Jesus in the Talmud

The Son/Disciple Who Turned out Badly 31Here Jesus finds himself in the not particularly flattering company ofAhitophel, Doeg, and Gehazi. What is it that they did and why are theyregarded as prime examples of bad company? First of all, the emphasis inthe present context is on disciples and not on sons: the students leavethe school of Rav Hisda, are well loaded with Torah and precepts,and dread a “breach,” “going forth,” and “outcry” in their “streets” (i.e.,among them), meaning someone in their company who produces an unworthystudent/follower. The examples are taken from no lesser “companions”than David, Saul, and Elisha. David “produced” Ahitophel, hisunfaithful adviser, who advised David’s son Absalom to rebel against hisfather by having intercourse with his concubines (2 Sam. 16:20–23) andto kill David (2 Sam. 17:2); when his counsel was rejected, he committedsuicide (2 Sam. 17:23). Doeg the Edomite was the overseer overSaul’s shepherds (1 Sam. 21:8) and loyal to King Saul: he informed Saulthat the priests of Nob had supported David (1 Sam. 22:9f.) and killedthe priests on Saul’s request (1 Sam. 22:18f.). And finally Gehazi was theservant of the prophet Elisha whom Elisha cursed with leprosy becauseof his greed (2 Kings 5:20–27). Jesus clearly does not originally belong tothis list because he breaks the pattern of the preceding examples (“mayour company not be like that of X, from which issued Y”): his master isnot mentioned because there was no appropriate candidate in the Bible;instead he is just introduced as a bad son or disciple with the same phraseas in b Sanhedrin. This makes it quite clear that the context in b Berakhotis secondary.Such a conclusion based on the literary analysis of the story does notaffect, however, the message of the version preserved in b Berakhot. 23 Atfirst glance it simply reuses the Jesus dictum within the context of a list of“bad companions” all taken from the Hebrew Bible without adding substantialnew information about Jesus. But this is only part of the evidence.Looking at it again and taking into consideration the original context ofthe “bad companions,” it becomes clear that our version is in fact a veryclever remodeling of a much earlier story. Our three “bad companions”are singled out, together with Balaam as the fourth and most prominentculprit, already in the famous passage in the Mishna of the four “commoners,”who have no portion in the world to come. 24 The Mishna, afterhaving stated categorically that “all Israel have a portion in the world to