Yeshua’s Testing

Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13

(Huck 8; Aland 20; Crook 23)^[308]

Updated: 18 November 2023

וְיֵשׁוּעַ מָלֵא רוּחַ קֹדֶשׁ שָׁב מִן הַיַּרְדֵּן וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ בָּרוּחַ בַּמִּדְבָּר אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וַיִּתְנַסֶּה בַּשָּׂטָן וְלֹא אָכַל מְאוּמָה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וַיְכֻלּוּ וַיִּרְעַב וַיִּקְרַב הַשָּׂטָן וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִם בֵּן אַתָּה לֵאלֹהִים אֱמֹר לָאֶבֶן הַזּוֹ וְתִּהְיֶה לְלֶחֶם וַיַּעַן יֵשׁוּעַ וַיֹּאמֶר כָּתוּב כִּי לֹא עַל הַלֶּחֶם לְבַדּוֹ יִחְיֶה הָאָדָם וַיַּעֲלֵהוּ אֶל הַר גָּבֹהַּ מְאֹד וַיּוֹרֵהוּ אֶת כָּל מַמְלְכוֹת הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת כֹּל כְּבוֹדָן וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אֶת כֻּלָּם לְךָ אֶתֵּן אִם תִּתְנַפֵּל לְפָנַי וַיַּעַן יֵשׁוּעַ וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ כָּתוּב אֶת יי אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא וְאוֹתוֹ לְבַדּוֹ תַעֲבֹד וַיֹּלֶךְ אוֹתוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם וַיַּעֲמִדֵהוּ עַל כְּנַף הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִם בֵּן אַתָּה לֵאלֹהִים הַפֵּל אֶת עַצְמְךָ [מִזֶּה] לְמַטָּה שֶׁכָּתוּב כִּי מַלְאָכָיו יְצַוֶּה לָּךְ וְעַל כַּפַּיִם יִשָּׂאוּנְךָ פֶּן תִּגֹּף בָּאֶבֶן רַגְלֶךָ וַיַּעַן וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ יֵשׁוּעַ נֶאֱמַר לֹא תְנַסּוּ אֶת יי אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וַיְכַל הַשָּׂטָן כֹּל נִסָּיוֹן וַיָּסַר מִמֶּנּוּ [וְהִנֵּה מַלְאָכִים קָרְבוּ וַיְשָׁרְתוּ אוֹתוֹ]

Having been filled with the Holy Spirit, Yeshua turned from the Yarden, and in the Spirit he walked in the desert for forty days. He was tempted by Satan, and he did not eat anything in all that time. When those days were over he was famished.

Then Satan approached Yeshua and said, “If you really are God’s son, command this hunk of rock to become bread.” But Yeshua replied, “It is written, People do not live on bread alone [Deut. 8:3].”

So Satan took Yeshua up a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the earth and all their glory. Then Satan said to Yeshua, “All of them I will give you if you will worship me.” But Yeshua replied, “It is written, Fear the LORD your God, and worship him alone [Deut. 6:13; 10:20].”

So Satan led Yeshua into Yerushalayim, set him on a wing of the Temple, and said to him, “If you really are God’s son, throw yourself down from this spot, since it is written, For he will command his angels concerning you so that they will lift you up in their arms, lest you strike your foot against a stone [Ps. 91:11, 12].” But Yeshua replied, “Scripture says, You must not test the LORD your God [Deut. 6:16].”

When Satan had concluded every temptation he left Yeshua alone [but angels came to Yeshua and served him].^[309]

Reconstruction

To view the reconstructed text of Yeshua’s Testing click on the link below:

Conclusion

In Yeshua’s Testing Satan pressured Jesus to take advantage of his divine sonship by eluding suffering, amassing power and making himself the focus of a cult of personality. In each instance Jesus quoted Scripture to the effect that divine sonship is defined not by privilege or the exercise of power but by humble obedience to the Torah’s commandments.

---

Click here to return to The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction main page. _______________________________________________________

---

• ^[1] Pace Bultmann (251 n. 5), who denied that there was an inner connection between the baptism and temptation narratives. ↩
• ^[2] On the allusion to Gen. 22:2 in the words of the heavenly voice at Jesus’ baptism, see Yeshua’s Immersion, Comment to L43. ↩
• ^[3] See David N. Bivin, “Abraham’s Temptation, Forerunner of Jesus’ Temptation.” ↩
• ^[4] The earliest sources to refer to Satan’s involvement in the binding of Isaac are Jubilees and a fragmentary work discovered in Qumran called 4QPseudo-Jubilees^a (4QpsJub^a [4Q225]). According to Jub. 17:6, it was Prince Mastemah (i.e., Satan) who challenged God to command Abraham to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, and according to Jub. 18:9-12, Prince Mastemah was present when Abraham lifted the knife to slaughter Isaac, on account of which Mastemah was put to shame. 4QPseudo-Jubilees^a, too, states that Mastemah was the instigator behind the binding of Isaac (4QpsJub^a 2 I, 9-10), and it is as Mastemah and his cohort of angels were present with Abraham and Isaac on the summit of Mount Moriah that we gain our first inkling that it was not only Abraham but also Isaac who was on trial:

  ומלאכי המ[שטמה -- ] שמחים ואומרים עכשו יאבד ו[בכול זה ינסה שר המשטמה אם] ימצא כחש ואם לא ימצא נאמן א[ברהם לאלוהים....]

  ...and the angels of Ma[stemah -- ] rejoicing and saying, “Now he [i.e., Isaac—DNB and JNT] will be destroyed!” And[ in all this Prince Mastemah was testing whether] he [i.e., Isaac—DNB and JNT] would be found weak and whether A[braham] would not be found faithful [to his God....] (4QpsJub^a 2 II, 6-8)

  The text is fragmentary and Isaac is not explicitly mentioned in this passage, but since it was Isaac who was about to be slaughtered, it makes sense that the exclamation “Now he will be destroyed!” referred to Isaac. Likewise, “whether he will be found weak” could refer to Abraham. On the other hand, according to later Jewish traditions, Isaac requests his father to bind him because although in spirit he was willing to submit to the sacrifice, he feared that the flesh was weak and that he might flinch at the crucial moment and thereby inadvertently invalidate the offering. Thus the weakness referred to here may be Isaac’s, in which case we have in 4QPseudo-Jubilees^a the earliest evidence of a trial of Isaac’s resolve as well as Abraham’s. See Geza Vermes, “New Light on the Sacrifice of Isaac from Qumran,” in his Jesus in his Jewish Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 109-113, 181-184. ↩

• ^[5] In the following retellings of the binding of Isaac Satan tests Isaac’s obedience to his father:

  אמר ר′ אבין הלוי ברבי עם שהן הולכין בא השטן מימינו של יצחק, ואמר אי עלוב בנה של עלובה, כמה תעניות נתענה אמך עד שתבא, והזקן נשתטה בזקנותו והרי הוא הולך לשחוט אותך, חזר יצחק ואמר לאביו ראה מה זה אומר לי, א″ל הוא בא ליצף אותך, אבל הקב″ה אל יצף לנו, שנאמר אלהים יראה לו שה לעולה

  Rabbi Abin ha-Levi said in the name of Rabbi, “While they were walking, Satan came from the right side of Isaac and said, ‘Woe to the unfortunate one, son of an unfortunate mother! How many fasts did your mother fast until you came? And this old man is confused in his old age and he is going to slaughter you!’ Isaac returned and said to his father, ‘Look what this fellow is saying to me!’ He said to him, ‘He came to discourage you, but the Holy One, blessed is he, will look after us, as it is said, God will provide himself the lamb for the offering [Gen. 22:8].’” (Tanhuma, Vayera §48 [ed. Buber, 1:114]; cf. Pesikta Rabbati 40:6 [ed. Friedmann, 170b])

  בא שטן ועמד לפניו ונדמה לו לזקן א″ל להיכן אתה הולך א″ל להתפלל א″ל והעצים והאש ומאכלת למה א″ל שמא אשהה יום ויומים לאפות ולאכול א″ל אדם שכמותך יאבד בנו שניתן לו בזקנתו ותאבד נשנה ויתחייב בדין א″ל הקב″ה אמר לי בא ועמד אצל יצחק נדמה לו כנער א″ל להיכן אתה הולך א″ל ללמוד מוסר ובינה א″ל בחייך או לאחר מיתתך לשחטך הוא הולך א″ל אע″פ כן. בא אצל שרה א″ל בעלך היכן הוא א″ל במלאכתו, ובנך היכן הוא א″ל עמו א″ל לא כך היית אומרת שאינך עוזבת אותו שיצא מפתח החיצונה א″ל לא למלאכה הלכו אלא להתפלל א″ל לא תראי אותו אמרה הקב″ה יעשה רצונו מבני

  ...Satan came and stood before him [i.e., Abraham—DNB and JNT] and appeared to him as an old man. He said to him, “Where are you going?” He said to him, “To pray.” He said to him, “Why, then, the wood and the fire and the knife?” He said to him, “Perhaps I will meditate a day or two. [So the fire and the knife are] to bake and to eat.” He said to him, “A man like yourself would destroy his son, who was given to him in his old age! And you would destroy a life and become subject to judgment?” He said to him, “The Holy One, blessed is he, has spoken to me.” Satan came and stood by Isaac and appeared to him as a youth. He said to him, “Where are you going?” He said to him, “To learn good conduct and understanding.” He said to him, “During your lifetime or after your death? He is going to slaughter you.” He said to him, “Nevertheless, so be it.” Satan came to Sarah. He said to her, “Your husband, where is he?” She said to him, “At his work.” “And your son, where is he?” She said to him, “With him.” He said to her, “Have you not been saying that you never leave him, yet he has gone out from the outer opening?” She said to him, “They have not gone out to work, but to pray.” He said to her, “You will not see him [again].” She said, “The Holy One, blessed is he, will do his will with my son.” (Yalkut Shim‘oni 1 §98)

  Satan also tests Isaac’s obedience to Abraham, according to Gen. Rab. 56:5, which we will quote in the next footnote. ↩

• ^[6] The earliest retelling of the binding of Isaac in which Satan quotes Scripture is found in Genesis Rabbah:

  ויאמר יצחק אל אברהם וגו′ בא לו סמאל אצל אבינו אברהם, אמר לו מה סבה אובדת לבך, בן שנתן לך לק′ שנה את הולך לשחטו, אמר לו על מנת כן, אמר לו ואם מנסה הוא לך יותר מיכן את יכול לעמוד הנסה דבר אליך תלאה, אמר ליה ויתר על כן, אמר לו למחר אומר לך שופך דם אתה ואתה חייב, אמר לו על מנת כן, כיון שראה שלא הועיל ממנו כלום בא לו אצל יצחק, אמר לו מה ברא שעלובתא, הולך הוא לשוחטך, אמר לו על מנת כן, אמר לו אם כן כל אותן הפרגזיות שעשת אמך לישמעאל סניה דביתה ירותה, כד לא תיעול מילה תיעול פלגה הה″ד ויאמר יצחק אל אברהם אביו ויאמר אבי למה אביו אבי כדי שיתמלא עליו רחמים

  And Isaac said to Abraham [Gen. 22:7], etc. Samael [i.e., Satan—DNB and JNT] came to our father Abraham. He said to him, “What, grandpa! Have you lost your heart? A son that he gave to you at a hundred years of age you are going to slaughter?” He said to him, “Nevertheless.” He said to him, “If he tests you even more, are you able to withstand it? If he tests you in a matter, will you be weary? [Job 4:2].” He said to him, “[I can withstand] even more than this.” He said to him, “Tomorrow he will say to you, ‘You are a shedder of blood and are guilty.’” He said to him, “Nevertheless.” When he saw that he did not succeed with him at all he went to Isaac. He said to him, “What, son of an unfortunate woman! He is going to slaughter you.” He said to him, “Nevertheless.” He said to him, “If so, all those fine tunics your mother made will be for Ishmael, the despised one of her house.” If a word is not wholly effective, it may yet avail in part; hence it is written, And Isaac spoke to Abraham his father and said, “My father” [Gen. 22:7]. Why “his father,” “my father”? It was in order that he might be filled with compassion. (Gen. Rab. 56:5 [ed. Theodor-Albeck, 2:598-599])

  In another retelling of the binding of Isaac Satan quotes Scripture and Abraham counters with Scripture quotations of his own:

