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities by Michael Marx).

1. Marian Exaltation in Byzantine Imperialism: At the same time, the stone statue of Armilo’s mother serves as a distorted image of the virgin Mary. She is not the caring and pure mother as she is portrayed especially in the apocryphal gospels (e.g.: Protevangelium of James),19 but is herself a stone idol, which in its beauty seduces not only Satan, but also the people as a whole to idolatry: Now this Armilos will take his mother – (the statue) from whom he was spawned – from the “house of filth” of the scornful ones, and from every place and from every nation they will come and worship that stone, burn offerings to her, and pour out libations to her. No one will be able to view her face on account of her beauty. Anyone who refuses to worship her will die in agony (like?) animals. The Jewish Antichrist Armilos thus uses the idol of Mary to seduce people into unbelief. His name is etymologically an allusion to one of the mythical founders of Rome: Romulus.21 In this way, the figure of Armilos also serves as a typological allusion to the Roman-Byzantine ruler at that time: Herakleios. If we consider the previously described meaning and function of Mary in the canonical and apocryphal Gospels and her allegorical interpretation in the Church Fathers as well as in the Syriac-language sermon literature, then Himmelfarb’s thesis of the counter-Marianic structure of the Sefer Zerubbabel can be substantiated. For instance, Mary’s allegorical interpretation as Aaron’s staff is inverted: Chephzibah receives the actual staff of Aaron and with its help defends Jerusalem from the intrusion of the Antichrist Armilos. She then hands over the staff to her messianic son of Davidic descent. The Christian interpretation of Mary as the new temple and symbol of the Church is thus negated. For the staff of Aaron remains an integral companion of Jewish salvation history up to the Last Days (from Adam to David), in which it finally comes into the possession of the Davidic Messiah and is used in the battle against the unbelieving powers at the Last Days. Mary herself becomes the female idol in the “house of filth.” The latter was the term in medieval Jewish literature for a Christian church or cathedral.22 The rejection of the Christian claim to the renewed covenant with God and to the inheritance of the new cult is also expressed in the function of the Messiah from the descent of Joseph.23 Klausner has convincingly argued that the genesis of the idea of a second messiah ben Joseph, appearing before the Davidic messiah and dying in battle against Gog and Magog, was always originally present in the developing idea of a Jewish messiah.24 For the latter was both a political and a spiritual figure. The experience of the failure of military messianic movements (BarKochba revolt) eventually spurred the idea of a warrior messiah preceding the messiah proper, and gave rise to the concept of two successive messiah figures of different lineage. It is interesting to note that probably from the sixth century onwards there is increasing evidence of traditions in which the blessing of the tribe of Joseph in Dt 33:17 was referred to a Messiah ben Joseph.
2. In Sefer Zerubbabel, the relationship between the triad of the two messiah figures and Chephzibah can be read as a counter-design to the Christian determination of the relationship between John the Baptist, Mary and Jesus. In the Gospel of Luke and the Protevangelium of James, Zechariah and John the Baptist die respectively, marking the transition from the old covenant including the priestly temple cult to the renewed covenant of God. Mary allegorically symbolizes the new temple with the virgin birth of Jesus. The Sefer Serubbabel contrasts this theological interpretation of the covenant with, among other things, the Messiah ben Joseph. He restitutes the sacrificial cult, as an antithesis to the Christian image of Zechariah and John the Baptist, and is resurrected after his murder by the Messiah of Davidic descent. Together with Chephzibah they fight to the end times until the heavenly temple is sent down from God. Instead of the triad John/ Zacharias – Mary – Jesus the triad Messiah ben Joseph – Chephzibah – Messiah ben David takes place. In place of Mary, who is herself located in the temple and grows up under the supervision of the priests and angels, comes Chephzibah, who does not give birth to the Davidic Messiah herself. Rather, the latter waits for him to return from the Rapture in the end times. Chephzibah is not a God-bearer (theotokos) who symbolically inherits the priestly cult. Unlike Mary, she is already preceded by a Messiah ben Joseph, who precisely restores the priestly cult of sacrifice. In addition to the reversal of the allegorical interpretation of Mary as the staff of Aaron, which now serves as a holy relic for the Davidic Messiah and his mother in battle, another Christian allegory of Mary is also reversed and interpreted as the real framework of the work of the mother of the Messiah: The to-be-closed East gate of the temple, through which God enters in the future temple (Ez 44:13), is understood, contrary to its allegorical reference to Mary’s womb, as the place of action of Chephzibah, who protects the east gate from the intrusion of the Antichrist Armilos. Thus, the Eastern Gate no longer stands for the virgin birth of the Messiah Jesus, but on the contrary must be defended by Chephzibah from Armilos as Satan’s spawn from the connection with Mary’s idol.

