Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

THE MISSION OF JESUS §11.7
gious experience and motivation before it reflects a story-teller's patterning of
performance to conform to traditional accounts of such experiences.
At the same time, we recall the historical difficulty in locating such a wilderness
period within the beginning of Jesus' mission (above § 11.2b). If Jesus'
mission did indeed initially model itself on John's (John 3.22-24) and assumed
its distinctive shape only following John's imprisonment (Mark 1.14), we are left
in some uncertainty as to the timing of any wilderness retreat, particularly as the
Fourth Evangelist (our only source for the early overlap period) makes no reference
to one. Did it happen 'immediately' after the initial encounter with John, or
only after John had been removed from the scene? We are no longer in a position
to answer such a question.
The question whether we can speak of 'the temptation of Jesus' as an experience
of Jesus himself leaves us similarly non-plussed. (1) As with the question
of Jesus' experience at Jordan (above §11.5), we need to take seriously the fact
that what we have is a story about Jesus, not a story told by Jesus or teaching remembered
as a personal communication from Jesus. Behind the story there are
no doubt impressions left by Jesus, but how much more we can say remains unclear.
190 (2) Moreover, there can be little doubt that each of the Evangelists
passes on a version which has been shaped in the various tellings. In Mark the interpretative
element is modest: 'he was with the wild beasts', signifying, perhaps,
Jesus being protected during the forty days (cf. Dan. 6.16-23), or possibly
even an anticipation of paradise restored. 191 The Q version is much more elaborate,
with its account of three specific temptations. 192 It is difficult to avoid the
conclusion that the Q account has been shaped to bring out a parallel between Je-
190. Fitzmyer wonders whether 'Jesus recounted some form of these stories as figurative,
parabolic resumes of the seduction latent in the diabolic opposition to him and his ministry'
(Luke 509-10).
191. Cf. Gen. 2.19-20 with Isa. 11.6-9; 65.25; Hos. 2.18. See, e.g., Jeremias, Proclamation
69-70; Pesch, Markusevangelium 95-96; D. C. Allison, 'Behind the Temptations of Jesus:
Q 4:1-13 and Mark 1.12-13', in Chilton and Evans, eds., Authenticating the Activities of Jesus
195-213 (here 196-99, though note also 202-203); various interpretations are reviewed by R. H.
Gundry, Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 54-59; J. W. van Henten, The First Testing of
Jesus: A Rereading of Mark 1.12-13', NTS 45 (1999) 349-66.
192. As Kloppenborg notes, 'the temptation story in Q has often proved something of an
embarrassment', which he partially resolves by treating it as 'a late addition to Q' (Formation
ch. 6; here 246-47). The issue is bound up with the question of a link between the temptation
narrative and what preceded (see above, n. 165). But it could equally be questioned whether the
temptation narrative should not rather be attributed to oral tradition, picked up independently
by Matthew and Luke (cf. Lührmann, Redaktion 56): the verbal agreements come precisely in
the key exchanges of dialogue, as we would expect in oral tradition; and the variation in detail
(tempted during or after forty days, the different order of the temptations) is quite what assemblies
accustomed to the oral performance of tradition would expect.
380