  קדמו שטן לדרך אמר לו הנסה דבר אליך תלאה הנה יסרת רבים וידים רפות תחזק כושל יקימון מליך כי עתה תבא אליך ותלא אמר לו אני בתומי אלך אמר לו הלא יראתך כסלתך אמר לו זכר נא מי הוא נקי אבד כיון דחזא דלא קא שמיע ליה אמר ליה ואלי דבר יגונב כך שמעתי מאחורי הפרגוד השה לעולה ואין יצחק לעולה אמר לו כך עונשו של בדאי שאפילו אמר אמת אין שומעין לו

  ...Satan preceded him [i.e., Abraham—DNB and JNT] on the way. He [i.e., Satan—DNB and JNT] said to him, “If he tests you in a matter, will you be weary? [Job 4:2]. Behold, you have instructed many, and weak hands you have strengthened, your words have steadied the stumbling [Job 4:3-4]. But now it has come to you and you are weary! [Job 4:5].” He [i.e., Abraham—DNB and JNT] said to him, “As for me, in my integrity I will walk” [Ps. 26:1]. He [i.e., Satan—DNB and JNT] said to him, “Is not your fear [of God—DNB and JNT] your folly?” [Job 4:6]. He [i.e., Abraham—DNB and JNT] said to him, “Recall, if you will, who is the innocent person who has perished?" [Job 4:7]. When he [i.e., Satan—DNB and JNT] saw that he would not listen to him, he said to him, "But a report has been leaked to me [Job 4:12]—this is what I heard from behind the partition: the lamb for the offering and not Isaac for the offering.” He [i.e., Abraham—DNB and JNT] said to him, “This is the punishment of a liar, that even if he speaks the truth, no one listens to him.” (b. Sanh. 89b)

  Some scholars have noted the similarity between Abraham’s parrying of verses with Satan in b. Sanh. 89b and Jesus’ scriptural responses to the devil in the temptation narrative (cf., e.g., Davies-Allison, 1:352), but few have gone so far as to suggest that Jesus’ temptation was modeled on ancient Jewish traditions about the testing of Abraham and especially Isaac, the beloved son. But see Marcus, 1:170. ↩

• ^[7] Most scholars, usually working from the perspective of the Two-source Hypothesis, attribute the Lukan and Matthean versions of Yeshua’s Testing to “Q.” See Harnack, 41-48; Bultmann, 254-257; Marshall, 166; Fitzmyer, 1:507; Davies-Allison, 1:350-351; Kloppenborg, 246-262; Catchpole, 12-16; Bovon, 1:139. See also Christopher M. Tuckett, “The Temptation Narrative in Q,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (3 vols.; ed. Christopher Tuckett and Frans van Segbroeck; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), 1:479-507, esp. 479-483. ↩
• ^[8] Yeshua’s Testing can be treated as a DT pericope, despite the fact that Mark contains a temptation narrative, because Mark’s version lacks so much of what is found in the versions of Yeshua’s Testing in Luke and Matthew. On the classification of Lukan-Matthean DT pericopae into two types based on verbal identity, see LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae. ↩
• ^[9] See David Flusser, “Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund,” Judaica: Beiträge zum Verstehen des Judentums 45 (1989): 110-128, esp. 114, 116. To read an English translation of this article, click here. ↩
• ^[10] See Streeter, 187-188; Bundy, 61-62 §8; Taylor, 163; Dale C. Allison, “Behind the Temptations of Jesus: Q 4:1-13 and Mark 1:12-13,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (ed. Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 195-213, esp. 195. ↩
• ^[11] Cf. McNeile, 37; Bultmann, 254; Luz, 1:148. ↩
• ^[12] See Bultmann, 255-256; Jeremias, Theology, 71; Schweizer, 58-59. ↩
• ^[13] Theissen maintained that the two “Son of God” temptations could be derived from Mark, arguing that the temptation to turn stones into bread could have been derived from the reference to the desert in Mark 1:12, that the temptation to leap from the pinnacle of the Temple could have been derived from the reference to angels in Mark 1:13, and that only the temptation to seize worldly dominion is totally independent of Mark. However, supposing that the two “Son of God” temptations could have been spun from Mark’s version of Yeshua’s Testing requires quite a stretch of the imagination. See Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Fortress: Minneapolis, 1991), 206-207. ↩
• ^[14] See Flusser, “Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund,” 114. Cf. Luz, 1:149 n. 15. Also, the inclusion of two conditionals within the same sentence (“if you are the Son of God” and “if you will prostrate yourself before me”) is awkward. This awkwardness may itself be sufficient to explain why “if you are the Son of God” was not included in this temptation. ↩
• ^[15] See Terence L. Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain: A Study in Matthean Theology (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 94-95. ↩
• ^[16] See Luz, 1:148-149. ↩
• ^[17] See Wolter, 1:185. ↩
• ^[18] See Kloppenborg, 256. ↩
• ^[19] On the uses of the term “son of God” in Second Temple Judaism, see Adela Yarbro Collins, “Mark and His Readers: The Son of God among Jews,” Harvard Theological Review 92.4 (1999): 393-408; Serge Ruzer, “Son of God as Son of David: Luke’s Attempt to Biblicize a Problematic Notion,” Babel und Bibel 3 (2006): 321-352. ↩
• ^[20] According to rabbinic sources, a heavenly voice referred to Hanina ben Dosa, a first-century C.E. Hasid, as “my son” (b. Taan. 24b; cf. b. Ber. 17b; b. Hul. 86a). See further Shmuel Safrai, “Jesus and the Hasidim,” under the subheading “Father-Son Relationship”; Flusser, Jesus, 113-115. ↩
• ^[21] See Flusser, “Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund,” 111. Cf. Charles Cutler Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1941), 56. ↩
• ^[22] See Dalman, 203. Cf. Bultmann, 251; Taylor, 160. ↩
• ^[23] Examples of the absolute use of “the Spirit” in reference to the Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit are found in 1QS IV, 6 (אלה סודי רוח לבני אמת [“these are the foundations of (the) Spirit for the sons of truth”]); 1QH^a V, 25 (ברוח אשר נתתה בי [“by the Spirit you have placed within me”]); VIII, 19; XX, 11-12; XXI bottom, 14; 11QMelch [11Q13] II, 18 (משיח הרו[ח] [“the anointed of the Spirit”]). ↩
• ^[24] See Hermann Kleinknecht, Werner Bieder, Erik Sjöberg, and Eduard Schweizer, “πνεῦμα, πνευματικός, κ.τ.λ.,” TDNT, 6:332-455, esp. 400 n. 430; Guelich, 32; Marcus, 1:159. ↩
• ^[25] See Kloppenborg, 256 n. 33. ↩
• ^[26] It is somewhat puzzling to find that, according to Martin’s analysis, Matthew’s version of Yeshua’s Testing is classified as an original Greek composition, whereas Luke’s version is classified as translation Greek, this despite the fact that 57% of Matthew’s wording of Yeshua’s Testing is identical to Luke’s version. See Raymond A. Martin, Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen, 1987), 91. For Matthew’s verbal agreement with Luke’s version of Yeshua’s Testing, see LOY Excursus: Criteria for Distinguishing Type 1 from Type 2 Double Tradition Pericopae. We would agree, however, that the level of Matthean redaction in Yeshua’s Testing is not negligible (see our discussion in the Redaction Analysis section above), and that whenever the author of Matthew departed from the wording of Anth., the tendency would naturally be away from translation-style Greek. ↩
• ^[27] On the redactional use of εὐθύς in the Gospel of Mark, see the discussion in Robert L. Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “The Markan Stereotypes.” See also the entry for Mark 1:10 in LOY Excursus: Catalog of Markan Stereotypes and Possible Markan Pick-ups and Yeshua’s Immersion, Comment to L24. ↩
• ^[28] On τότε as an indicator of Matthean redaction, see Jesus and a Canaanite Woman, Comment to L22. ↩
• ^[29] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 54. ↩
• ^[30] Cf. Marshall, 168; Bovon, 1:140. ↩
• ^[31] See Harnack, 44; Creed, 62; Bovon, 1:140. ↩
• ^[32] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1147. ↩
• ^[33] See Dos Santos, 112. ↩
• ^[34] See Bovon, 1:140. ↩
• ^[35] On the historical present as an indicator of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” Cf. Taylor, 163. ↩
• ^[36] See Plummer, Mark, 59. ↩
• ^[37] See Lightfoot, 2:387; Jeremias, Theology, 69-70; Schweizer, 58; Guelich, 39; Marcus, 1:168. See also Allison, “Behind the Temptations of Jesus: Q 4:1-13 and Mark 1:12-13,” 196-199. Plummer (Mark, 59-60), on the other hand, rejected the notion that Mark’s temptation narrative was related to the Genesis account of the expulsion from Eden. ↩
• ^[38] See Allison, “Behind the Temptations of Jesus: Q 4:1-13 and Mark 1:12-13,” 197. ↩
• ^[39] See Richard Bauckham, “Jesus and the Wild Animals (Mark 1:13): A Christological Image for an Ecological Age,” in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ: Essays on the Historical Jesus and New Testament Christology (ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 3-21, esp. 8. ↩
• ^[40] This same desire to present Jesus as a universal savior may account for the author of Mark’s preference for understanding Jesus as the Son of Man rather than as the Son of God or the Son of David (i.e., the Messiah). On the author of Mark’s preference for understanding Jesus in terms of the Son of Man, see Paula Fredriksen, From Jesus to Christ: The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 44-52. ↩
• ^[41] On the author of Mark’s acquaintance with the Pauline epistles, see Lindsey, “Introduction to A Hebrew Translation of the Gospel of Mark,” under the subheading “Sources of the Markan Pick-ups”; idem, “Measuring the Disparity Between Matthew, Mark and Luke,” under the subheading “Further Proof of Mark’s Dependence on Luke”; idem, “My Search for the Synoptic Problem’s Solution (1959-1969),” under the subheading “Markan Pick-ups.” And see Allison’s comment that “one wonders, given the other intriguing connections between Mark and Paul, whether Mark 1:12-13 was composed under Paul’s influence” (“Behind the Temptations of Jesus: Q 4:1-13 and Mark 1:12-13,” 199). ↩
• ^[42] The apostle Paul presented Jesus as a second Adam in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:21-22. On the Adamic theme in Paul’s writings, see Menahem Kister, “Romans 5:12-21 against the Background of Torah-Theology and Hebrew Usage,” Harvard Theological Review 100.4 (2007): 391-424; idem, “‘In Adam’: 1 Cor 15:21-22; 12:27 in their Jewish Setting,” in Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (ed. Anthony Hilhorst, Émile Puech, and Eibert Tigchelaar; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 685-690; idem, “‘First Adam’ and ‘Second Adam’ in 1 Cor 15:45-49 in the Light of Midrashic Exegesis and Hebrew Usage,” in The New Testament and Rabbinic Literature (ed. Reimund Bieringer, Florentino García Martínez, Didier Pollefeyt, and Peter J. Tomson; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 351-365. ↩
• ^[43] Cf. Gundry, 54. ↩
• ^[44] The verb ἀνάγειν occurs 3xx in Luke’s Gospel (Luke 2:22; 4:5; 8:22) and 17xx in Acts (Acts 7:41; 9:39; 12:4; 13:13; 16:11, 34; 18:21; 20:3, 13; 21:1, 2; 27:2, 4, 12, 21; 28:10, 11), with most of those occurring in 2 Acts, i.e., the part of Acts most likely to reflect the author of Luke’s personal writing style. ↩
• ^[45] Pace Harnack, 45. ↩
• ^[46] See Gundry, Matt., 54. ↩
• ^[47] In LXX ἄγειν serves as the translation of several verbs, but הֵבִיא is the most common (approximately 70xx). There are 15 instances in LXX where ἄγειν occurs as the translation of הוֹלִיךְ: Lev. 26:13; Deut. 8:2, 15; 29:4; 4 Kgdms. 6:19 [Alexandrinus]; 2 Chr. 33:11; 35:24; Isa. 42:16; 48:21; 63:12, 13; Jer. 52:26; Ezek. 40:24; 43:1; 47:6. See Hatch-Redpath, 1:9-10. ↩
• ^[48] Examples of ב-ו-א in the hof‘al stem include: Gen. 33:11; 43:18; Exod. 27:7; Lev. 6:23; 10:18; 11:32; 13:2, 9; 14:2; 16:27; 2 Kgs. 12:5, 17; Jer. 10:9; 27:22; Ezek. 40:4. ↩
• ^[49] Examples of the leading of God’s people in the desert expressed with הוֹלִיךְ בַּמִּדְבָּר include:

