^{page 115 note 1} See Fascher, E., Jesus und der Satan (Halle, 1949)Google Scholar; Dupont, J., ‘L'arrière-fond biblique du récit des tentations de Jésus,’ N.T.S III (1956–1957), 287–304Google Scholar; Dupont, J., ‘L'origine du récit des tentations de Jésus,’ Rev. Bibl. LXXIII (1966), 30–76Google Scholar (he also gives a bibliography on the problem); Doble, P., ‘The Temptations,’ Exp. T. LXXII (1959–1960), 91–3Google Scholar; Gerhardsson, B., The Testing of God's Son, I (Lund, 1966)Google Scholar. For an almost complete bibliography see Schürmann, H., Das Lukasevangelium I (Herders Kommentar III, Freiburg etc. 1969), pp. 204Google Scholar f. For the history of the exegesis see Köppen, K. P., Die Auslegung der Versuchungsgeschichte unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Alten Kirche (Tübingen, 1961)Google Scholar.

^{page 115 note 2} Schmauch, W., Orte der Offenbarung und der Offenbarungsort im Neuen Testament (Berlin, 1956), p. 98.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 3} Acts vi. 8-vii.60; xxi.17-xxii.21 cf. Fascher, op. cit. p.24 note I. Percy, E., Die Botschaft Jesu (Lund, 1953), p.18Google Scholar note I objects that the third Lucan temptation is not related in its intention to the Temple. But for Luke the original intention was not the only one. The decisive thing was that the Temple and Jerusalem are mentioned here.

^{page 115 note 4} Luke xxiv. 49; Acts i. 4.

^{page 116 note 1} Observe how differently Matthew and Luke reproduce the quotation from Mark i. 2–3 or how Matthew gives a more complete text in xix. 4–5 as compared with Mark x. 6–8. See Stendahl, K., The School of St Matthew (Philadelphia, 1969 ²), pp. 47 f., 59 f.Google Scholar, 88; Holtz, T., Untersuchungen über die alttestamentlichen Zitate bei Lukas (T.U.104; Berlin, 1968), pp. 61–4Google Scholar; Dodd, C. H., According to the Scriptures (London, 1952), p. 47Google Scholar note I.

^{page 116 note 2} Without regard to the question of the character of this source.

^{page 116 note 3} Against the hypothesis that the unit was created only by Matthew and Luke.

^{page 116 note 4} Albertz, M., Die synoptischen Streitgespräche (Berlin, 1921), p. 41Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (Göttingen, 1958 ⁴), p. 272Google Scholar; Percy, op. cit. pp. 13 ff.

^{page 116 note 5} Bultmann, loc. cit.; Dupont, N.T.S. op. cit. pp. 287ff.; Gerhardsson, op. cit. pp. 11–13, 70; Meyer, A., ‘Die evangelischen Berichte über die Versuchung Christi’, Festgabe H. Blümner (Zürich, 1914), pp. 434–68Google Scholar, esp. p. 458.

^{page 116 note 6} Against Jeremias, J., Die Gleichnisse Jesu (Berlin, 1953 ³), pp. 101Google Scholar f. and Percy, op. cit. p.18.

^{page 116 note 7} Dupont, N.T.S. op. cit. pp. 298 f.; Gerhardsson, op. cit. p. 81. It was Weiss, J., Das Markusevangelium (Göttingen, 1917), p. 75Google Scholar who expressed this opinion.

^{page 116 note 8} Dupont, N.T.S. op. cit. pp.288, 294 f.

^{page 117 note 1} iii. 22–7; viii. 33 cf. Taylor, V., The Gospel According to St Mark (London, 1953 ²), p. 163.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 2} iii. 11 and i. 24 (34); v. 7 cf. Luz, U., ‘Das Geheimnismotiv und die markinische Christologie,’ Z.N.W. LVI (1965), 9–30.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 3} Dupont, N.T.S. op. cit. pp. 294 f.

^{page 117 note 4} E.g.Butler, B. C., The Originality of St Matthew (Cambridge, 1951), pp. 112 f.Google Scholar For a more modified form of this thesis see Vaganay, L., Le problème synoptique (Paris, 1954).Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 5} For a survey of arguments in favour of Q see Kümmel, W. G., Feine, P. and Behm, J., Einleitung in das Neue Testament (Heidelberg, 1964 ¹³), pp. 32–41Google Scholar. Lührmann, D., Die Redaktion der Logienquelle (Neukirchen, 1969), p. 56Google Scholar presupposes that the longer version originates in a tradition known to Matthew and Luke, but he doubts whether this tradition belonged to Q.I consider the Temptations to be a part of Q; see below p. 125 note 3 and p. 126 note 3.

