In Vision of Isaiah, the Beloved enters the world in disguise, so that he will not be recognized by Satan.
In Mark, the demons recognize who Jesus is, but he silences them so that his secret identity will not be reveled. But if Jesus were confronted by Satan at the outset, then trying to hide his identity is pointless anyway.
So, if anything, it may lead me to believe that the original version of Mark simply read:
Mark 1:
This both more closely matches 1 Kings, and also eliminates the problem of Satan knowing the identity of Jesus. The statement about Satan in Mark is very strange, because it comes out of nowhere and isn't elaborated on. Furthermore, it seems to conflict with the Messianic Secret that runs throughout the rest of Mark. From whom is Jesus hiding his identity? The "lord of this world".
In 1 Kings 19, Elijah flees to the wilderness where he is attended by angels and travels for 40 days, but he is not confronted by Satan or any demons, nor does he face any kind of temptation.
As for the mention of John being arrested, I think this too was added in by an editor in Mark 1. It would seem that in the original version of Mark there was no mention of John being arrested here. The first mention of it was in Mark 6. So proto-Mark would have read something more like:
Mark 1:
12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, 13 and he was in the wilderness forty days. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.
14 Then Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”
16 As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 17 “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” 18 At once they left their nets and followed him.
In this scenario, it would make sense that the editor of canonical Mark would have made a few simple changes to align Mark with the narrative found in Matthew and Luke. So the editor of the first edition of the New Testament would have made minor revisions to proto-Mark in order to incorporate into the four Gospel collection.
This narrative makes more sense. Jesus is baptized and then goes to the wilderness to convene with God, as is typical of Jewish narratives. The mention of Satan here is a distraction and irrelevant. Likewise, the arrest of John the Baptist is irrelevant here as well. Why would it be mentioned? It serves no purpose, comes out of nowhere and is unexplained. We have to wait until Mark 6 get any kind of explanation. But in Mark 6 the arrest of John the Baptist is detailed as if it is the first time we are hearing of it.
If this is the case, we are still left with the question of where the Temptation scene in Matthew/Luke came from. That this narrative scene was present in Q is highly unsatisfactory and one of the points against the Q hypothesis. Another proposal is that this is a secondary dependence of Luke upon Matthew. But I think its more something like this:
And this is surely also a simplification. I used to agree with Luke's dependence on Matthew, but it's increasingly unsatisfactory, and there is growing evidence that there were simply more narratives out there that have been lost. Justin Martyr's testimony indicates that he had read Gospel narratives that don't exactly match any existing narratives. Justin's comments show that he knew of a narrative that was very familiar to us, but different in important details. He can't possibly have been working from the canonical narratives, nor was he working from Marcion's. So there had to be other versions that have since been lost and are generally unattested.
I used to think that the birth narrative in Luke was dependent on Matthew, but the testimony from Justin as well as the Pocket Gospel in Vision of Isaiah and the Infancy Gospel of James all point to the existence of a proto-birth narrative that both Luke and Matthew independently drew from.