The Qur’anic presentation of the two birth stories of John and Jesus in Q 19:1-33 shows itself, against the background of the discussed reception of this narrative until late antiquity, as a religio-political defusing of the mutual Christian-Jewish polemic concerning the Temple. Also in Sura 19 (Maryam) its symbolic meaning for the divine covenant and for messianic promises is negotiated (Q 19:1-33).

Qu’ran changes gLuke:

In comparison to the announcement of John’s birth in Luke’s Gospel, Zechariah’s wish for a successor (walīy) for his priestly office is explicitly described in the Koran (v. 5 f.). What is striking here is that this successor is to inherit the house of Jacob. The latter may be-as Neuwirth considers28- a distant allusion to the priestly class of Abijah to which Zechariah belongs (Luke 1:5). But here, above all, a correction of the replacement and renewal of the divine covenant by Jesus presupposed in Luke’s Gospel is intended. For there it is not John the Baptist who takes over the inheritance of the house of Jacob, but Jesus. For in the promise of his birth it says that he as Messiah who inherits the thorn of David (Luke 1.33). Koran, on the other hand, Zechariah himself desires a son to carry on the inheritance of the house of Jacob. It does not come here as in the Gospel of Luke and in the Protevangelium of James to a covenant-theological and salvationhistorical turn. John the Baptist is himself a prophet and is by no means described as a forerunner or forerunner of Jesus. Rather, in him Zechariah’s desire for a legitimate successor in office is fulfilled. This corrective thrust of the Qur’anic account can be solidified by further circumstantial evidence. As in Luke’s Gospel, John’s naming is part of the birth promise. He is to be called yaḥyā, as no one has been called before (v. 7). At first glance, the latter might be understood as an allusion to the statement in Luke’s Gospel that no one before in Zechariah’s kinship was called John (Luke 1:59-62). The Qur’anic indications can be understood as a plausible reinterpretation and correction within the overall discourse of the sura. That the Qur’anic pronouncement argues within the horizon of the hearers’ expectations is clear from the description of John as one who is compassionate (ḥanān). Neuwirth notes that the Arabic designation ḥanān is a “reminder of the biblical name Yōḥanān (=”God is Mild”) “31. And there is much to suggest that in the Qur’an the then customary naming of John (yuḥannā) deliberately becomes a virtue (ḥanān).32 In its place now comes his designation as yaḥyā, which is introduced in the consciousness of the listeners’ horizon of expectation as a new and hitherto unused name. The name John (Luke 1:59-62)-uncommon in Zechariah’s kinship-becomes the name yaḥyā, never before used.

If yaḥyā is read as a verbal derivative from the root ḥ-y-y, it means “He lives.” In this sense and in the same form, the verb is also used in other places in the Qur’an (Q 8:42; 20:74; 87:13). Yaḥyā is thus literally the one who lives. This new naming alludes to the fate of John. His death and the death of his father Zechariah were symbolically interpreted in Christian tradition as the end of the old covenant. With the birth of Jesus, the covenant of God is renewed and the dominion of the houses of David and Jacob passes to him for eternity. It is interesting to note that Herod even suspects that John was resurrected because of Jesus’ miraculous activity (Mt 14:1-2). From a Qur’anic perspective, on the other hand, Zechariah desires that the house of Jacob and his priesthood continue. His prayer is fulfilled with the birth of Yaḥyā. That the latter or his father will be murdered and that a turning point in salvation history will thus dawn is not even hinted at. In contrast, the Qur’an emphasizes that John is the one who lives. This does not mean an eternal life, but the negation of his murder as a covenant-theological turning point: The house of Jacob lives on with the birth of John and God does not replace or renew this covenant through the birth of Jesus.33 While a covenant-theologically interpreted replacement of the Jewish temple cult is rejected, it is striking that in Q 19 the designation for the temple has changed: There is no longer talk here of a masǧid, as in the two temple destructions in Q 17, but of a miḥrāb. Also, Zechariah’s call to praise God in the morning and evening is reminiscent of ecclesiastical forms of liturgy.34 One can certainly recognize in this the expression of a Christian perception of the temple as Mary’s place of activity, to which the Qur’an refers.