^{page 117 note 6} Meyer, op. cit. p.437; Schniewind, J., ‘Das Evangelium nach Matthäus’, N.T.D. I – Gesamtausgabe (Göttingen, 1962 ²), p. 29Google Scholar; Bultmann, op. cit. pp. 270 f.; Lohmeyer, E., Das Evangelium nach Markus, Meyer's Commentary (Göttingen, 1959 ¹⁵), p. 28.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 1} Op. cit. pp. 270 f. Cf. already Meyer, op. cit. pp. 437, 441 ff.; Klostermann, E., ‘Das Markusevangelium’, Handb. z. N.T. (Tübingen, 1936 ³), p. 11Google Scholar; Albertz, op. cit. pp.44 ff.

^{page 118 note 2} Mauser, U. W., Christ in the Wilderness (London, 1963), pp. 77 ff.;Google Scholar cf. p. 98.

^{page 118 note 3} The Pauline midrash in ICor. x. 1–22 provides N.T. evidence in favour of this observation. See Meyer, op. cit. p. 459; Iersel, B. M. F.van, ‘Der Sohn’ in den synoptischen Jesusworten (Leiden, 1961), pp. 161 f.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 4} Cf. Lohmeyer, op. cit. p. 28; Dupont, Rev. Bibl. op. cit. pp. 46 f. against Doble, op. cit., Mauser, op. cit. p.79.

^{page 118 note 5} Seesemann, H., ‘πείρα etc.,’ Th. Wb. z. N.T. VI, 23–7, esp. p. 25.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 6} See Meyer, op. cit. p. 467; Albertz, op. cit. pp.45 f.

^{page 119 note 1} Fascher, op. cit. pp. 22ff.

^{page 119 note 2} Because we have no evidence of an Anthropos myth behind the Synoptic traditions: see Colpe, C., Die religionsgeschichtliche Schule (Göttingen, 1961)Google Scholar; Schenke, H. M., Der Gott ‘Mensch’ in der Gnosis (Berlin, 1962)Google Scholar; Pokorný, P., Poč´tky gnose – The Gnostic Origins (Praha, 1969 ²)Google Scholar, we are not entitled to leave out the phrase ‘tempted by Satan’ as a later addition, as Erdmann, G. does (Die Vorgeschichten des Lukas- und Matthäusevangeliums (Göttingen, 1932), p. 122Google Scholar note 4).

^{page 119 note 3} Foerster, W., ‘σατανᾶς A–B,’ Th. Wb. z. N.T. VII, 151–64Google Scholar, esp. p. 156. The most important texts: IQS iv.18–23; Ass. Mos.x. 1;Jub. xxiii. 29; IEnoch lxix. 29; Matt. xxv. 41; Rom. xvi. 20, cf. Strack, H. L.–Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, IV (München, 1965 ⁴), 527.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 4} See Bietenhard, H., Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spätjudentum (Tübingen, 1951), p. 214.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 5} In Q esp. Matt. xii. 27–8; Luke xi. 18b-20.

^{page 119 note 6} I.e. Beelzebub: Mark iii. 22 par., cf. Matt. xii. 27 par.

^{page 119 note 7} Cf. Luke iv. 22; John vi. 42, 46; vii. 25–9.

^{page 119 note 8} See Dinkler, E., ‘Petrusbekenntnis und Satanswort’, Zeit und Geschichte (Tübingen, 1964), pp. 127–53.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 1} Against Foerster, W., ‘θηρίον,’ Th. Wb. z. N.T. III, 133–6Google Scholar, esp. p. 134.

^{page 120 note 2} See Köppen, op. cit. p. 79.

^{page 120 note 3} In a general context: Test. Naph. viii. 4; cf. Héring, J., Die biblischen Grundlagen des christlichen Humanismus (Zürich, 1946), pp. 16 f.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 4} Goppelt, L., τύпος etc.,’ Th. Wb. z. N.T. VIII, esp. pp. 252 f.Google Scholar; J. Schniewind, ‘Das Evangelium nach Markus’, p. 15; Jeremias, J., ‘Αδάμ,’ Th. Wb. z. N.T. I, 141–3.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 5} Ecclus. xlix. 16; cf.Jervell, J., Imago Dei (Göttingen, 1960), pp. 100–7.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 6} See above and Billerbeck, op. cit. pp. 887 f.; Colpe, C., ‘ό υίòς τοῦ άνθρώпου,’ Th. Wb. z. N. T. VIII, 403–81Google Scholar, esp. p. 413 note 67.

