The Son of Man Behaving Beastly: Reading Jesus and the Wild Animals of Mk 1.13 with Dan. 4

Abstract

The temptation narrative in Mark’s gospel contains an unusual detail absent from the counterpart traditions in Matthew and Luke. In Mk 1.13, Jesus is described as being ‘with the wild animals’. Several Hebrew Bible texts and typologies have been suggested to explain this unique Markan feature; however, none has gained widespread support. This article takes a different approach and investigates this enigmatic Markan phrase by focusing on the description of Nebuchadnezzar in the Greek editions of Dan. 4. While a connection between these biblical texts has been suggested before, this paper will expand upon such observations through a more detailed comparison of several key features of these texts. It will be shown that, due to these connections, it is probable that Mark’s reference to wild animals is a comment on the behaviors exhibited by Jesus by living in the wilderness.

In the synoptic gospel tradition, shortly after Jesus’s baptism, he is tempted in the wilderness by Satan for 40 days. ¹ While Matthew and Luke both detail three separate diabolic temptations, the account is comparatively brief in Mark’s gospel. For example, unlike Matthew and Luke, Jesus does not directly converse with the devil—in fact, there is no dialogue recorded at all. The Markan account simply states how Jesus ‘was in the wilderness forty days, tempted by Satan; and he was with the wild animals; and the angels waited on him’ (Mk 1.13). ² Perhaps the most curious feature of the Markan account is that Jesus is described as being ‘with the wild animals’ (μετὰ τῶν θηρίων).

As no equivalent to this description appears in other gospel traditions, and it is seemingly stated so matter-of-factly, there has been considerable scholarly disagreement over how to understand the role of the animals in Mark’s temptation account. For the most part, there are three typical ways scholars have understood their significance. The first is that animals are simply used as an additional descriptor of the wilderness setting for Jesus’s isolating experience (see Cranfield 1959: 59; Foerster 1966; van Iersel 1998: 102). A second interpretation views the wild animals as antagonistic to Jesus, allied with the demonic powers, and part of the testing Jesus faces from Satan (see Mauser 1963: 50–51; Lane 1974: 61; Best 1990: 7–10; Gibson 1995: 65–79; Caneday 1999; France 2002: 83–87; Heil 2006; Collins 2007: 153). Thirdly, Jesus’s time with wild animals has been read as suggestive of peaceful relations between them (see Grässer 1986; Guelich 1989: 37–39; Bauckham 1994; Marcus 2000: 168–170; Dormandy 2003: 184; Rhoads 2004: 74; Bredin 2010: 44–45).

Such interpretations are frequently reliant on detecting echoes or themes from the Hebrew Bible. However, despite this interest in intertextual connections, only a few scholars have noted the specific links between Mk 1.13 and Dan. 4, which have not been fully explored. This article seeks to develop this perceived relationship between the Greek texts of Dan. 4 and Mk 1.13 to see how this might illuminate our understanding of Jesus being ‘with the wild animals’. In so doing, it will be suggested that, if such a connection is made, this short note about Jesus and the animals should connote a behavioral change.

Previous Readings of Mark’s Wild Animals

Firstly, it is worth considering previous attempts at understanding the reference to Jesus being ‘with the wild animals’ and the difficulties associated with each approach. This should demonstrate why a different consideration of the passage might be useful.

The simplest approach to the mention of wild animals in Mk 1.13 has been to essentially dismiss any greater significance attached to the phrase. These animals are merely illustrative of the wilderness setting of the narrative, situate Jesus within his surroundings, and indicate the absence of other humans (see Cranfield 1959: 59). This approach has often been seen as unconvincing, as this is instantly negated—if their presence is supposed to indicate the loneliness of Jesus in the wilderness—by the presence of angels later in the verse (Best 1990: 7). It also ignores the phrase’s peculiar inclusion in such a brief account of Jesus’s wilderness sojourn, as well as the curious fact that this reference was seemingly omitted in subsequent gospel traditions.