  הַמּוֹלִיכֲךָ בַּמִּדְבָּר הַגָּדֹל וְהַנּוֹרָא

  ...the one [i.e., the LORD—DNB and JNT] who led you in the great and terrible desert. (Deut. 8:15)

  וָאוֹלֵךְ אֶתְכֶם אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בַּמִּדְבָּר

  And I led you forty years in the desert. (Deut. 29:4)

  אַיֵּה יי הַמַּעֲלֶה אֹתָנוּ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם הַמּוֹלִיךְ אֹתָנוּ בַּמִּדְבָּר

  Where is the LORD who brought us up from the land of Egypt, who led us in the desert? (Jer. 2:6)

  וְאָנֹכִי הֶעֱלֵיתִי אֶתְכֶם מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם וָאוֹלֵךְ אֶתְכֶם בַּמִּדְבָּר אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה

  But I brought you up from the land of Egypt and I led you in the desert forty years.... (Amos 2:10)

  לְמוֹלִיךְ עַמּוֹ בַּמִּדְבָּר כִּי לְעוֹלָם חַסְדּוֹ

  To the one who led his people in the desert. For his mercy endures forever. (Ps. 136:16)

  By contrast, examples of הֵבִיא בַּמִּדְבָּר (hēvi’ bamidbār, “bring in the desert”) are non-existent, and the only example of הֵבִיא אֶל מִדְבָּר (hēvi’ ’el midbār, “bring to a desert”) in MT is found in Ezek. 20:35. ↩

• ^[50] See Nolland, Luke, 178. Cf. Wolter, 1:187-188. ↩
• ^[51] Hagner (1:63) opined that the temptations ought to be regarded as visionary to the exclusion of any physical transportation beyond the desert. Cf. France, Matt., 131; Witherington, 90. We are not convinced that such a sharp distinction needs to be drawn between visionary and physical experiences. For instance, Jesus could have perceived the devil speaking to him in the Temple, while to an onlooker Jesus may have appeared to be alone. Since the story does not take such distinctions into consideration, it is impossible to reach an answer unless we impose our own a priori assumptions onto the text. ↩
• ^[52] See Segal, 194 §394. ↩
• ^[53] On the inversion of word order as a typical feature of Markan redaction, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[54] In LXX τεσσαράκοντα occurs as the translation of אַרְבָּעִים in Gen. 5:13; 7:4 (2xx), 12 (2xx), 17; 8:6; 18:28, 29 (2xx); 25:20; 26:34; 32:16; 47:28; 50:3; Exod. 16:35; 24:18 (2xx); 26:19, 21; 34:28; Lev. 25:8; Num. 1:21, 31, 37, 41; 2:11, 15, 19, 28; 13:25; 14:33, 34 (2xx); 26:7, 27[18], 45[41], 50; 32:13; 35:6, 7; Deut. 2:7; 8:4; 9:9 (2xx), 11 (2xx), 18 (2xx), 25 (2xx); 10:10 (2xx); 25:3; 29:4. This accounts for every occurrence of τεσσαράκοντα in the Pentateuch except for one in Gen. 7:17, which has no Hebrew equivalent. ↩
• ^[55] The phrase τεσσαράκοντα ἡμέρας occurs as the translation of אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם in Gen. 7:4, 12, 17; 8:6; 50:3; Exod. 24:18; 34:28; Num. 13:25; 14:34; Deut. 9:9, 11, 18; 10:10; 3 Kgdms. 19:8; Ezek. 4:6. ↩
• ^[56] The forty years of Israel’s desert wanderings corresponded to the forty days during which the Israelite spies surveyed the land of Canaan (Num. 14:34). Similarly, the prophet Ezekiel lay on his side for forty days, which symbolized forty years of Israel’s punishment (Ezek. 4:6). Thus there is no obstacle to regarding the forty days of Jesus’ desert sojourn as corresponding to the forty years during which God led Israel in the desert. Cf. Nolland, Matt., 163 n. 33. ↩
• ^[57] See Fitzmyer, 1:514. ↩
• ^[58] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1115-1116. ↩
• ^[59] See Dos Santos, 133. ↩
• ^[60] Cf. Delitzsch’s translation of Mark’s πειραζόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ σατανᾶ (“being tempted by the Satan”) as וְהַשָּׂטָן נִסָּהוּ (“and the Satan tempted him”; Mark 1:13). Lindsey, too, rendered Mark’s πειραζόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ σατανᾶ in the active voice as וַיְנַסֵּהוּ שָׁם הַשָּׂטָן (“and the Satan tempted him there”; HTGM, 87). ↩
• ^[61] The earliest attestation of נ-ס-ה in the hitpa‘el stem occurs in a tiny fragment associated with 4Q222, which reads [--] ת תתנסו[--] (“...t you will be tempted [or, ‘tested’]...”). ↩
• ^[62] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 54. ↩
• ^[63] The noun σατανᾶς occurs 4xx in Matthew (Matt. 4:10; 12:26 [2xx]; 16:23). In Luke σατανᾶς occurs 5xx (Luke 10:18; 11:18; 13:16; 22:3, 31). ↩
• ^[64] See Moulton-Milligan, 570; Return of the Twelve, Comment to L14. ↩
• ^[65] See LSJ, 390; Werner Foerster, “διάβολος,” TDNT, 2:72-73. ↩
• ^[66] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:299. ↩
• ^[67] Had we been reconstructing the narrative in Mishnaic-style Hebrew, we might have adopted נִתְנַסָּה + עַל יְדֵי, which occurs in the following rabbinic source:

  בא וראה מה בין הראשונים לאחרונים, שהראשונים היו מתנסים ע″י הקב″ה, שנאמר והאלהים נסה את אברהם, וכן באנשי דור המדבר, שנאמר למען אנסנו הילך בתורתי אם לא, וכן הוא אומר למען ענותך [ולמען] נסותך וגו′, אבל האחרונים נתנסו על ידי האומות, שנאמר ואלה הגוים אשר הניח ה′ לנסות בם את ישראל

  Come and see the difference between the early and the later [generations]! For the early [generations] were tested by the Holy One, blessed is he [הָיוּ מִתְנַסִּים ע″י הקב″ה], as it is said, And God tested Abraham [Gen. 22:1], and likewise of the people of the generation of the wilderness it is said, so that I may test them, whether they will walk according to my Torah or not [Exod. 16:4], and it also says, in order to humble you and in order to test you [Deut. 8:16]. But the later [generations] were tested by the Gentiles [נִתְנַסּוּ עַל יְדֵי הָאוּמּוֹת], as it is said, and these are the Gentiles whom the LORD left to test Israel with them [Judg. 3:1]. (Midrash Tanhuma, Vayera §43 [ed. Buber, 1:110])

  ↩

• ^[68] Pace Birger Gerhardsson, The Testing of God’s Son (Matt 4:1-11 & Par): An Analysis of an Early Christian Midrash (Lund: Gleerup, 1966), 43. ↩
• ^[69] See Allen, Matt., 30; McNeile, 38; Gundry, Matt., 54; Davies-Allison, 1:358; Nolland, Matt., 163. References to Moses’ forty-day and forty-night fast on Mount Sinai occur in Exod. 24:18; 34:28; Deut. 9:9, 11, 18; 10:10. These account for all of the instances of “forty days and forty nights” in Scripture apart from the story of Noah (Gen. 7:4, 12) and the story of Elijah’s journey to Mount Horeb, in which an angel gives the prophet food that sustains him for “forty days and forty nights” (1 Kgs. 19:8). Mention of Moses' fasting for forty days and nights also appears in the writings of Philo (Somn., 1:36) and Josephus (Ant. 3:99). ↩
• ^[70] For a detailed investigation of Mosaic typology in the Gospel of Matthew, see Dale C. Allison, Jr., The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993). ↩
• ^[71] See Bovon, 1:142. ↩
• ^[72] Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology, 167. ↩
• ^[73] See Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology, 166-169. ↩
• ^[74] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1028-1029. ↩
• ^[75] Of the 32 instances of מְאוּמָה in MT, 10 were rendered οὐδείς in LXX (Gen. 39:6, 9; 40:15; Deut. 13:18; Judg. 14:6; 1 Kgdms. 12:4; 20:26; Eccl. 5:13, 14; 9:5), 9 were rendered οὐθείς—a variant form of οὐδείς—(Gen. 30:31; 39:23; 1 Kgdms. 12:5; 20:39; 25:7, 21; 29:3; 3 Kgdms. 18:43; 2 Chr. 9:20) and 3 were rendered μηδείς (Gen. 22:12; Jonah 3:7; Eccl. 7:14). ↩
• ^[76] See Jastrow, 640; Segal, 210 §437. ↩
• ^[77] See Gundry, Matt., 55; Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology, 167; Nolland, Matt., 163 n. 34. ↩
• ^[78] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1418. ↩
• ^[79] The adverb ὕστερον does not occur at all in Mark, except in the spurious conclusion (Mark 16:14), and occurs only once in Luke (Luke 20:32). In Matthew, by contrast, ὕστερον occurs 7xx (Matt. 4:2; 21:29, 32, 37; 22:27; 25:11; 26:60). The sole occurrence in agreement with Luke (Matt. 22:27 ∥ Luke 20:32; cf. Mark 12:22) demonstrates that ὕστερον did occur, at least this once, in Anth. ↩
• ^[80] See Fitzmyer, 1:514; Davies-Allison, 1:355. ↩
• ^[81] See Davies-Allison, 1:359. ↩
• ^[82] On gen. abs. as an indicator of Lukan redaction, see LOY Excursus: The Genitive Absolute in the Synoptic Gospels, under the subheading “Analysis of Luke’s Use of the Genitive Absolute.” Marshall (170) attributed the genitive absolute in Luke 4:2 to Lukan redaction. ↩
• ^[83] See LHNS, 14 §8. ↩
• ^[84] On καί + participle + aorist in LXX as the translation equivalent of vav-consecutive + vav-consecutive, see Return of the Twelve, Comment to L1. ↩
• ^[85] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1319-1320. ↩
• ^[86] See Dos Santos, 91. ↩
• ^[87] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:1115. ↩
• ^[88] See Dos Santos, 194. ↩
• ^[89] Nolland, Luke, 1:179. ↩
• ^[90] See Harnack, 45; McNeile, 38; Davies-Allison, 1:359; Bovon, 1:142. ↩
• ^[91] As we noted above in Comment to L20, the καί + participle + aorist construction, such as we find in Matt. 4:3 (καὶ προσελθὼν...εἶπεν), was often used in LXX to translate two vav-consecutives, and προσέρχεσθαι (“to come toward”) reverts easily to קָרַב (“approach”). ↩
• ^[92] The Lukan-Matthean agreements against Mark to use προσέρχεσθαι in Matt. 8:25 ∥ Luke 8:24 (cf. Mark 4:38), Matt. 9:20 ∥ Luke 8:44 (cf. Mark 5:27), Matt. 22:23 ∥ Luke 20:27 (cf. Mark 12:18) and Matt. 27:58 ∥ Luke 23:52 (cf. Mark 15:43) virtually guarantee that προσέρχεσθαι occurred in Anth. ↩
• ^[93] Pace Harnack, 45. Marshall (17) pointed out that the devil is referred to in Greek as ὁ πειράζων (“the tempter”) in 1 Thess. 3:5. Perhaps for a new Gentile congregation, such as the one Paul founded in Thessalonica, the term “the tempter” was more meaningful than the Jewish-Greek term ὁ διάβολος. ↩
• ^[94] See Marshall, 17; Davies-Allison, 1:360; Bovon, 1:142. ↩
• ^[95] Cf. Bovon, 1:142. ↩
• ^[96] Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:361. ↩
• ^[97] See Kloppenborg, 256 n. 33. ↩
• ^[98] See LHNS, 15 §8. ↩
• ^[99] See Fitzmyer, 1:515; Gundry, Matt., 54; Davies-Allison, 1:361; Hagner, 1:65; Luz, 1:151 n. 32; Edwards, 127. ↩
• ^[100] Recall that in the words of the heavenly voice that spoke at Jesus’ baptism, בְּךָ רָצְתָה נַפְשִׁי (b^echā rātz^etāh nafshi, “my soul delights in you”) could also mean “my soul accepts you (i.e., as an offering).” See Yeshua’s Immersion, Comment to L44. ↩
• ^[101] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 55; Nolland, Matt., 164. ↩
• ^[102] In LXX εἰπόν occurs as the translation of אֱמֹר in Gen. 45:17; Exod. 6:6; 7:19; 8:1, 12; 16:9; Lev. 21:1; 22:3; Num. 14:28; 25:12; Deut. 1:42; 5:30; 1 Kgdms. 9:27; 3 Kgdms. 12:23; 18:44; 4 Kgdms. 4:13; 8:10; 2 Chr. 11:3; Esth. 5:14; Ps. 34[35]:3; Prov. 7:4; Hag. 2:2, 21; Zech. 7:5; Jer. 18:11; Ezek. 6:11; 11:16, 17; 12:10, 11, 23, 28; 13:11; 14:6; 17:9, 12 (2xx); 20:30; 21:14; 22:24; 24:21; 28:2; 31:2; 33:10, 11, 12, 25; 36:22; 39:17. Occasionally the LXX translators rendered אֱמֹר as λέγε (lege, “Say!”; 3 Kgdms. 18:8, 14; Ezek. 11:5). ↩
• ^[103] In fact, the imperative εἰπέ occurs only in Jer. 36[29]:25 [= לֵאמֹר], so presuming that εἰπέ reflects אֱמֹר in the Hebrew Life of Yeshua, we have in L27 a definitely non-Septuagintal translation of אֱמֹר. ↩
• ^[104] On reconstructing εἰπεῖν with אָמַר, see Widow’s Son in Nain, Comment to L12. ↩
• ^[105] Cf. LHNS, 15 §8. It is true that ἵνα + subjunctive constructions are never particularly Hebraic. Nevertheless, given the three instances of Lukan-Matthean agreement to use this construction in DT pericopae (Luke 4:3 ∥ Matt. 4:3; Luke 6:31 ∥ Matt. 7:12; Luke 7:6 ∥ Matt. 8:8) and the one instance of Lukan-Matthean agreement against Mark to use this construction in a TT pericope (Luke 17:2 ≈ Matt. 18:6 [cf. Mark 9:42]), we know that ἵνα + subjunctive occurred at least occasionally in Anth., and this is hardly surprising since ἵνα + subjunctive also occurs in LXX as the translation of various Hebrew constructions. ↩
• ^[106] See Segal, 141 §200. ↩
• ^[107] In LXX ἵνα + subjunctive occurs as the translation of -וְ + imperfect in Gen. 24:14, 49, 56; 27:4, 41; 30:25, 26; 42:2; 43:8; 47:19; 49:1; Exod. 3:18; 6:11; 9:13; 10:3; 17:2; 23:12; Num. 11:13; Deut. 31:28; Judg. 19:22; Ps. 38[39]:14; 77[78]:7; Prov. 3:10, 22; 31:7; Job 13:13; 14:6; 32:20; 36:2; Isa. 5:19; 37:20; 41:26; 49:20; 51:23; Lam. 1:19. ↩
• ^[108] See Segal, 227 §482. ↩
• ^[109] See John A. T. Robinson, “The Temptations,” in his Twelve New Testament Studies (London: SCM Press, 1962), 53-60, esp. 55. ↩
• ^[110] On the other hand, Flusser (“Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund,” 125 n. 17) compared the devil’s advice (“Say to this rock that it might become bread”) to God’s command to Moses in the story that takes place at Merivah (“Take the staff and assemble the congregation, you and your brother Aaron, and you will speak to the rock [וְדִבַּרְתֶּם אֶל הַסֶּלַע] before their eyes, and it will give its water”; Num. 20:8). So perhaps there are echoes of the water-from-the-rock story in the first temptation after all. ↩
• ^[111] See Stith Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk-Literature (6 vols.; rev. ed.; Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1955-1958), M411.2; cf. D471.1. ↩
• ^[112] Wolter (1:189) noted the following coupling of bread and stones in the writings of Epictetus:

