The word that is translated here as ‘wilderness’ can also mean ‘loneliness’, ‘undeveloped’, or ‘uncivilized’. It implies separation from society, and from civilization. The Latin word used here is ‘deserto’, again meaning alone and unconnected. While we may imagine a barren desert or bald mountain ranges, dense jungles or fields of ice as being the ‘wilderness’, from the Roman perspective, everything outside their borders was the wilderness. Whenever they absorbed a new land into their administrative borders, they would claim to have brought ‘light’ to a new land. They were really very serious about believing that they had the best culture in the world.

We know that Galilee, where Jesus went, was not actually a part of the Roman Empire at the time, but was a client state. Meaning that it was independent, and Roman legions didn’t go there unless there was a Big Problem. It was, colloquially, the Wilderness. There was also a major separatist movement based in Galilee that actively and violently fought against Roman hegemony. So by joining the separatists, Jesus of Gamla metaphorically went into the political wilderness when he crossed into the geographic wilderness. 

You have to set aside any ideas you have about Satan, because they’re all a lot more recent than what the writers of the Gospels had in mind. The Aramaic word “סָטָנָא” means adversary, and really that’s all that is being intended here. Again, this is a reference to the separatists in Galilee who were opposed to Rome and thus truly evil. This character has generated far more attention than the Gospel writers could possibly have imagined, so it’s important to not overburden this word with too much meaning.

Again, with wild beasts we repeat the theme that the separatists were fully immoral and barbaric, as were any people who did not fully embrace Roman hegemony. It was not literally meant that Jesus was hanging out with lions and bears. Biblical writings are full of metaphors, so it’s not really unexpected. This verse includes the classic ‘forty days & forty nights’ device which literally meant an uncountable number of days, but was used to indicate a very long period of time. 

Abandon any ideas you may have had about angels, either as graceful cherubs or bad acid trips. It simply means ‘messenger’, often used to describe messengers of the chief authority – in this case, Caesar. The reference to angels here is meant to describe a rather complex situation. Even in Galilee, a place not officially Roman, Caesar had his agents who were there both to remind Jesus of Gamla his place to support Caesar, and to report back that he was not so supportive.

Given what just happened in verse 11, and what we know of the political situation at the time, we may be able to decipher the metaphors presented here. One particular conceit of the Romans was that they represented the apex of civilization, and everyone outside their realms were barbarians in the wilderness. Anyone who rebelled against Rome was either a beast or a wild animal, either evil or stupid. Anyone who conspired against Rome was speaking with the Great Adversary. 

Jesus of Gamla had been high priest of the temple in Jerusalem at a time when this would have occurred under the auspices of Caesar, but then he became one of the leaders of the rebellion. From an Imperial perspective, he had been brought into the Roman family, but then turned against them, aligning instead with the “wild beasts”. And it is without question that Jesus of Gamla went from Galilee to Jerusalem, where he held a kind of authority, but was killed later by other Jews, in Jerusalem. This might lead one to a conclusion that the identity of the historical Jesus from the Bible has been made, but one would be in error.

The name ‘Jesus/Joshua’ in that time and place was common, like ‘John’, and ‘James/Jacob’, apparently. It is entirely likely that some of the references to a ‘Jesus’ in the Gospels are towards completely unrelated people, and this is made clear by the settings and groupings of people in the various scenes throughout the four books showing that at least two or three different people named Jesus must be referenced. Further, Jesus the historical High Priest wouldn’t have been healing the sick, raising the dead, or controlling the weather, so this is clearly not an historical tale. The character of Jesus as depicted in the Bible could not possibly have been a single, real person because he was shown doing impossible things, like being in multiple places simultaneously, walking on water, or levitating into heaven.

What is far more likely is that the character of Jesus is based on a real person, and the story exists as a kind of parody of that person’s life. Much as political satire exists today, there would be enough detail to make identification possible, but enough fantasy to make it obviously derisive. It’s not an historical account of an historical person, it’s a satirical takedown of a political enemy. They took a religious and political leader of Judean culture and turned him into a clown. Look for this theme to be continued throughout this analysis.