^{page 120 note 7} IQS iv. 15–26 esp. 23, cf. Zadok. fragm. iii. 20; Brandenburger, E., Adam and Christus (Neukirchen, 1962), p. 110.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 1} Apoc. Mos. x. I-xii. 2: Vit. Ad. xxxvii. I-xxxix. 2.

^{page 121 note 2} Vit. Ad. iv. 2. Most of the passages indicated in notes 39–42 have parallels in the Slavonic version of Vit. Ad.

^{page 121 note 3} Vit. Ad. vi. 1–2; xvii. 3.

^{page 121 note 4} Vit. Ad. ix. I-xvi. 4.

^{page 121 note 5} Vit. Ad. ix. 1, cf. II Cor. xi. 14.

^{page 121 note 6} Charles, R. H., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, II (Oxford, 1913), 126–9Google Scholar; Kautsch, E., Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments, II (Tübingen, 1900), 508–12.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 7} See Nineham, D. E., Saint Mark (The Pelican Gospel Commentaries, Harmondsworth, 1963), p. 64Google Scholar; Brandenburger, op. cit. p. 239. On the later history of this idea in the Early Church see Schulz, W. A., ‘Der Heilige und die wilden Tiere,’ Z.N.W. XLVI (1955), 280–3.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 8} The destruction of Satan is the sign of the last days: Rom xvi. 20; Rev. xx. 10; Jub. xxiii. 29; I Enoch lxix. 29. See also p. 119 note 3, above.

^{page 121 note 9} See Colpe, , Th. Wb. z. N.T. VIIIGoogle Scholar, op. cit. p. 443; cf. Tödt, H. E., Der Menschensohn in der synoptisthen Ueberlieferung (Gütersloh, 1959), pp. 207–12.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 10} Against the harmonizing tendencies in Cullmann, O., Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen, 1958 ²), pp. 169 f.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 11} Bultmann, R., Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen, 1959 ³), pp. 43 f., 45, 52.Google Scholar

^{page 121 note 12} II Thess. ii. 4, 8, 12; Rev. xii. 7–18; xx. 1–10.

^{page 122 note 1} Colpe, , Th. Wb. z. N. T. VIIIGoogle Scholar, op. cit. pp. 476 f.

^{page 122 note 2} Pokorný, P., ‘Kirche und Mächte,’ Communio viatorum, II (1959), 71–82.Google Scholar

^{page 122 note 3} (έκ) пειράзειν: Mark viii. 11 par.; x. 2 par.; xii. 15 par.; Matt. xxii. 35; Luke x. 25; xi. 16; van Iersel, op. cit. p. 167.

^{page 122 note 4} Stendahl, op. cit. pp. 88 f.; Holtz, op. cit. pp. 61–4.

^{page 122 note 5} If we read the three dialogues we have in Q – the Temptations, the Centurion's Servant (Luke vii. 1–9 / Matt. viii. 5–10) and On Collusion with Satan (Luke xi. 14–15, 17–23 / Matt. xii. 22–8, 29b-30) – we discover that they all concern authority over evil spirits and over the Devil.

^{page 122 note 6} See Mark viii. 31–3, where in the Lucan parallel the same formula is left out too. cf. Bartsch, H.-W., Wachet aber zu jeder Zeit (Hamburg, 1963), p. 59.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 1} Synopt. Trad. pp. 272 f.

^{page 123 note 2} The same also holds good for E. Percy, op. cit. p. 15, and B. Gerhardsson, op. cit. p. 60, who consider that if it were a messianic dispute it would be necessary to have some spectators. But the ‘spectators’ are the hearers or readers of this pericope.

^{page 123 note 3} Gerhardsson, op. cit. p. 65, has proved the traditional connection of Satan and idolatry in Judaism.

^{page 123 note 4} Dinkler, op. cit. pp. 127–53, cf.Cullmann, O., Jesus und die Revolutionären seiner Zeit (Tübingen, 1970), pp. 56 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 5} See Thyen, H., ‘ΒΑПΤΙΣΜΑ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΙΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΑΦΕΣΙΝ ΑΜΑΡΤΙωΝ’, Zeit und Geschichte (Tübingen, 1964), pp. 97 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 6} As it is expressed e.g. in IQSb v. 23–8, where we read of the nations that will be compelled to serve the ‘Prince of the community’. See esp. Hoffman, P., ‘Die Versuchungsgeschichte in der Logienquelle,’ Bibl. Zeit. N.F. XIII (1969), 207–23.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 7} It was Cullmann, O. in particular who pointed this out: Der Staat im Neuen Testament (Tübingen, 1961 ²), esp. p. 35Google Scholar. The only noteworthy opponent of this view is Brandon, S. G. F., Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester, 1967)Google Scholar; see the review by Hengel, M.: Evang. Kommentare, II (1969), 694.Google Scholar

^{page 123 note 8} Cf. the context in vv. 41 f. and 45 par.