  ὡς ἡ κατάλληλος πόα τῷ προβάτῳ φανεῖσα προθυμίαν αὐτῷ κινεῖ πρὸς τὸ φαγεῖν, ἂν δὲ λίθον ἢ ἄρτον παραθῇς, οὐ κινηθήσεται, οὕτως εἰσί τινες ἡμῖν φυσικαὶ προθυμίαι καὶ πρὸς τὸ λέγειν, ὅταν ὁ ἀκουσόμενος φανῇ τις, ὅταν αὐτὸς ἐρεθίσῃ.

  Just as suitable grass when shown to the sheep arouses in it an eagerness to eat, whereas if you set before it a stone or a loaf of bread, it will not be moved to eat, so we have certain moments of natural eagerness for speech also, when the suitable hearer appears, and when he himself stimulates us. (Epictetus, Discourses 2:24 §16; Loeb)

  This parallel to the devil’s suggestion in Yeshua’s Testing is not particularly apt, however, because the sheep refuses both the bread and the stone. Neither is suitable sheep fodder, and neither is substituted for the other. ↩

• ^[113] Cf., e.g., Gustaf Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways: Studies in the Topography of the Gospels (trans. Paul P. Levertoff; New York: Macmillan, 1935), 96; Davies-Allison, 1:681-682; Nolland, Matt., 164, 327. ↩
• ^[114] Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:363. ↩
• ^[115] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:933-934. ↩
• ^[116] See Dos Santos, 97. ↩
• ^[117] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:594-597. ↩
• ^[118] See Dos Santos, 62. ↩
• ^[119] See Harnack, 45; Marshall, 171; Fitzmyer, 1:515; Davies-Allison, 1:363; Tuckett, “The Temptation Narrative in Q,” 494; Hagner, 1:65; Bovon, 1:142. ↩
• ^[120] According to Vaticanus’ reading, the only difference between Matthew’s extended quotation and LXX is Matthew’s omission of τῷ before ἐκπορευομένῳ. ↩
• ^[121] See Gundry, Use, 66-67. ↩
• ^[122] For the view that the placement of the two temptations with explicit Son of God references side-by-side argues in favor of the originality of Matthew’s order, see Schweizer, 57-58; LHNS, 15 §8; Gundry, 56. ↩
• ^[123] For the view that the steady rise in altitude in Matthew’s order of the temptations is an argument in favor of its originality, see Davies-Allison, 1:352; Nolland, Matt., 166. ↩
• ^[124] See Allen, Matt., 33. ↩
• ^[125] See Stephanie L. Black, “The Historic Present in Matthew: Beyond Speech Margins,” in Discourse Analysis and the New Testament: Approaches and Results (ed. Stanley E. Porter and Jeffrey T. Reed; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 120-139, esp. 129-135. ↩
• ^[126] The un-Hebraic quality of the historical present and the total lack of agreement between Luke and Matthew to use the historical present are two strong indications that the historical present in Matthew is redactional. For a list of all the instances of the historical present in Matthew, see LOY Excursus: Mark’s Editorial Style, under the subheading “Mark’s Freedom and Creativity.” ↩
• ^[127] See H. B. Streeter, “On the Original Order of Q,” in Studies in the Synoptic Problem (ed. William Sanday; Oxford: Clarendon, 1911), 140-164, esp. 152-153; Manson, Sayings, 42-43; Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 89. ↩
• ^[128] See Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 90. Cf. Nolland, Matt., 161 n. 21. ↩
• ^[129] Some scholars have noted that, according to Luke’s order of the temptations, Jesus follows a realistic geographical itinerary to Jerusalem. Cf., e.g., McNeile, 37; Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways, 96-97; Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 89. The significance of Luke’s geographical realism has too often been ignored or dismissed. ↩
• ^[130] Other scholars who favor the originality of Luke’s order of the temptations include Daube (406), Young (JJT, 33 n. 2) and Keener (142). See also Petros Vassiliadis, “The Original Order of Q: Some Residual Cases,” in Logia Les Paroles de Jésus—The Sayings of Jesus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens (ed. Joël Delobel; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982), 379-387, esp. 384. ↩
• ^[131] The following table displays all of the examples of παραλαμβάνειν in Matthew, Mark and Luke and the parallels (if any) in the other two Synoptic Gospels:

  Matt. 1:20 U Matt. 1:24 U Matt. 2:13 U Matt. 2:14 U Matt. 2:20 U Matt. 2:21 U Matt. 4:5 DT (cf. Luke 4:9) Matt. 4:8 DT (cf. Luke 4:5) Matt. 12:45 DT = Luke 11:26 Matt. 17:1 TT = Mark 9:2 ∥ Luke 9:28 Matt. 18:16 U Matt. 20:17 TT = Mark 10:32 ∥ Luke 18:31 Matt. 24:40 DT = Luke 17:34 Matt. 24:41 DT = Luke 17:35 Matt. 26:37 TT = Mark 14:33 (cf. Luke 22:[--]) Matt. 27:27 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 15:16) Mark 4:36 TT (cf. Matt. 8:23; Luke 8:22) Mark 5:40 TT (cf. Matt. 9:25; Luke 8:53) Mark 7:4 Mk-Mt (cf. Matt. 15:[--]) Mark 9:2 TT = Matt. 17:1 ∥ Luke 9:28 Mark 10:32 TT = Matt. 20:17 ∥ Luke 18:31 Mark 14:33 TT = Matt. 26:37 (cf. Luke 22:[--]) Luke 9:10 TT (cf. Matt. 14:13; Mark 6:32) Luke 9:28 TT = Matt. 17:1 ∥ Mark 9:2 Luke 11:26 DT = Matt. 12:45 Luke 17:34 DT = Matt. 24:40 Luke 17:35 DT = Matt. 24:41 Luke 18:31 TT = Matt. 20:17 ∥ Mark 10:32 Key: TT = pericope has parallels in all three Synoptic Gospels; DT = Lukan-Matthean pericope; Mk-Mt = Markan-Matthean pericope; U = verse unique to a particular Gospel; [--] = no corresponding verse

  From the table above we can observe that the author of Matthew usually accepted παραλαμβάνειν when it occurred in his source(s) (Matt. 12:45; 17:1; 20:17; 24:40, 41; 26:37), except on a few occasions when he abbreviated Mark (Matt. 9:25 [cf. Mark 5:40]; 15:[--] [cf. Mark 7:4]) or when he preferred Anth.’s wording over Mark’s (Matt. 8:23 [cf. Mark 4:36]). The high frequency of παραλαμβάνειν in verses unique to Matthew (Matt. 1:20, 24; 2:13, 14, 20, 21; 18:16) strongly suggests that when παραλαμβάνειν is unsupported in the parallels (Matt. 4:5, 8; 27:27) it was added by the author of Matthew, especially since we see that the authors of Mark and Luke had no aversion to the verb παραλαμβάνειν. ↩