The wild animals have also been read in light of Hebrew Bible texts where animals and demons appear to be linked, particularly when in the wilderness (e.g., Isa. 13.21; 34.14; see Best 1990: 8; Collins 2007: 153). ³ The wild animals are then understood as being allied with Satan and part of the testing that Jesus undergoes (Lane 1974: 61–62; Gibson 1995: 78–79; Caneday 1999; France 2002: 86–87). In this reading, there are two opposing forces: Jesus, the angels, and the Spirit on one side, then Satan and the wild animals on the other. John Heil (2006) has also argued that Satan and the animals are grammatically paralleled in the chiastic structure of Mk 1.12–13. The units concerning the Spirit and the angels begin with καί, whereas the units that mention Satan and animals both begin καὶ ἦν. For Heil (2006: 65), this shows that being with the wild animals is parallel to being tested by Satan. This is seemingly supported by scholars (Gibson 1994: 22; Garrett 1998: 57) who use Hebrew Bible texts, such as Ps. 91, to show that the angels and animals in Mk 1.13 should be seen as in conflict and thus the animals are on the side of Satan. However, the angels are never described as guarding or defending Jesus but merely as ministering (διηκόνουν) to him (Grässer 1986: 149). Rather than being angelic protectors, the Greek verb likely indicates they were serving or providing food for Jesus instead (Stein 2008: 65; Asumang 2009: 4). Additionally, the notion that Mark’s temptation account pits characters on two opposing sides overlooks the ambiguous role of the Spirit. The Spirit ‘casts out [ἐκβάλλει]’ Jesus into the wilderness (Mk 1.12), which does not suggest cooperation; rather, it seems to indicate forced movement perhaps involving violence (Boring 2006: 47). The Spirit’s association with divine affection (Mk 1.10–11) is balanced by its harsh actions here, and therefore the Spirit does not fit easily as either ally or enemy to Jesus. A simple binary conflict in Mk 1.12–13 is therefore doubtful, and the wild animals need not be thought of in such terms. Furthermore, the chiastic structure suggested by Heil is certainly questionable. Alternative structures for the passage, which do not parallel the animals and Satan, have been proposed (Marcus 2000: 169). The evidence of the wild animals serving as demonic allies, therefore, remains unconvincing.

Other attempts to use the Hebrew Bible to explicate the Markan wild animals often rely on the application of typology. One example of this is to see an Elijah-Elisha typology at work in Mark’s temptation narrative. Evidence for this includes the fact that Elijah texts incorporate both the motif of 40 days (1 Kgs 19.8; Mk 1.13) and angelic ministry (1 Kgs 19.5–8; Mk 1.13). Given these comparisons, a parallel has also been sought in the Elijah narrative to the animals in Mk 1.13. Despite no explicit mention of wild animals (θηρία) occurring within the Elijah-Elisha tradition of 1–2 Kings, Mary Ann Beavis (2011: 39) suggests the animals of Mk 1.13 could be an echo of the ravens who assist Elijah (1 Kgs 17.2–6). However, θηρίον does not normally extend to birds and is commonly used to separate birds from other wild animals (e.g., Gen. 7.14; 9.10; Ps. 148.10). Furthermore, it seems unlikely that Mk 1.13 reflects both Elijah’s encounter with ravens (1 Kgs 17.2–6) and his 40-day journey to Horeb (1 Kgs 19.8), which are quite distinct events in the Elijah tradition.

An Israel typology, specifically with the Israelites’ wandering in the wilderness, is also often detected in Mark’s temptation account. There are some obvious similarities between the wilderness wandering, not least the motif of the wilderness itself and the time period of forty (Josh. 5.6; Num. 14.34). Given these apparent similarities, various attempts have been made to find an aspect of Israel’s wilderness sojourn to correspond to Jesus’s experience with the wild animals. Most commonly, interpreters point to the serpents who are sent among the Israelites in Deut. 8.15 and Num. 21.6 (see France 2002: 86; Heil 2006: 74). Although snakes are occasionally referred to elsewhere as a θηρίον or wild animal, neither passage about Israel in the wilderness uses this specific Greek term in the Septuagint. ⁴ It, therefore, seems unlikely that Mk 1.13 intends to invoke these snakes from such Pentateuchal passages. ⁵

