Jesus in the Talmud

The Frivolous Disciple 39bowl were Zoroastrians and that their opponent, against whom the curseshould be directed, was a Christian. 33 Hence, the Jewish writer of thebowl used in the curse the most effective magic names he could think offor a Christian: the names of the God of the Old and New Testaments(from the Christian perspective). This does not imply, of course, that theJewish writer believed in Jesus and the Trinity, but it certainly means thathe knew of the name of Jesus and believed in its magical power.It may well be the case, therefore, that the connection betweenYehoshua b. Perahya and Jesus in the Bavli is made through “magic” as thecommon denominator of both figures: 34 Yehoshua b. Perahya, the archmagicianfrom Babylonia and Jesus, his master student. The fact that theeditor of our Bavli sugya turns this into an anti-magic story only proves thatthe connection between the two heroes must be older than the story in itspresent form.Finally, despite the critique of Jesus and his magic within the narrativeitself, the context in which the Bavli editor puts the story is remarkable:he criticizes not Jesus, the magician, but rather his teacher Yehoshuab. Perahya, who pushes the poor student away with both his hands, thatis, finally and irrevocably, instead of first punishing him (with one hand)and then forgiving him (with the other). This reading of the story by theeditor is all the more ironical as, in fact, Yehoshua b. Perahya does wantto receive Jesus (waving with one hand!), and it is Jesus who misunderstandsthis gesture as the ultimate rejection. Nevertheless, the teachermakes another effort to convince the student to repent (even after he hasset up his brick worship), and it is again the student, not the teacher, whoconcludes that he is not eligible for repentance because of the magnitudeof his sin.Altogether, we observe a striking sequence of literary layers in the Bavlinarrative: first, the story of an originally anonymous disciple, reprimandedfor his frivolous behavior, who is later identified as Jesus. This story is extendedby the abortive attempt on the part of the student to be forgiven byhis teacher (which turns out to be a misunderstanding) and the student’sbrick worship as a result of this. A last attempt on the part of the teacher tosave the student fails because of the student’s insight that his sin forfeits repentance.In what clearly looks like an addendum, the “master” identifiesthis sin as magic and once again the student as Jesus. Finally, the Bavli