• ^[132] In Acts παραλαμβάνειν occurs in Acts 15:39; 16:33; 21:24, 26, 32; 23:18. ↩
• ^[133] Cf. Hagner, 1:66. ↩
• ^[134] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:75. ↩
• ^[135] See Dos Santos, 155. ↩
• ^[136] See Davies-Allison, 1:369; Nolland, Matt., 166. ↩
• ^[137] See Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 88. ↩
• ^[138] See James C. VanderKam and Józef T. Milik, “4QPseudo-Jubilees^a,” in Discoveries in the Judean Desert XIII: Qumran Cave 4 VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (ed. Harold Attridge et al.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 141-155, esp. 149. ↩
• ^[139] See Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 94-95. ↩
• ^[140] Buchanan (1:165) also suggested that the mountain to which Matthew’s version of the temptation narrative refers may be none other than Mount Zion. ↩
• ^[141] See Lindsey, GCSG, 2:104-105. ↩
• ^[142] For an example of what we mean by a mountain that exists outside the physical universe, recall The Silver Chair in the Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis. In that story two children (Jill and Eustace) visit a mountain in Aslan’s country that exists outside our world and also outside Narnia. See “Aslan’s Country” in Paul F. Ford, Companion to Narnia (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1980), 57-59. ↩
• ^[143] Cf. Donaldson, Jesus on the Mountain, 88. ↩
• ^[144] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1419-1420. ↩
• ^[145] See Dos Santos, 32. ↩
• ^[146] In LXX ὄρος ὑψηλόν serves as the translation of הַר גָּבֹהַּ in Gen. 7:19; Ps. 103[104]:18; Isa. 30:25; 40:9; 57:7; Jer. 3:6; Ezek. 17:22; 40:2. ↩
• ^[147] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:876. ↩
• ^[148] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:286. ↩
• ^[149] See Dos Santos, 188. ↩
• ^[150] See the entry for βασιλεία in the LOY Excursus: Greek-Hebrew Equivalents in the LOY Reconstructions. For our justification, see Not Everyone Can Be Yeshua’s Disciple, Comment to L39. ↩
• ^[151] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:192-194. In LXX πᾶσα βασιλεία (pasa basileia, “every kingdom”) and πᾶσα ἡ βασιλεία (pasa hē basileia, “all the kingdom”) occur as the translation of כָּל מַמְלָכָה (kol mamlāchāh, “every kingdom”) and כָּל הַמַּמְלָכָה (kol hamamlāchāh, “all the kingdom”) in Deut. 3:21; 28:25; Josh. 11:10; 1 Kgdms. 10:18; 3 Kgdms. 10:20; 4 Kgdms. 19:15, 19; 1 Chr. 29:30; 2 Chr. 9:19; 17:10; 20:6, 29; 36:23; 2 Esd. 1:2; Ps. 134[135]:11; Isa. 23:17; 37:16, 20; Jer. 15:4; 24:9; 32[25]:26; 41[34]:17. ↩
• ^[152] See Dos Santos, 114. ↩
• ^[153] See Harnack, 46; Marshall, 171; Bovon, 1:143. ↩
• ^[154] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:780-781. ↩
• ^[155] The LXX translators rendered מַמְלְכוֹת הָאָרֶץ as [αἱ] βασιλεῖαι τῆς γῆς or [ἡ] βασιλεία τῆς γῆς in Deut. 28:25; 4 Kgdms. 19:15, 19; 2 Chr. 36:23; 2 Esd. 1:2; Ps. 67[68]:33; Is. 37:20; Jer. 15:4; 24:9; 41[34]:17. Cf. 1 Chr. 29:30; 2 Chr. 12:8; 17:10; 20:29, where the LXX translators rendered מַמְלְכוֹת הָאֲרָצוֹת (“the kingdoms of the lands”) as [αἱ] βασιλεῖαι τῆς γῆς (“[the] kingdoms of the earth”) or ἡ βασιλεία τῆς γῆς (“the kingdom of the earth”). ↩
• ^[156] In LXX οἰκουμένη serves as the translation of תֵּבֵל in 2 Kgdms. 22:16; Ps. 9:9; 17[18]:16; 18[19]:5; 23[24]:1; 32[33]:8; 49[50]:12; 76[77]:19; 88[89]:12; 89[90]:2; 92[93]:1; 95[96]:10, 13; 96[97]:4; 97[98]:7, 9; Prov. 8:31; Isa. 13:11; 14:17; 24:4; 27:6; 34:1; Jer. 10:12; 28[51]:15; Lam. 4:12. ↩
• ^[157] In LXX οἰκουμένη appears as the translation of אֶרֶץ in Ps. 71[72]:8; Isa. 10:23; 13:5, 9; 14:26; 23:17; 24:1; 37:16, 18. ↩
• ^[158] According to Jastrow (59), οἰκουμένη entered Hebrew as אִיקוּמֵינֵי (’iqūmēnē) and variant spellings. One such example occurs in the following rabbinic statement:

  וַיִּמַח אֶת כָּל הַיְקוּם מהו היקום...ר′ בון אמ′ אוקימיני

  And he wiped out all the y^eqūm [Gen. 7:23]. What is the y^eqūm? ...Rabbi Bun said, “It is the inhabited world [אוקימיני].” (Eccl. Rab. 6:3 [ed. Hirshman, 336])

  This example does not give us confidence that אִיקוּמֵינֵי had become an established term in Hebrew by the first century C.E. ↩

• ^[159] Cf. Fitzmyer, 1:516. ↩
• ^[160] See Harnack, 47; Marshall, 171; Bovon, 1:142. ↩
• ^[161] The adjective ἅπας occurs 11xx in Luke (Luke 3:21; 4:6, 40; 5:26; 8:37; 9:15; 19:37, 48; 20:6; 21:15; 23:1), 3xx in Matthew (Matt. 6:32; 24:39; 28:11) and 4xx in Mark (Mark 1:27; 8:25; 11:32; [16:15]). Note, moreover, that Luke and Matthew never agree on the use of ἅπας. See Lindsey, GCSG, 1:51-52. ↩
• ^[162] See Wolter, 1:190. Cf. Harnack, 47; Fitzmyer, 1:516. ↩
• ^[163] However, there are instances of ταῦτα πάντα (“these all”) in LXX. In LXX the phrase ταῦτα πάντα occurs as the translation of כָּל אֵלֶּה (“all these”) in Lev. 20:23; Zech. 8:17; Isa. 45:7; Jer. 3:7; Ezek. 16:30. Likewise, the LXX translators rendered כָּל זֹאת (“all this”) as ταῦτα πάντα in Deut. 32:27; 2 Chr. 21:18; Ps. 43[44]:18. Cf. Job 1:22, where ἐν τούτοις πᾶσιν is the translation of בְּכָל־זֹאת, and Isa. 9:11, 20, where ἐπὶ τούτοις πᾶσιν is the translation of בְּכָל־זֹאת. ↩
• ^[164] The table below shows all of the instances of ταῦτα πάντα in Matthew and the parallels (if any) in Mark and Luke:

  Matt. 4:9 DT (cf. Luke 4:6) Matt. 6:33 DT (cf. Luke 12:31) Matt. 13:34 Mk-Mt (cf. Mark 4:33) Matt. 13:51 U Matt. 13:56 TT (cf. Mark 6:3; Luke 4:22) Matt. 23:36 DT (cf. Luke 11:51) Matt. 24:2 TT (cf. Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6)

  ↩

• ^[165] Hagner (1:62), on the other hand, argued that the author of Matthew “deleted” the devil’s explanation “because he regarded it as objectionable.” ↩
• ^[166] Other scholars who regard the devil’s explanation as a Lukan addition include Harnack (47), Fitzmyer (1:516), Gundry (Matt., 58) and Bovon (1:143). ↩
• ^[167] See Dominic Rudman, “Authority and Right of Disposal in Luke 4.6,” New Testament Studies 50 (2004): 77-86. ↩
• ^[168] See Fitzmyer, 1:516; Menahem Kister, “Words and Formulae in the Gospels in the Light of Hebrew and Aramaic Sources,” in The Sermon on the Mount and its Jewish Setting (ed. Hans-Jürgen Becker and Serge Ruzer; Paris: Gabalda, 2005), 117-147, esp. 138-139. ↩
• ^[169] Harnack (47), Gundry (Matt., 58) and Davies-Allison (1:372) similarly attribute πεσών (“falling”) to Matthean redaction. ↩
• ^[170] As noted by Harnack (47). ↩
• ^[171] As stated by Marshall (172). ↩
• ^[172] Pace Davies-Allison, 1:372. ↩
• ^[173] The 22 instances of ἐνώπιον in Luke occur in Luke 1:15, 17, 19, 75, 76; 4:7; 5:18, 25; 8:47; 12:6, 9 (2xx); 13:26; 14:10; 15:10, 18, 21; 16:15 (2xx); 23:14; 24:11, 43. ↩
• ^[174] The ten instances of ἐνώπιον in 1 Acts occur in Acts 2:25; 4:10, 19; 6:5, 6; 7:46; 9:15; 10:30, 31, 33. ↩
• ^[175] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1217-1218. ↩
• ^[176] See Dos Santos, 206. ↩
• ^[177] See Theissen, The Gospels in Context, 207. ↩
• ^[178] Cf. Robinson, “The Temptations,” 57. ↩
• ^[179] See Flusser, “Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund,” 115-116. ↩
• ^[180] For stories about deals with the devil in Christian literature, see Michael E. Stone, “The Legend of the Cheirograph of Adam,” in Literature on Adam and Eve: Collected Essays (ed. Gary Anderson, Michael Stone, and Johannes Tromp; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 149-166; idem, Adam’s Contract with Satan: The Legend of the Cheirograph of Adam (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2002). On deals with the devil in folk literature, see Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, M210. ↩
• ^[181] Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:372. On the historical present as an indicator of Matthean redaction, see the discussion under the subheading Second Temptation. On narrative τότε as an indicator of Matthean redaction, see above, Comment to L2. ↩
• ^[182] See Black, “The Historic Present in Matthew: Beyond Speech Margins,” 133. ↩
• ^[183] Cf. Harnack, 44; Davies-Allison, 1:372. ↩
• ^[184] Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:373. ↩
• ^[185] In DSS we find an alternate form of this verse that is even closer to the wording of Jesus’ quotation:

  אחרי יי אלוהיכמה תלכון ואותו תעבודון ואותו תיראו ובקולו תשמעון ובו תדבקון

  After the LORD your God you must walk, and him you must serve, and him you must fear, and to his voice you must listen, and to him you must cling. (11QT^a [11Q19] LIV, 13-15; cf. 1QDeut^a 9 I, 2)

  ↩
• ^[186] See Flusser, “Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund,” 111; idem, “‘But Who Can Detect Their Errors?’ (Ps 19:3): On Some Biblical Readings in the Second Temple Period” (JSTP2, 162-171, esp. 166-167). Catchpole (14) opined that the crucial word in Jesus’ quotation is “pay homage,” the same verb that occurs in the terms of the deal Satan offered to Jesus. But whereas “pay homage” assimilates the quotation to the wording of Satan’s offer, it is the exclusivity of the covenantal relationship, expressed in the word “alone,” that makes the quotation an appropriate rejection of the devil’s bargain. ↩
• ^[187] The two differences between Deut. 6:13 and Deut. 10:20 are the coordinating conjunction -וְ (v^e-, “and”), which is attached to אֹתוֹ (’otō, “him”) in Deut. 6:13 but missing in Deut. 10:20, and the phrase וּבוֹ תִדְבָּק (ūvō tidbāq, “to him you must cling”), which is absent in Deut. 6:13 but present in Deut. 10:20. Neither of these differences help us to identify which of these two verses Jesus intended to quote, since LXX has καί (kai, “and”), corresponding to -וְ, in both verses. In the part of the quotation that Jesus leaves out LXX also has καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν κολληθήσῃ (kai pros avton kollēthēsē, “and to him you must be joined”), corresponding to וּבוֹ תִדְבָּק, in both verses, so even if Jesus had extended the quotation, we could not be sure which verse he was quoting. It may be that in the Hebrew vorlage known to the LXX translators the two verses were identical. ↩
• ^[188] In Codex Alexandrinus Deut. 6:13 ∥ 10:20 read κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις, exactly as the quotation is cited in the temptation narrative. ↩
• ^[189] For a summary of the textual evidence for Deut. 6:13, see Gundry, Use, 68. Note, however, that Gundry is mistaken with regard to 𝔓⁹⁶³. This fragmentary papyrus dating from the first half of the second century C.E. preserves Deut. 6:13 as follows:

  ...θν σου φοβηθη-

  ...και αυτω μονω λα-

  ...προς αυτ-

  ...God of you you will fea[r]...

  ...and to him alone [you will] re[nder service]...

  ...to hi[m]....