The third major typology seen in Mk 1.12–13 is an Adam-Jesus typology (Jeremias 1964; Grässer 1986: 157). Interestingly, this has been primarily occasioned through attention to the Markan wild animals, which seemingly parallel Adam’s cohabitation with animals in Genesis (Gen. 2.19–20). Erich Grässer (1986: 152) argues that where the first Adam made animals an enemy in Gen. 3.15, Jesus reverses this and lives with them in heavenly peace. This is supported by the assertion that when μετά is followed by the genitive, as in Mk 1.13, it signifies a peaceful relationship. Richard Bauckham (1994: 5) notes how this construction occurs in various Greek texts (e.g., Mt. 12.30; Lk. 22.59; Jn 3.2; Acts 7.9) with a sense of positive association. Without indicators to suggest otherwise, Bauckham therefore proposes this positive sense should be read in Mk 1.13, too. However, this understanding of the grammatical construction does not take into account the Markan context whereby the phrase ἦν μετά is often suggestive of mastery or subordination (e.g., Mk 3.14; 5.18; see Gibson 1995: 78–79 n. 136) and thus is less suggestive of peaceable or positive relations. Furthermore, though it might be presumed that Adam had communion with wild animals, the phrase to be ‘with the wild animals’ (μετὰ τῶν θηρίων) is altogether absent from the Genesis Eden narrative (van Henten 1999: 356). Indeed, there is no great emphasis on Adam being with wild animals in early Jewish tradition either (Best 1990: 8). A further problem is that Jesus is said to be with only wild animals, whereas Adam lives alongside all of creation including domestic animals and birds (Gen. 2.19; see Gundry 1993: 1.58). ⁶ As it is, Mk 1.13 seems unlikely to be an allusion back to biblical Adamic traditions.

Previous Scholarship on Mk 1.13 and Dan. 4

Having considered various biblical traditions that are commonly suggested as relating to Mk 1.13, this study will now turn to address a different and lesser-acknowledged text that might also shed light upon Jesus’s time with the wild animals. In Greek editions of the Hebrew Bible, the overwhelming majority of occurrences of the phrase μετὰ τῶν θηρίων (‘with the wild animals’) are found in editions of Dan. 4. ⁷ Due to the repeated use of this exact construction in this Danielic text, reading Mk 1.13 in connection with these editions of Dan. 4 might prove fruitful to refine how this Markan passage should be understood. ⁸

The potential relationship between Mk 1.13 and Dan. 4 has been noticed before by some scholars. For example, while Jan Willem van Henten (1999) is generally focused on connections between Mk 1.13 and biblical passages about Israel’s testing in the wilderness, he does also briefly note the parallel occurrence of μετὰ τῶν θηρίων in Greek texts of Dan. 4. While ultimately arguing that the role of the animals must remain unresolved, he suggests that using Dan. 4 may support the idea that this phrase simply indicates Jesus is no longer living in the inhabited realm—particularly because of the passage in Dan. 4.32 where Nebuchadnezzar is told: ‘You shall be driven away from human society, and your dwelling shall be with the animals of the field’ (see van Henten 1999: 362). ⁹ However, while van Henten refers to Greek editions of Dan. 4 to establish the potential for this linguistic connection to Mk 1.13, when he provides this citation of Dan. 4.32 he, seemingly unintentionally, quotes from the Aramaic text in Dan. 4 Masoretic text (MT). The different editions of Dan. 4 present Nebuchadnezzar’s affliction in quite different ways, and it is problematic to assume they all indicate the same issues in this way. Van Henten’s argument, therefore, highlights the need to specifically examine the Greek editions of Dan. 4 when interpreting the possible meaning of Mk 1.13.

Additionally, in his commentary on Mark, Ben Witherington (2001: 77) also briefly introduces Dan. 4 as an interesting parallel to the Markan temptation account. His examination of potential connections between the narratives is slightly longer than van Henten’s but still superficial and lacking in close analysis. Based on thematic parallels, including their shared references to animals, Witherington suggests that, in Mk 1.13, ‘Jesus is being portrayed as a king, only one who is wiser than Nebuchadnezzar’. Curiously, amid his discussion, he fails to observe the similar phraseology between the Greek editions of Dan. 4 and Mk 1.13; indeed, he makes no attempt to examine the underlying Greek of either text.

These two previous attempts at using Dan. 4 to understand Mk 1.13 are both deficient and highlight the need for a more careful examination of these two texts that are simultaneously attentive to their potential linguistic connections, thematic parallels, and the specific Greek editions of Dan. 4.