But the Qur’anic interpretation of the two temple destructions is also taken into account here: In fact, there is no temple anymore and any messianic hope for a third and eternal temple is also rejected (the Jewish cult had shifted to the synagogal worship anyway). Crucial to the Qur’anic perception, however, is that with the final destruction of the temple there has been no renewal of the divine covenant. Therefore, Zechariah’s desire for a successor to continue the house of Jacob is fulfilled. The covenant of God will continue in the person of John, who acts as a prophet, even though the temple will no longer exist. The messianic promises fulfilled by the birth of Jesus play no part in the Qur’anic version. And Mary is not the heiress of the priestly cult, but in fact a kinswoman of Aaron and thus her sister (Cf. ibid., 616 f.; cf. overall on the exegesis of this passage in previous research Michael Marx, Glimpses of a Mariology in the Qurʾan: From Hagiography to Theology via Religious-Political Debate. In: Angelika Neuwirth/Nicolai Sinai/Michael Marx (eds.), The Qurʾān in Context. Historical and Literary Investigations into the Qurʾānic Milieu, Leiden 2010, 533-563). But it is worth emphasizing here the anti-Messianic tendency of these Qur’anic de-allegorizations. For by the beginning of the seventh century, the already described deallegorizations of Mary as the staff of Aaron and the eastern gate of the temple are traceable in Jewish polemics.

She finally hands over the Aaronic staff to the Messiah. In the course of the narrative, the latter is a reversal of the Christian interpretation: while Mary, as the staff of Aaron, symbolizes the new covenant, the true mother of the Messiah hands over the actual staff of Aaron to the Messiah. The staff of Aaron has thus always been part of Jewish salvation history and a symbol of Israel’s eternal covenant with God. Also in Q 19, as in the Apocalypse of Zerubbabel, the allegorical interpretations of Mary as the Eastern Gate and the Rod of Aaron are subverted. Only, in the Qur’an, any messianic, eschatological, and covenant theological context of these symbols is negated. The Eastern Gate has become a purely deictic reference. It is an eastern place (makānan šarqīyan) to which Mary retreats to receive the promise of birth. The symbolic staff of Aaron has become the kinship reference that Mary is of Aaronid descent. This genealogy has no profound implication for a special election of Mary, but serves here as a context for the supposed sin Mary is accused of.39 The de-allegorizing negation of a messianic meaning of Mary is to be contrasted with her apology against a Jewish polemic. Mary’s virginity does not seem to be a Koranic theologumenon that would be dogmatically decisive in itself. The birth story of Jesus in Surah Maryam, on the other hand, gives the impression that it is the Jewish polemic against Mary as a temptress and female idol that is being countered here. As an example of such a polemic, the portrayal of Mary in the Apocalypse of Zerubbabel has already been discussed. There she is portrayed as a stony stature of a beautiful and seductive woman who seduces not only men to unbelief, but Satan as well. In defense of Mary, this image is reversed in the Qur’an: it is the Spirit of God who meets her as a well-formed human being (sawīyan) and thus appears as a possible seducer.

In the Qur’anic presentation of the two birth stories of John and Jesus, the respective religious-political polemics in Christian and Jewish tradition are rejected. No group can claim for itself exclusively the election by God. The Temple and Mary no longer have a messianic function in the Qur’an. With the emigration to Medina and the changing discourse constellation41 the two birth stories in Medina experience a re-reading (Q 3:33-61). Against the background of the increasing recognition of divine covenants (mīṯāq/ʿahd) with prophets and their followers, the covenantal-theological implications of this narrative are now also openly negotiated. Here, Angelika Neuwirth in particular has elaborated the corresponding thrust of this narrative material in the sura āl ʿimrān.42 At the same time, however, the anti-Messianic tendency of the Qur’anic proclamation in Medina seems to remain intact when, for instance, the messianic title of Jesus is explicitly mentioned but at the same time depotentiated to a proper name.43 However, only a detailed treatment of the Medinan text corpus and the resulting Quranic covenant theology will show what new course is set and corrections are made within the framework of the Quranic proclamation in Medina as a whole.