  Thus 𝔓⁹⁶³ does not support Codex Alexandrinus or the Gospels in reading προσκυνήσεις (“you must pay homage”) instead of “you must fear.” See Tuckett, “The Temptation Narrative in Q,” 484 n. 23. ↩

• ^[190] See Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and its Use of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1968), 89; Flusser, “Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund,” 111; idem, “‘But Who Can Detect Their Errors?’ (Ps 19:3)” (JSTP2, 167); Tuckett, “The Temptation Narrative in Q,” 484. ↩
• ^[191] See Flusser, “Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund,” 112; idem, “‘But Who Can Detect Their Errors?’ (Ps 19:3)” (JSTP2, 167). ↩
• ^[192] See Flusser, “Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund,” 112; idem, “‘But Who Can Detect Their Errors?’ (Ps 19:3)” (JSTP2, 168). Josephus paraphrased the first of the Ten Commandments in the following manner:

  Διδάσκει μὲν οὖν ἡμᾶς ὁ πρῶτος λόγος, ὅτι θεός ἐστιν εἷς καὶ τοῦτον δεῖ σέβεσθαι μόνον

  The first word teaches us that God is one and that he alone must be worshipped. (Ant. 3:91; Loeb [adapted])

  Neither version of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1-17; Deut. 5:6-21) stipulates that God “alone” must be worshipped, so it is plausible that Josephus’ paraphrase of the first commandment was influenced by the blessing based on Deut. 6:13 and Deut. 10:20 that was recited in the Temple. Josephus was a priest who served in the Temple prior to its destruction. According to Pseudo-Philo’s Biblical Antiquities (L.A.B.), the people of Israel respond to Joshua’s departure speech saying:

  Dominus est Deus noster et ipsi soli serviemus

  The Lord is our God and him only we will serve. (L.A.B. 23:14)

  The verse that L.A.B. paraphrases (Josh. 24:24) does not say anything about serving God “alone,” so it is again plausible that the author of Biblical Antiquities was influenced by the Temple blessing. Although L.A.B. only survives in Latin translation, it was composed in Hebrew. ↩

• ^[193] The Palestinian version of the Amidah is attested in genizah MSS, on which see Jacob Mann, “Genizah Fragments of the Palestinian Order of Service,” Hebrew Union College Annual 2 (1925): 269-338, esp. 310. The benediction concluding with שֶׁאוֹתְךָ לְבַדֶּךָ בְּיִרְאָה נַעֲבוֹד (“for you alone we will serve in fear”) is also attested in rabbinic sources originating from the land of Israel (Yalkut Shim‘oni 2 §80; Midrash Tehillim 29:2 [ed. Buber, 232]). ↩
• ^[194] Unfortunately, neither Deut. 6:13 nor Deut. 10:20 has survived in biblical MSS discovered among DSS. ↩
• ^[195] See Flusser, “Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund,” 113; idem, “‘But Who Can Detect Their Errors?’ (Ps 19:3)” (JSTP2, 169). ↩
• ^[196] The exclusivity of the divine service that was conducted in the Temple in Jerusalem was two-fold. On the one hand, the worship was directed exclusively to the God of Israel. On the other hand, at least according to the dominant Jewish view, the Temple in Jerusalem was the only valid location for cultic worship. Josephus articulated the ideology of one place of worship for the one true God as follows:

  We have but one temple for the one God...common to all as God is common to all. (Apion 2:193; Loeb; cf. Ant. 4:200-201)

  See Flusser, “Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund,” 112; idem, “‘But Who Can Detect Their Errors?’ (Ps 19:3)” (JSTP2, 169). ↩

• ^[197] In LXX the noun κύριος more frequently occurs as the equivalent of the Tetragrammaton than of a noun such as אָדוֹן (’ādōn) or בַּעַל (ba‘al), meaning “master” or “lord.” See Hatch-Redpath, 2:800-839. ↩
• ^[198] See Dos Santos, 78. ↩
• ^[199] See David N. Bivin, “Jesus and the Oral Torah: The Unutterable Name of God.” Dalman (182-183) argued that Jesus would have said הַשֵּׁם (hashēm, “the Name”) in place of the Tetragrammaton when he quoted Hebrew Scripture. ↩
• ^[200] See Ludwig Blau, “Tetragrammaton,” JE, 12:118-120. ↩
• ^[201] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1217-1218; Dos Santos, 85. ↩
• ^[202] See our Introduction to “The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction,” under the subheading “Arrangement of the Reconstruction.” ↩
• ^[203] See Flusser, “Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund,” 124 n. 4; idem, “‘But Who Can Detect Their Errors?’ (Ps 19:3)” (JSTP2, 167 n. 18). ↩
• ^[204] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:863. ↩
• ^[205] See Dos Santos, 147. ↩
• ^[206] See Kloppenborg, 256. Cf. Tuckett, “The Temptation Narrative in Q,” 492. ↩
• ^[207] Pace France, Matt., 135 n. 36. For scholars who have noted the anti-imperialist critique embedded in the temptation narrative, see Lightfoot, 2:86; Luz, 1:153 n. 43; Bovon, 1:144. Whereas some scholars have portrayed the temptation narrative as a polemic against the imperial cult, it seems more likely that the polemical thrust is against Roman imperialism as such. See, for instance, Theissen, The Gospels in Context, 206-221; N. H. Taylor, “The Temptation of Jesus on the Mountain: A Palestinian Christian Polemic Against Agrippa I,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 83 (2001): 27-49. ↩
• ^[208] On ancient imperialist propaganda that proclaimed Rome’s worldwide domination, see P. A. Brunt, “Roman Imperial Illusions,” in his Roman Imperial Themes (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990), 433-480. ↩
• ^[209] The belief that Satan was the true power behind the Roman Empire is attested in ancient Jewish sources as well as in the Revelation of John. On the identification of Satan in ancient Jewish and early Christian sources as the angelic prince who stood behind the power of Rome, see Joshua N. Tilton, “Like Lightning from Heaven (Luke 10:18): Jesus’ Apocalyptic Vision of the Fall of Satan,” and the sources cited there. ↩
• ^[210] The term עִיר הַקֹּדֶשׁ occurs in Isa. 48:2; 52:1; Neh. 11:1, 18. The LXX translators rendered עִיר הַקֹּדֶשׁ as [ἡ] πόλις ἡ ἁγία ([hē] polis hē hagia, “[the] city the holy”). Note the Hebraic word order of the LXX translation. We also encounter the term עִיר הַקֹּדֶשׁ in CD-B XX, 22, but “the holy city” is not a common designation for Jerusalem in DSS or rabbinic sources. ↩
• ^[211] Cf. Harnack, 46; Marshall, 172; Davies-Allison, 1:365; Bovon, 1:144. ↩
• ^[212] The Hellenized spelling Ἱεροσόλυμα incorporates the adjective ἱερός (hieros, “holy”) into Jerusalem’s name. On the pseudo-etymology of the Hellenistic spelling Ἱεροσόλυμα, see Thackeray, 168; James A. Montgomery, “Paronomasias on the Name Jerusalem,” Journal of Biblical Literature 49:3 (1930): 227-282. The spelling Ἱεροσόλυμα does not occur in LXX books corresponding to MT, although it does occur in books such as Tobit and 1 Maccabees, which were translated from Hebrew or Aramaic originals. ↩
• ^[213] The author of Matthew used the Hellenistic spelling Ἱεροσόλυμα 11xx (Matt. 2:1, 3; 3:5; 4:25; 5:35; 15:1; 16:21; 20:17, 18; 21:1, 10), but only adopted the Hebraic Ἰερουσαλήμ twice—both in Matt. 23:37, which is parallel to and in agreement with Luke 13:34, demonstrating that the Hebraic spelling occurred in Anth. The author of Mark used the Hellenistic spelling 10xx (Mark 3:8, 22; 7:1; 10:32, 33; 11:1, 11, 15, 27; 15:41), but entirely avoided the Hebraic spelling. The author of Luke, on the other hand, occasionally used the Hellenized spelling (Luke 2:22; 13:22; 19:28; 23:7)—and note that in Luke 13:22 and Luke 19:28 Codex Bezae has the Hebraic form Ἰερουσαλήμ—but adopted the Hebraic spelling at least 27xx (Luke 2:25, 38, 41, 43, 45; 4:9; 5:17; 6:17; 9:31, 51, 53; 10:30; 13:4, 33, 34 [2xx]; 17:11; 18:31; 19:11; 21:20, 24; 23:28; 24:13, 18, 33, 47, 52). ↩
• ^[214] See Dennis D. Sylva, “Ierosalēm and Hierosoluma in Luke-Acts,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 74.3-4 (1983): 207-221; J. M. Ross, “The Spelling of Jerusalem in Acts,” New Testament Studies 38.3 (1992): 474-476. ↩
• ^[215] Although the apostle Paul occasionally used the Hellenistic spelling Ἱεροσόλυμα (Gal. 1:17, 18; 2:1), the Hebraic spelling Ἰερουσαλήμ occurs with greater frequency in his writings (Rom. 15:19, 25, 26, 31; 1 Cor. 16:3; Gal. 4:25, 26). Thus we can assume that the Hebraic spelling would have been familiar to Luke’s audience, which makes Luke’s willingness to accept Ἰερουσαλήμ from his Hebraic-Greek sources (Anth. and FR) easier to understand. ↩
• ^[216] In LXX εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ serves as the translation of אֶל יְרוּשָׁלִַם in 1 Chr. 15:3; 2 Chr. 5:2; 12:5; 23:2; 2 Esd. 3:1; 7:7, 9; 12:11; Zech. 14:17. ↩
• ^[217] In LXX εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ serves as the translation of לִירוּשָׁלִַם in 1 Chr. 21:15; 2 Chr. 11:14; 19:1; 30:3, 11; 32:23; 34:7; 2 Esd. 1:3, 11; 2:1; 3:8; 4:12, 23; 7:13, 14; 8:30; 17:6; 22:27; 23:7. ↩
• ^[218] In LXX εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ serves as the translation of יְרוּשָׁלִַם (without an accompanying preposition) in Judg. 1:7; 1 Kgdms. 17:54; 2 Kgdms. 5:6; 8:7; 10:14; 12:31; 14:23; 15:8, 29, 37; 16:15; 17:20; 19:26, 35; 20:3, 22; 24:8, 16; 3 Kgdms. 3:15; 12:18, 21, 28; 4 Kgdms. 14:13; 16:5; 18:17; 23:20, 30; 24:10; 25:8; 1 Chr. 11:14; 18:7; 19:15; 20:3; 21:4; 2 Chr. 1:13; 2:15; 10:18; 11:1, 16; 14:14; 15:10; 20:27, 28; 25:23; 30:13; 33:13: 35:24; 2 Esd. 3:8; 7:8; 8:31, 32; 10:7, 9; 22:28; 23:15; Jer. 34[27]:3; 42[35]:11; Dan. 1:1. ↩
• ^[219] On יְרוּשָׁלֵם as the more ancient pronunciation, see George Adam Smith, “The Name Jerusalem and its History,” in his Jerusalem: The Topography, Economics, and History from Earliest Times to A.D. 70 (2 vols.; London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1907-1908), 1:250-265, esp. 252. ↩
• ^[220] In Philo’s works the transliterated spelling Ἰερουσαλήμ occurs only once (Somn. 2:250), and in that context Philo took care to explain that Jerusalem is called Ἰερουσαλήμ “by the Hebrews” (ὑπὸ Ἑβραίων). The transliterated spelling Ἰερουσαλήμ never occurs in the writings of Josephus, although the form Ἰερουσαλήμη (Ierousalēmē) occurs once (Apion 1:179), in a quotation from the works of Clearchus of Soli (ca. 300 B.C.E.). In that quotation Clearchus comments on the awkwardness of the foreign name. Note that although the name is spelled with the rough breathing mark (Ἱερουσαλήμην) in the Loeb edition of Josephus, the smooth breathing is closer to the Hebrew pronunciation, with which Clearchus seems to have been familiar. See Smith, “The Name Jerusalem and its History,” 260. On Clearchus and the quotation in Josephus, see Stern, 1:47-52. ↩
• ^[221] The spelling יְרוּשָׁלַיִם (with a yod before the final mem) occurs in Jer. 26:18; Esth. 2:6; 1 Chr. 3:5; 2 Chr. 25:1; 32:9. See Kutscher, 81 §118, 94 §153; Hurvitz, 127-129. ↩
• ^[222] Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:365. ↩
• ^[223] See Harnack, 46. ↩
• ^[224] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:689-692. ↩
• ^[225] See Dos Santos, 156. ↩
• ^[226] On the term πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ and its identification in early Christian sources, see See Yaron Z. Eliav, God’s Mountain: The Temple Mount in Time, Place, and Memory (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005), 63-76. ↩
• ^[227] The only example LSJ (1547) gives for πτερύγιον as an architectural term is Luke 4:9, and for πτέρυξ as a point of a building LSJ (1547) cites only the Onomasticon of Julius Pollux (second cent. C.E.), whose work was dedicated to collecting obscure and antiquated terms. We do encounter τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ (“the winglet of the Temple”) in Hegesippus’ account of the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, which was preserved in the writings of Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 2:23 §11). In the same context we find the synonymous phrase τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ναοῦ (to pterūgion tou naou, “the winglet of the Temple”; Hist. Eccl. 2:23 §12) in a statement that clearly echoes the temptation narrative:

  Hegesippus (Hist. Eccl. 2:23 §12, 14)	Temptation Narrative
  ἔστησαν οὖν οἱ προειρημένοι γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι τὸν Ἰάκωβον ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ναοῦ.... τότε πάλιν οἱ αὐτοὶ γραμματεῖς καὶ Φαρισαῖοι πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἔλεγον...καταβάλωμεν αὐτὸν ἵνα φοβηθέντες μὴ πιστεύσωσιν αὐτῷ	καὶ ἔστησεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ...βάλε σεαυτὸν κάτω
  Therefore, the aforementioned scribes and Pharisees made James stand on the winglet of the Temple.... Then again those very scribes and Pharisees said to one another, “...let us throw him down so that they will be afraid and not believe in him.”	And he made him stand on the winglet of the Temple, and he said to him, “...throw yourself down.”