The Greek Texts of Dan. 4

Before such an examination of Mk 1.13 can be attempted though, it is necessary to understand the complex textual situation regarding the Greek text of Dan. 4. All editions of the Danielic narrative contain the same critical components: Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a great tree; Daniel’s dream interpretation; a description of the dream’s fulfillment in Babylon; the king’s sojourn with the wild animals; and the king’s eventual restoration to the throne. While some narrative elements may be reflected in Mark’s gospel (e.g., the great tree dream in Dan. 4.7–9 and the parable of the mustard seed in Mk 4.30–32), it is only when the king’s affliction is described that Dan. 4 contains a parallel to Mk 1.13: Nebuchadnezzar is described as μετὰ τῶν θηρίων (e.g., Dan. 4.12). This construction is identical to that used by Jesus in Mk 1.13. However, as there are multiple Greek editions of Dan. 4 that relate the narrative events in a subtly different manner, the way in which this phrase is used could potentially alter in various editions. ¹⁰ This article will, therefore, proceed to examine the Greek editions of Dan. 4 of which the two principal ones are the Old Greek edition and the Theodotion edition. ¹¹

The majority of the significant witnesses to the Greek Bible contain the Theodotion (Θ) text of Daniel. ¹² This edition is now viewed as predating the second-century figure Theodotion due to various references to it within the New Testament (e.g., Dan. 6.22 Θ in Heb. 11.33). ¹³ The Θ edition bears considerable similarity to the Aramaic edition extant in the MT, which suggests that it is a fresh translation of an early Semitic text (McLay 1996: 214–248). ¹⁴ Nevertheless, it does include the so-called Additions to Daniel, too. ¹⁵ When considering the Θ text of Dan. 4, it should be considered to be a translation of an early Aramaic text similar to the MT but which has undergone some minor alteration. ¹⁶

The second major Greek edition of Daniel is known as the Old Greek (OG) edition and is found in only three manuscripts of Daniel: Codex Chisianus 88, the Syro-Hexaplar in Codex Ambrosianus, and Papyrus 967 from the Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri. ¹⁷ Like the Θ edition, the OG also contains the Additions to Daniel, albeit in a different sequence. ¹⁸ However, most notably, the OG contains considerably different narratives of Dan. 4–6 when compared to the MT or Θ edition. This is far greater than is usual for differences between translations (such as in Dan. 1–3 or 7–12). These variant narratives in Dan. 4–6 have been explained by Eugene Ulrich (1999: 72) as an example of ‘double literary editions’ that are ‘expanding in different directions beyond an earlier common edition which no longer survives’. This commonly accepted understanding means that a supposed original form of Dan. 4–6 went through various alterations or redactions to eventually develop into two variant editions of the narratives (the OG and the MT more closely related Θ edition), neither of which should be considered the ‘primary’ edition. Therefore Dan. 4 OG and Dan. 4 Θ will be considered here as variant Greek editions of the narrative. ¹⁹

This diversity of textual evidence complicates a simple attempt at comparing Dan. 4 with Mk 1.13. Both Greek editions of Daniel seem to be referred to in different places within Mark’s gospel (e.g., Dan. 7.13 Θ in Mk 14.62 and Dan. 4.7–9 OG in Mk 4.32). ²⁰ It is therefore difficult to know which form of the Greek text of Daniel was accessible to Mark (see also: Keil 2017: 153 n. 45). Subsequent investigation of the potential relationship between Mk 1.12–13 and Dan. 4 will thus necessarily involve scrutinizing each Greek edition of Daniel. ²¹

Reading Mk 1.12–13 in Light of Dan. 4

The following examination of Mk 1.12–13 alongside Dan. 4 will proceed in a few stages. Firstly, thematic correlations between the Greek editions of Dan. 4, and the Markan temptation narrative will be considered to identify whether there is a wider relationship between these texts. Secondly, the specific Greek phrase μετὰ τῶν θηρίων will be examined in each of the Greek editions of Daniel to see where it occurs and whether it can assist in interpreting Mk 1.13.

Thematic Parallels

One important parallel between these texts is that both Jesus’s and Nebuchadnezzar’s experiences with the wild animals are immediately preceded by a sudden declaration by a voice from heaven. Mk 1.11 describes how a voice came from heaven (ϕωνὴ ἐγένετο ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν) to announce to Jesus ‘You are my Son, the Beloved’. Both Greek editions of Dan. 4 resemble this to some degree. In Dan. 4.28 Θ, a voice came from heaven (ϕωνὴ ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ ἐγένετο), whereas in Dan. 4 OG, Nebuchadnezzar heard a voice from heaven (Dan. 4.28 OG; ϕωνὴν ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἤκουσε).