^{page 124 note 1} IQM ii. 16; iv. 3 f.; for other similar texts see Dupont, Rev. Bibi. op. cit. pp. 64 f.

^{page 124 note 2} Cullmann, , Jesus…, pp. 48 f.Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 3} Syn. Trad. p. 273. Cf. e.g. Mark iii. 22 par.

^{page 124 note 4} Mark xiii. 22; II Thess. ii. 9.

^{page 124 note 5} See H. Köster, ‘Grundtypen und Kriterien christlicher Glaubensbekenntnisse’, Köster, H. and Robinson, J. M., Enwicklungslinien durch die Welt des frühen Christentums (Tübingen, 1971), pp. 191–215Google Scholar, esp. pp. 201–4 (E.V.: Trajectories Through Early Christianity (Philadelphia, 1971)).Google Scholar

^{page 124 note 6} Matt. xii. 39 / Luke xi. 29, cf. Mark viii. 12 par.

^{page 125 note 1} Cf. Pesiq. Rab. 36. 162a, on the revelation of the Messiah on the roof of the Temple.

^{page 125 note 2} Cf. Lohmeyer, Markus…, p. 156; Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium nach Markus (Berlin, 1959), p. 117Google Scholar; Gnilka, J., Jesus nach dem frühen Zeugnis des Glaubens (München, 1970), p. 123.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 3} See Deut. vi. 16 and cf. Exod. xvii. 2 ff. In Q this polemic against messianic miracles means a judgment upon Israel; Lührmann, op. cit. p. 41.

^{page 125 note 4} Schniewind, Maithäus… ad loc.; Seesemann, op. cit. p. 35; Jeremias, Gleichnisse…, p. 102.

^{page 125 note 5} A detailed survey of these allusions has been given by Dupont, Rev. Bibi. op. cit.

^{page 125 note 6} See Dupont, Rev. Bibl. op. cit. pp. 49 f.

^{page 125 note 7} Gerhardsson, op. cit. considers that even the classification of the temptations into three types can be explained against the background of the rabbinical exegesis of Deut. vi. 5.

^{page 125 note 8} Schweizer, E., ‘υίός etc.,’ Th. Wb. z. N.T. VIII, 379Google Scholar and cf. p. 124 note 5.

^{page 125 note 9} For a discussion of the ‘Son of God’ title in Hellenistic Judaism see Hahn, F., Christobogische Hoheitstitel (Göttingen, 1963), p. 281Google Scholar and Pokorný, P., Der Gottessohn (Zürich, 1971), pp. 32 f.Google Scholar

^{page 125 note 10} Bornkamm, G., ‘Enderwartung und Kirche im Matthäusevangelium’, Ueberlieferung und Ausbegung im Matthäusevangelium (Neukirchen, 1968 ⁵), p. 34.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 1} Lührmann, op. cit. p. 88. This is the solution of the polemic between Argyle, A. W. and Metzger, B. M. in Exp. T. LXIV (1952–1953), 282 and LXV (1953–1954), 125 and 285fGoogle Scholar. Lührmann proved that the Greek version of Q was not only a translation, but also a new interpretation.

^{page 126 note 2} Against Lührmann, op. cit. see above p. 117 note 5.

^{page 126 note 3} The theological relation between the temptations and the basic tradition of the Sermon on the Mount supports my assumption that the temptations also belonged to Q: Pokorný, P., ‘Die Worte Jesu der Logienquelle im Lichte des zeitgenossischen Judentums,’ Kairos IX (1969), 172–80.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 4} Cf. Mauser, op. cit. p. 97.

^{page 126 note 5} Schniewind, Matthäus…, p. 31.

^{page 126 note 6} Staerk, W., Soter (Gütersloh, 1933), p. 157.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 7} Cf. Morgenthaler, R., ‘Roma – Sedes Satanae,’ Theol. Zeitschr. XII (1956), 289–304.Google Scholar

^{page 126 note 8} Conzelmann, H., Die Mitte der Zeit (Tübingen, 1957 ²), pp. 18 f.Google Scholar

^{page 127 note 1} Dibelius, M., Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen, 1959 ³), p. 274Google Scholar; Dupont, N.T.S. op. cit. p. 299.

^{page 127 note 2} Cf. the context: Luke xxii. 24–30.