  Hegesippus’ account of James’ martyrdom contradicts the much more credible account given by Josephus, according to whom James was put to death by the high priest, not the Pharisees. Hegesippus’ reference to the “winglet of the Temple” serves no other purpose than to portray the Jews as imitators of the devil, so there is no reason to doubt that Hegesippus (or his source) took the phrase directly from the Gospels.

  Eusebius also quotes Clement of Alexandria’s lost work Hypotyposes, which makes reference to James the Just ὁ κατὰ τοῦ πτερυγίου βληθείς (“who was thrown from the winglet”; Hist. Eccl. 2:1 §5), but Clement may have been acquainted with Hegesippus or his source.

  The Testament of Solomon, a Christian work of uncertain date (first half of the first millennium C.E.) that tells the story of how King Solomon constructed the Temple with the assistance of enslaved demons, identifies τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ναοῦ (“the winglet of the Temple”; T. Sol. 22:8) with ἡ ἄκρα τῆς εἰσόδον τοῦ ναοῦ (“the top of the entrance of the Temple”; T. Sol. 23:3), but it is highly unlikely that the Testament of Solomon preserves any historical recollection of the Temple layout. Rather, the vivid description of the winglet of the Temple, one of the few memorable locations within the Temple described in NT, inspired later Christian writers to set important events at this famous spot. ↩

• ^[228] The only possible instance in which כָּנָף (kānāf, “wing”) might be used as an architectural term is in a highly obscure and problematic reference in Dan. 9:27, where we read וְעַל כְּנַף שִׁקּוּצִים מְשֹׁמֵם (“and on the wing of abominations a desolator”). The LXX translators rendered this phrase as καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ἱερὸν βδέλυγμα τῶν ἐρημώσεων (“and on the Temple an abomination of desolations”), which has caused some scholars to draw a connection between this passage in Daniel and the temptation narrative. See, for instance, James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1927), 386-388. But this passage is so problematic that it is doubtful whether it can shed any light on the temptation narrative. ↩
• ^[229] See Joachim Jeremias, “Die „Zinne“ des Tempels (Mt. 4,5; Lk. 4,9),” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina 59.3/4 (1936): 195-208, esp. 205-208; for an English translation of Jeremias’ article, click here. ↩
• ^[230] See Jastrow, 13. ↩
• ^[231] That אַגָּף refers to the interior of a doorway, beneath which a person could shelter and through which a person may enter, but not on top of which a person could stand, is borne out by additional examples of this term in rabbinic literature. For instance:

  הַנּוֹדֵר מִן הַבַּיִת אָסוּר מִן הָאָגָף וְלִפְנִים

  The one who vows [to exclude himself] from a house: he is forbidden [beginning] from the doorframe and inward. (m. Ned. 7:5)

  גמל שטוען פשתן ועובר ברשות הרבים ונכנס בפשתנו לתוך החנות ודלקה בנירו של חנוני והדליק את הבירה מן האגוף ולחוץ חנוני חייב

  If there was a camel that was carrying flax and passing through the public domain and it inserted some flax into a shop and it caught fire from a lamp belonging to the shopkeeper and it caught the building on fire, [if the lamp was anywhere] from the doorframe outward the shopkeeper is liable. (t. Bab. Kam. 6:8; Vienna MS)

  מצא בין פצים לפצים מן האגף ולחוץ שלו מן האגף ולפנים של בעל הבית

  If a person found something between doorposts, from the doorframe and outward it is his, from the doorframe and inward it belongs to the owner of the house. (t. Bab. Metz. 2:13; Vienna MS)

  None of these examples support the meaning “lintel” or “gate projection” that Jeremias argued for. ↩
• ^[232] Text according to Robert Weber and Roger Gryson, eds., Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem (Biblia Sacra Vulgata) (5th ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007), 1530. Nestle’s Vulgate text reads super pinnaculum templi. See Eberhard Nestle, Novum Testamentum Latine: textum Vaticanum cum apparatu critico ex editionibus et libris manu scriptis collecto imprimendum (Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt, 1906), 7. ↩
• ^[233] Text according to Weber and Gryson, eds., Biblia Sacra Vulgata, 1612. Nestle’s Vulgate text reads super pinnam templi. See Nestle, Novum Testamentum Latine, 151. ↩
• ^[234] This usage of pinna as an architectural term meaning “parapet” was current in the first century C.E. Cf., e.g., Varro, On the Latin Language 5:142. For additional references to classical authors, see the Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 1381. ↩
• ^[235] We find the “pinnacle of the Temple” associated with the cornerstone of Ps. 118:22 in the Itinerary from Bordeaux to Jerusalem (333 C.E):

  Ibi est angulus turris excelsissimae, ubi dominus ascendit.... Ibi est et lapis angularis magnus, de quo dictum est: Lapidem, quem reprobauerunt aedificantes, hie factus est ad capud anguli. Et sub pinna ipsius sunt cubicula plurima, ubi Salomon palatium habebat.

  Here is also the corner [angulus] of an exceeding high tower [turris], where our Lord ascended.... There is a great corner-stone [lapis angularis], of which it was said, ‘The stone [Lapidem] which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner [capud anguli].’ Under the pinnacle [pinna] of the tower are many rooms, and here was Solomon’s palace. (trans. Stewart [PPTS 1887, 20-21])

  Similarly, we find the pinnacle of the Temple and the cornerstone of Ps. 118:22 identified in the writings of the fourth-century C.E. author Prudentius:

  Excidio templi veteris stat pinna superstes; structus enim lapide ex illo manet angulus usque in seclum secli, quem sprerunt aedificantes; nunc caput est templi lapidum conpago novorum.

  A pinnacle [pinna] stands surviving the destruction of the old temple; for the corner [angulus] built with that stone [lapide] which the builders rejected remains for all time, and now it is the head of [caput] the temple and the joint which holds the new stones together. (Tituli Historiarum [Dittochaeon] §31)

  Text and translation according to H. J. Thomson, Prudentius (Loeb; 2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1949-1953), 2:360-361.

  The association of the Temple’s pinnacle (pinna) with a corner (angulus), stone (lapideus), or cornerstone (lapis angularis) cannot be explained on the basis of the similarity of the Latin terms. The Testament of Solomon, referred to in a previous footnote, also identifies the cornerstone of Ps. 118:22 with the pinnacle of the Temple:

  καὶ ἦν Ἱερουσαλὴμ ᾠκοδομωμένη καὶ ὁ ναὸς συνεπληροῦτο. καὶ ἦν λίθος ἀκρογωνιαῖος μέγας ὃν ἐβουλόμην θεῖναι εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας τῆς πληρώσεως τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ. καὶ πάντες οἱ τεχνῖται καὶ πάντες οἱ δαίμονες οἱ συνυπουργοῦντες ἦλθον ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἀγαγεῖν τὸν λίθον καὶ θεῖναι εἰς τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ναοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἴσχυσαν σαλεῦσαι αὐτόν....

  And Jerusalem was built, and the Temple was being completed. And there was a large cornerstone [λίθος ἀκρογωνιαῖος] that I wanted to place as the head cornerstone [κεφαλὴν γωνίας] for the completion of the Temple of God. So all the craftsmen and all the demons that were assisting came to it to bring up the stone and place it as the pinnacle of the Temple [εἰς τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ναοῦ], but they were not able to lift it. (T. Sol. 22:7 [ed. McCown, 66])

  Text according to Chester Charlton McCown, The Testament of Solomon (Leipzig: J. C. Heinrich, 1922).

  Just as Latin alone could not explain the association of the pinnacle of the Temple with the cornerstone of Ps. 118:22, so we find that the association of these two ideas cannot be explained on the basis of the similarity of the terms in Greek.

  The association of the pinnacle of the Temple with the cornerstone of Ps. 118:22 also occurs in the Coptic Second Apocalypse of James, where we read:

  They were there, and they found him [i.e., James—DNB and JNT] standing by the pinnacle of the temple [ⲡⲓⲧⲛⳉ ⲛⲧⲉ ⲡⲉⲣⲡⲉ], next to the mighty cornerstone [ⲡⲓⲱⲛⲉ ⲉⲧⲭⲟⲟⲣ ⲛⲕⲟⲟⳉ]. They determined to throw him down from the height. (2 Apocalypse James 61, 20-24)

  Translation according to Wolf-Peter Funk, “The Second Revelation of James,” in The Nag Hammadi Scriptures (ed. Marvin Meyer; San Francisco: HarperSanFranscisco, 2007), 340-341.

  If the Second Apocalypse of James originates from the second century C.E., as some scholars contend, then it is the earliest witness to the association of the pinnacle of the Temple with the cornerstone of Ps. 118:22. Nevertheless, there is no verbal similarity between the Coptic terms for “pinnacle” and “cornerstone” that would explain the association of these two items.

  Could a Latin-Hebrew interface explain the association of the pinnacle of the Temple with the cornerstone of Ps. 118:22?

  ↩

• ^[236] On the Hellenistic-Roman design of Herod’s Temple, see Dan Bahat, “The Herodian Temple,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism: The Early Roman Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 38-58, esp. 39; Lee I. Levine, Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 B.C.E.-70 C.E.) (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2002), 232-235. ↩
• ^[237] It is possible that the place name or architectural term “Gabbatha,” said to be the Hebrew equivalent of Λιθόστρωτος (Lithostrōtos, “stone pavement”; John 19:13), is actually a loanword from Latin, gabata (“platter,” “dish”). See Randall Buth and Chad Pierce, “Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does Ἑβραϊστί Ever Mean ‘Aramaic’?” (JS2, 66-109, esp. 104-107). If so, this might provide an analogy for the architectural term pinna entering Hebrew as פִּנָּה (pināh). ↩
• ^[238] Josephus referred to the fortification at the northwest corner of the Temple Mount as τὸ ἀνάστημα τῆς Ἀντωνίας (to anastēma tēs Antōnias, “the tall building of Antony”; J. W. 5:240), while Tacitus referred to it as turris Antonia (“tower of Antony”; Hist. 5:11 §3). See Stern, 2:57. ↩
• ^[239] On the Tower of Antonia as one of the most likely locations for the use of Latin in Second Temple-period Jerusalem, see Levine, Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 B.C.E.-70 C.E.), 270. ↩
• ^[240] When describing the location of the Tower of Antonia, Josephus stated:

  Ἡ δ᾿ Ἀντωνία κατὰ γωνίαν μὲν δύο στοῶν ἔκειτο τοῦ πρώτου ἱεροῦ, τῆς τε πρὸς ἑσπέραν καὶ τῆς πρὸς ἄρκτον

  The tower of Antonia lay at the corner [γωνίαν] where two porticoes, the western and the northern, of the first court of the temple meet.... (J.W. 5:238; Loeb [adapted])

  The term Josephus used for corner, γωνία (gōnia), usually occurs in LXX as the translation of פִּנָּה (“corner”). See Hatch-Redpath, 1:238. Likewise we find that the LXX translators rendered most instances of פִּנָּה as γωνία. See Dos Santos, 169. ↩

• ^[241] On the Qiponos gate, see Levine, Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 B.C.E.-70 C.E.), 230 n. 49; R. Steven Notley, Jerusalem: City of the Great King (Jerusalem: Carta, 2015), 84. On loan translations from Latin in Second Temple Hebrew, see Kutscher, 100-101 §163. ↩
• ^[242] There are scholars who object to a messianic background to this temptation on the grounds that no crowds are mentioned in the Temple courts below. Cf., e.g., Davies-Allison, 1:367; Kloppenborg, 255-256; Nolland, Luke, 181; Hagner, 1:66, 67; France, Matt., 127, 133. But this objection is not insurmountable. There would hardly have been a time when the Temple courts were empty. Witnesses to the spectacular event Satan proposed can be presumed. Cf. Tuckett, “The Temptation Narrative in Q,” 500; Luz, 1:152 n. 40.