Curiously, the wilderness exiles in Dan. 4 OG and Mk 1.13 are both preceded by prominent declarations. The voice from heaven declares about Jesus: Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου (Mk 1.11), while Nebuchadnezzar himself declares: Αὕτη ἐστι Βαβυλών ἡ μεγάλη (Dan. 4.27 OG). ²² These statements follow a similar format: pronoun – a form of εἰμί – noun – modifier. Both also immediately precipitate the onset of the protagonist’s exile (Mk 1.12; Dan. 4.28 OG). The content is also similar as Nebuchadnezzar boasts of his own sovereignty (Dan. 4.27 OG), while the heavenly voice recites from Ps. 2.7 (‘You are my Son . . .’) in relation to Jesus (Mk 1.11). As Ps. 2 can be understood as a coronation psalm (Craigie 1983: 64–67), its formulation in Markan passages also functions as an announcement of his kingly rule. ²³ These declarations that immediately precede the presumed royal figures’ time in the wilderness provide an intriguing parallel between Mk 1 and Dan. 4. ²⁴

This is immediately followed by the Spirit casting Jesus into the wilderness (Mk 1.12; τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτὸν ἐκβάλλει εἰς τὴν ἔρημον). Unlike this Markan narrative, neither Greek text of Dan. 4 involves the Spirit in causing the wilderness sojourn. ²⁵ However, both editions describe how Nebuchadnezzar’s affliction is initiated by being violently driven away. Dan. 4 Θ describes how Nebuchadnezzar was ‘driven out away from humanity’ (Dan. 4.30 Θ; ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐξεδιώχθη; see also Dan. 4.29 Θ). Dan. 4 OG does not contain the same language of being ‘driven out’, nevertheless it provides a parallel to the heavenly involvement in the events. Dan. 4.29 OG describes how ‘the angels will drive [οἱ ἄγγελοι διώξονταί]’ Nebuchadnezzar for seven years. Furthermore, in Dan. 4.21 OG, it is related how ‘the Most High and his angels will pursue [κατατρέχουσιν] you’. This emphasizes the divine role in forcefully moving Nebuchadnezzar away to be with the wild animals. Concerning the Spirit’s action in casting Jesus out, neither Greek edition of Dan. 4 provides an especially close linguistic parallel, but the OG exhibits a closer overall similarity in portraying the exiled king as being driven away by divine forces.

Similarly, the wilderness (τὴν ἔρημον) of Mk 1.12 finds no parallel in Dan. 4 Θ, which does not even mention the wilderness once in its narrative. Nonetheless, a suitable equivalent can be found in Dan. 4 OG, which describes how Nebuchadnezzar will be sent ‘out to a deserted place’ (Dan. 4.22 OG; εἰς τόπον ἔρημον ἀποστελοῦσί). Once more the narrative of Nebuchadnezzar’s sojourn in the wilderness within Dan. 4 OG, rather than Dan. 4 Θ, appears to better reflect the wider context of Jesus’s exile in Mk 1.12–13.

A detail that does not find a close parallel in the Greek editions of Dan. 4 is the forty-day (Mk 1.13; τεσσεράκοντα ἡμέρας) length of Jesus’s wilderness exile. Dan. 4 Θ states that ‘seven times will be changed’ over Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4.13, 22, 29 Θ; ἑπτὰ καιροὶ ἀλλαγήσονται), while Dan. 4 OG suggests he was in the wilderness for ‘seven years’ (Dan. 4.13, 29, 30a, 30c OG; ἔτη ἑπτά). Furthermore, there is no mention in either Greek edition of Dan. 4 regarding the satanic temptation or testing detailed in Mk 1.13. ²⁶

