Marjorie O’Rourke Boyle, “The Stoic Paradox of James 2.10,” NTS 31 no. 4 (Oct. 1985), 616.
Even if the recipients of [the epistle of James] were Jewish Christians rather than Hellenistic ones, as is commonly thought, they should not be supposed ignorant of the basic tenets of Stoicism, or incapable of appreciating their moral application. The dualism which is implicit in both the rabbinical teaching about the transgression of the whole law in one point and the Stoic paradox that he who has one vice has all does not require a similar dichotomization in the scholarly interpretation of James 2. 10. The choice need not be either/or. A Judaic derivation for this verse does not nullify its expression of a Stoic paradox. In an eschatological context that serves to plead a wholly virtuous benefaction in imitation of the divine mercy itself.
The Amateur Exegete 
Ben, do you think Mark knew a fuller narrative of Jesus’ temptation (whether or not it was the same as Matthew and Luke) but chose to include only a brief summary?
LikeLike
I suppose it’s possible but I don’t see any reason to think so.
LikeLike
It’s strange to me that Mark says Jesus was tempted by the Devil and served by angels if he didn’t have some story in mind. It’s like someone saying, “I beat Mike Tyson,” without explaining how. How do you understand this passage? Was the tradition behind Mark very short, with Matthew and Luke later expanding it?
LikeLike
I think it only seems strange because the versions of the story in Matthew and Luke are so familiar and, arguably, more famous. In fact, I think it likely that Matthew was uncomfortable with the story’s tenseness and sought to expand it.
As for its role in Mark, I think Mark’s Jesus is an apocalyptic exorcist who is preparing the world for the reign of God by rooting out Satan and his minions wherever he finds them. He is cast into the wilderness by God’s pneuma, deals with the devil, and then from there systematically deals with demonic spirits town-by-town.
LikeLike