The question of a parallel in the Greek texts of Dan. 4 for Jesus’s angelic ministration (Mk 1.13; οἱ ἄγγελοι διηκόνουν αὐτῷ) rests, to some extent, upon what exactly this angelic ministration entails. The term διηκόνουν often means ‘to provide food or table-service’, and this sense can be attested elsewhere in the synoptic gospels (e.g., Lk. 12.37; 17.8; see Beyer 1969; France 2002: 87). When used elsewhere in Mark, διακονέω generally connotes table-service too (Mk 1.31; 15.41). ²⁷ Mark might be deliberately contrasting John the Baptist’s consumption of locusts and honey (Mk. 1.4–6) with Jesus being fed angelic fare (Asumang 2009: 4). Furthermore, unlike Mt. 4.2, Mark’s gospel does not specify that Jesus was fasting throughout the forty days. As it is likely difficult to find sufficient nourishment in the wilderness, it seems appropriate to view the angels as sustaining Jesus during harsh conditions in Mk 1.13. The closest connection with this angelic ministration is in Dan. 4 OG, which states that, after driving Nebuchadnezzar for seven years, the angels ‘will feed you grass like an ox, and your pasture will be the tender grass of the earth’ (Dan. 4.29 OG; χόρτον ὡς βοῦν σε ψωμίσουσι, καὶ ἀπό τῆς χλόης τῆς γῆς ἔσται ἡ νομή σου). The same similarity cannot be found in Dan. 4 Θ, which does not mention angels at all. Thus, when the text describes how ‘they will feed you grass’ (Dan. 4.29 Θ; χόρτον ὡς βοῦν ψωμίσοῦσι σε), there is no suggestion that angels are the agents of this action. This evidence seems to suggest that there may be a closer relationship between Mk 1.13 and Dan. 4 OG rather than with the Θ edition.

Usage of μετὰ τῶν θηρίων

Now that these wider themes have been assessed, focus can turn to examine the specific phrase found in each of these texts: μετὰ τῶν θηρίων. While this only occurs once in Mk 1.13, the phrase is found multiple times in the Greek editions of Dan. 4.

Dan. 4 OG contains this key phrase three times in the narrative. It first occurs in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream where the angel announces that ‘with the wild animals [μετὰ τῶν θηρίων] of the earth in the mountains, it may feed on grass like an ox’ (Dan. 4.12 OG). Then, in his dream, the tree ‘ate grass with the wild animals [μετὰ τῶν θηρίων] of the earth’ (Dan. 4.14a OG). Finally, as Nebuchadnezzar articulates the details of his affliction, he states that: ‘I was walking about naked with the wild animals [μετὰ τῶν θηρίων] of the earth’ (Dan. 4.30b OG). The use of this same precise formulation found in Mk 1.13 may perhaps suggest a form of correlation between these texts. Furthermore, this phrase occurs twice to describe the kind of dietary behavior that the tree (representing Nebuchadnezzar) will experience in the wilderness (Dan. 4.12, 14a OG). In both these circumstances, Nebuchadnezzar adopts a diet of grass, which is the behavior he exhibits ‘with the wild animals’. The only other occurrence of this phrase in the OG edition of Daniel is in Dan. 4.30b OG where Nebuchadnezzar describes how he ‘was walking about naked with the wild animals’. In this instance, it is not his diet being described but his clothing behavior and his physical appearance. Within this textual context, the phrase μετὰ τῶν θηρίων is used to describe how an individual behaves similarly to wild animals.

In contrast with this range of material, Dan. 4 Θ contains only one example of this exact phrase. ²⁸ When the tree’s affliction is announced, Dan. 4 Θ also states that: ‘with the wild animals [μετὰ τῶν θηρίων], its portion will be in the grass of the earth’ (v. 12). However, in all subsequent mentions the article is dropped from this formulation, thus giving: μετὰ θηρίων (Dan. 4.20, 22, 29 Θ). Dan. 4 Θ, therefore, seems to lack some of the textual connection with Mk 1.13 that is evident in Dan. 4 OG. Nonetheless, the function of this phrase (with or without the article) in Dan. 4 Θ is also used to match specific behaviors of Nebuchadnezzar with those of wild animals. The only passage including the complete phrase μετὰ τῶν θηρίων (Dan. 4.12 Θ) uses it to describe the king’s dietary behavior in just the same way as the OG. This function is shared when the incomplete phrase is used in Dan. 4.20 Θ. The other two incomplete occurrences of this phrase are used to indicate the location of Nebuchadnezzar’s habitation when he is afflicted (Dan. 4.22, 29 Θ), which could conceivably also indicate his behavior in choosing where to live. Dan. 4 Θ therefore also uses this phrase to relate Nebuchadnezzar’s behavior and habitation to those of wild animals.

In both Greek editions of Dan. 4, the phrase μετὰ τῶν θηρίων thus indicates that a person is adopting behaviors that are similar to those of a wild animal. This function of μετὰ τῶν θηρίων to describe bestial behaviors can also be attested elsewhere outside the biblical corpus. For example, in his Orations, Aristides (530–468 BCE) writes that: ‘when oratory had come in this way from the gods to mankind, men were able to escape their harsh life with the beasts [μετὰ τῶν θηρίων]’ (Aristides, Orations 2.398). ²⁹ Here, too, being ‘with the wild animals’ indicates that human life and behavior could be described as animal-like.

Conclusion

The wild animals mentioned in Mk 1.13 have often been understood as either antagonistic to Jesus or as living peacefully alongside him. Nonetheless, there are significant problems with each interpretation. This paper has aimed to shed light on the debate surrounding this passage by investigating the under-researched connections between Mk 1.13 and the Greek editions of Dan. 4.

This investigation has revealed several key points. Firstly, there seems to be a closer thematic similarity between the Markan temptation narrative and Dan. 4 OG, as opposed to Dan. 4 Θ. This is due to the parallel reference to a divine agent driving out the protagonist, a similar pronouncement before the exile, references to the wilderness, and similar angelic ministration. Furthermore, based on the comparison of the occurrence of μετὰ τῶν θηρίων in these two Danielic editions, it also seems this phrase is more prominent in Dan. 4 OG rather than Dan. 4 Θ. The Θ edition does contain a parallel example of μετὰ τῶν θηρίων but also repeatedly uses a different construction. If the Markan text did have a textual connection with Dan. 4, then the fact that Dan. 4 OG repeatedly utilizes the same exact construction suggests this is the more likely candidate. A direct textual relationship might seem unlikely, but the thematic similarities between Mk 1.13 and Dan. 4 OG should not be ignored, and it is conceivable that the imagery utilized in the Danielic texts was drawn on by the author of the Markan temptation account. Lastly, the function of the specific phrase μετὰ τῶν θηρίων was examined, and the majority of its occurrences within the Greek editions of Dan. 4 were found to describe Nebuchadnezzar’s behaviors when in the wilderness. All references in Dan. 4 OG, and half of those in Dan. 4 Θ, reflected this trend, and most of them refer to Nebuchadnezzar’s dietary behavior in exile.

These insights from the Greek editions of Dan. 4 can help interpret the unusual reference to Jesus’s time with the wild animals in Mk 1.13. The function of the phrase μετὰ τῶν θηρίων in Dan. 4 OG and Θ is indicative that Jesus’s activity ‘with the wild animals’ (Mk 1.13) should be understood as referring to a change in Jesus’s behavior. Moreover, most uses of μετὰ τῶν θηρίων in Dan. 4 OG and Θ refer to a similarity between the protagonist’s dietary behavior and that of wild animals. Just as the angels’ Markan ministration should be understood as table-service, the reference to wild animals might also reflect the food Jesus consumed in the wilderness. Just as Nebuchadnezzar ‘ate the grass with the wild animals’ (Dan. 4.14a OG) and the angels later fed him as well (Dan. 4.30a), perhaps the same is true of Jesus in Mk 1.13. Therefore, if Dan. 4 is put in connection with Mk 1.13, then the use of the phrase ‘with the wild animals’ might better indicate that Jesus is behaving like an animal. ³⁰ Furthermore, an understanding of the analogous account in Dan. 4 OG might prove to be fruitfully informative for the portrayal of Jesus’s wilderness sojourn in Mark’s gospel. As noted earlier, each of these texts (Mk 1.12–13; Dan. 4 OG) concern a time of divine testing in the context of royal imagery surrounding the protagonist (Mk 1.11; Dan. 4.27 OG). Yet it might also be observed that following each of their experiences both Nebuchadnezzar and Jesus proceed to announce God’s kingdom (Mk 1.15; Dan. 4.34–34c OG). The change in Nebuchadnezzar’s behavior to resemble an animal appears to teach him humility and causes him to acknowledge God’s sovereignty (Porteous 1965: 69). So, too, Jesus’s experience in the wilderness (including acting like an animal) might also be read to reflect this same process as he prepares to embark on his own messianic kingship as the Son of Man (Mk 2.10), which is still ultimately subordinate to God’s rule (e.g., Rowe 2002: 307). This is contra France (1990: 10), who suggests the point of Mk 1.12–13 is to demonstrate Jesus’s mission will be contested. Read instead alongside Dan. 4, the theme of the Markan wilderness account would be one of a humble testing of the presumed messianic figure, part of which involves behaving as an animal.