  Other scholars demur that there are no ancient Jewish sources that interpret Psalm 91 messianically and there are no ancient Jewish sources to support the theory that being borne up by angels within the Temple was considered to be a messianic sign. C.f., e.g., Davies-Allison, 1:367; Tuckett, “The Temptation Narrative in Q,” 498. Yet it cannot be ignored that there is a strong connection between the Messiah and the Temple (see Young, JJT, 31-32). Solomon, the first son of David to be anointed king, built the Temple, and the messianic Son of David was expected to follow in Solomon’s footsteps by either building the Temple, or restoring the Temple, or liberating the Temple from foreign control. Thus Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest were anointed for the rebuilding of the Temple (Zech. 4:1-14), Herod’s refurbishing of the Temple was in large part motivated to legitimate his status as “King of the Jews,” and Bar Kochva’s messianic claims were predicated upon his liberating the site of the Temple from Roman occupation.

  Josephus described how messianic pretenders revealed their messianic status in the Temple (or promised to do so). Thus the first-century C.E. false prophet known as “the Egyptian” proposed to force an entrance into Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives and vanquish the Roman garrison (in the Tower of Antonia?) in order to liberate the Temple (J.W. 2:261-262). During the revolt against Rome, Menahem, son of Judah the Galilean, attempted to assert his messianic status by wearing royal (i.e., messianic) robes in the Temple (J.W. 2:441-448). And in the immediate aftermath of the Temple’s destruction, Simon ben Giora, a leader of the Jewish rebels, attempted to escape the Romans by rising up from the ruins dressed in royal (i.e., messianic) garb in order to terrify them (J.W. 7:29).

  While jumping into the Temple courts is not attested as a messianic sign in ancient Jewish sources, the Messiah is depicted as flying up onto the Temple Mount in 4 Ezra 13:7, 35. Rabbinic tradition, too, associates the Messiah with the Temple. One tradition in particular depicts the Messiah as announcing the redemption of Israel from the roof of the Temple:

  שנו רבותינו בשעה שמלך המשיח נגלה בא ועומד על הגג של בית המקדש. והוא משמיע להם לישראל ואומר להם ענוים הגיע זמן גאולתכם ואם אין אתם מאמינים ראו באורי שזרח עלכם. שנאמר קומי אורי כי בא אורך וכבוד ה′ עליך זרח.

  Our rabbis taught: When the anointed king [i.e., the Messiah—DNB and JNT] is revealed, he comes and stands on the roof of the Temple. And he proclaims to Israel and says to them, “You meek ones, the time of your redemption is come! And if you do not believe, see my light that shines upon you.” As it is said, Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the LORD shines upon you [Isa. 60:1]. (Pesikta Rabbati 36:2 [ed. Friedmann, 162a-b]; cf. Yalkut Shim‘oni §499)

  Although Pesikta Rabbati is a late rabbinic collection, the tradition preserved within it could be quite ancient. One reason for suspecting that this is the case is that in this tradition the Temple is presumed to be still standing. The Messiah does not have to rebuild the Temple before proclaiming redemption to Israel. It is possible, therefore, that the core of this tradition originated during the Second Temple period.

  The Hebrew term for “roof” in the above-cited tradition is גָּג (gāg), a term the LXX translators usually rendered as δῶμα (dōma, “housetop,” “roof”). See Dos Santos, 34. The roof of the Temple is also mentioned elsewhere in rabbinic sources. Cf., e.g., Sifre Num. Zuta, Naso (on Num. 5:2 [ed. Horovitz, 229]). The Hebrew noun גָּג cannot explain the Greek term πτερύγιον (“winglet”) in Yeshua’s Testing. ↩

• ^[243] Cf. Plummer (Luke 113), who lamented, “It is difficult to see what point there is in mentioning the temple, if presumptuously seeking peril was the only element in the temptation. The precipices of the wilderness would have served for that.” ↩
• ^[244] See Gundry, Matt., 56. ↩
• ^[245] The southeastern corner of the Temple Mount is the traditional site of the pinnacle of the Temple. It is also favored by some modern scholars. See, for example, Dan Bahat, “Jesus and the Herodian Temple Mount,” in Jesus and Archaeology (ed. James H. Charlesworth; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 300-308, esp. 308. Other scholars adopting this view include Edwards, 130. ↩
• ^[246] See Davies-Allison, 1:367. ↩
• ^[247] Jumping from the roof of the Temple proper might actually send the wrong message: that Jesus had no regard for the Torah’s purity laws. As Bahat (“Jesus and the Herodian Temple Mount,” 308) noted, only priests were allowed access to the Temple roof. But see Pesikta Rabbati 36:2, cited in a previous footnote. ↩
• ^[248] Cf. Delitzsch’s rendering of ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ as עַל פִּנַּת גַּג בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ (“on the corner [or, ‘capstone’?] of the roof of the Temple”), which was also adopted by MHNT. Bahat (“Jesus and the Herodian Temple Mount,” 308 n. 49) expressed his perplexity at Delitzsch’s rendering, which is really more an attempt to make sense in Hebrew of the incomprehensible Greek than a true translation. The same can be said of the equivalent to ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ in the Hebrew version of Matthew quoted in Shem Tov’s Even Bohan, viz., על מקום היותר גבוה שבכל המקדש (“upon the highest place in all the Temple” [ed. Howard, 12]). The only value this medieval Hebrew version of Matt. 4:5 has is to provide an excellent argument against the theory that Shem Tov preserved the original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew upon which the canonical Greek Gospel of Matthew was based. No competent Greek translator would have rendered the unambiguous phrase על מקום היותר גבוה שבכל המקדש (“upon the highest place in all the Temple”) with the incomprehensible ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ (“on the winglet of the Temple”). For further refutation of the hypothesis that Shem Tov's Hebrew version of Matthew is none other than the lost Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, see the JP FAQ “Has a Hebrew Gospel Been Found?” under the Comments section. ↩
• ^[249] The Mishnah refers to various corners in the Temple’s architecture:

  בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת הַכֹּהֲנִים שׁוֹמְרִיִן בְּבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ...וְהַלְוִים בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאַחַד מָקוֹם חֲמִשָּׁה עַל חֲמִשָּׁה ^מִשַּׁעֲרֵי הַר הַבָּיִת אַרְבָּע עַל אַרְבַּע פִּינּוֹתָיו מִתּוֹכוֹ חֲמִשַּׁה עַל חֲמִשָּׁה ^מִשַׁעֲרֵי הָעֲזָרָה אַרְבָּעָה בְאַרְבַּעָה פִינּוֹתֶיהָ מִבַּחוּץ....

  In three places the priests keep watch in the Temple...and the Levites in twenty-one places: five on the five gates of the Temple Mount, four on its four corners [stationed] from within, five on the five gates of the court, four in its four corners [stationed] from without.... (m. Mid. 1:1)

  ↩

• ^[250] In LXX most instances of πτερύγιον (pterūgion, “wing”) occur as the translation of כָּנָף (kānāf, “wing”). See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1238. Most instances of כָּנָף were rendered with the related term πτέρυξ (pterūx, “wing”), but πτερύγιον is nevertheless the second most common translation of כָּנָף. See Dos Santos, 93. ↩
• ^[251] Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:366. ↩
• ^[252] MHNT opted for הַשְׁלֵךְ עַצְמְךָ (hashlēch ‘atzm^echā, “throw yourself”) in Matt. 4:6 and Luke 4:9. Examples in rabbinic sources include:

  יצחק קיים מה שכתוב בתורה והשליך עצמו לפני אביו כשה זבוח

  Isaac established what is written in the Torah in that he threw himself [וְהִשְׁלִיךְ עַצְמוֹ] before his father like a sacrificial lamb. (Lev. Rab. 2:10 [ed. Margulies, 1:50])

  בתו של המן נשקפה מן החלון לראות בצליבא, וכיון שראתה מרדכי רוכב ואביה מכריז לפניו כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר הַמֶּלֶךְ חָפֵץ בִּיקָרוֹ השליכה עצמה לארץ ומתה

  Haman’s daughter looked down from her window to see the crucifixion, but as soon as she saw Mordecai riding [the horse—DNB and JNT] and her father proclaiming before him, This is what will be done for the man whom the king wishes to honor! [Esth. 6:11], she threw herself [הִשְׁלִיכָה עַצְמָהּ] to the ground and died. (Esth. Rab. 10:5 [ed. Tabory-Atzmon, 176])

  אספסיינוס שחיק עצמות מילא שלש ספינות אנשים ונשים מגדולי ירושלים להעמידן לקלון ברומי,כיון שירדו לים אמרו לא דיינו שהכעסנו אלהינו בבית מקדשו, אלא אף בחוצה לארץ אנו הולכים להכעיסו...תאמרו אם משליכים עצמינו לים יש לנו חלק לעה″ב

  Vespasian—may his bones rot!—filled three ships with prominent men and women of Jerusalem to set them up for a brothel in Rome. When they came down to the sea they [i.e., the men] said, “Is it not enough for us that we angered our God in his Temple, that we are also going to anger him outside the land [of Israel]? ...If we threw ourselves [מַשְׁלִיכִים עַצְמֵינוּ] into the sea, would you [women] agree that we have a portion in the world to come?” (Lam. Rab. 1:16 §45 [ed. Buber, 81-82])

  מיד השליכו עצמן לכבשן האש, לקדש שמו של הקב″ה

  ...immediately they threw themselves [הִשְׁלִיכוּ עַצְמָן] into the fiery furnace in order to sanctify the name of the Holy One, blessed be he. (Midrash Tehillim 28:2 [ed. Buber, 229])

  ↩
• ^[253] The following are rabbinic examples of “throw oneself” using הִפִּיל:

  האומר אם מת הוא לא תקברוהו מנכסיו אין שומעין לו לאו כל הימנו שיעשיר את בניו ויפיל עצמו על הציבור

  The person who says, “If he dies [i.e., ‘If I die’], do not bury him [i.e., ‘me’] [with money] from his [i.e., ‘my’] estate” is not listened to, for it is not within his rights to enrich his heirs while throwing himself [וְיַפִּיל עַצְמוֹ] upon the public. (b. Ket. 48a)

  נוח לו לאדם שיפיל עצמו לתוך כבשן האש ואל ילבין פני חבירו ברבים

  It is better for a person that he throws himself [שֶׁיַּפִּיל עַצְמוֹ] into a fiery furnace than to embarrass his fellow in public. (b. Sot. 10b; cf. b. Bab. Metz. 59a)

  מפני מה אמרו בין כך ובין כך ישתעבד שלא יהא כל אחד ואחד הולך ומפיל עצמו לגייסות ומפקיע עצמו מיד רבו

  Why do they say that in either case he goes back to slavery? So that everyone does not go and throw himself [וּמַפִּיל עַצְמוֹ] to invading troops and so release himself from his master. (b. Git. 37b)

  מעשה באשה אחת שהיו לה שלשה בנים והלכו שנים למלחמה, והלכה ולקחה השלישי שהיה יונק ושחטה אותו ובשלתו בקדירה. וכשבאו שני בניה מן המלחמה, והרגישו שהיו אוכלים אחיהם הקטן, עלו לגג והפילו את עצמם ומתו

  An anecdote concerning a certain woman who had three sons and two of them went to war, and she went and took the third, who was an infant, and she slaughtered him and boiled him in a pot. And when the other two sons returned from the battle and they perceived that they were eating their little brother, they went up to the roof and threw themselves [וְהִפִּילוּ אֶת עַצְמָם] [down] and died. (Midrash Zuta Echah, Version B [ed. Buber, 75])

  ויקח את המאכלת לשחוט. א″ל אבא לא תודיע את אמי כשהיא עומדת על הבור או כשהיא עומדת על הגג שמא תפיל את עצמה ותמות

  And he [i.e., Abraham—DNB and JNT] took the knife to slaughter [Gen. 22:10]. He [i.e., Isaac—DNB and JNT] said to him, “Father, do not tell my mother when she is standing next to a cistern or when she is standing on the roof, lest she throw herself [תַּפִּיל אֶת עַצְמָהּ] [down] and die.” (Tanhuma, Vayera §23 [ed. Warsaw, 30b-31a])

  ↩

• ^[254] In LXX βάλλειν (ballein, “to throw”) only occurs as the translation of הִפִּיל 14xx (1 Kgdms. 14:42; 1 Chr. 25:8; 26:13, 14; 2 Esd. 20:35; 21:1; Esth. 3:7; 9:24 [Sinaiticus]; Ps. 21[22]:19; Prov. 1:14; Jonah 1:7 [2xx]; Ezek. 47:22; 48:29) and of הִשְׁלִיךְ 4xx (2 Kgdms. 20:22; Ps. 147:6[17]; Mic. 2:5; Isa. 19:8). ↩
• ^[255] On the reflexive use of עֶצֶם + pronominal suffix in MH, see Segal, 207-208 §429-431; Kutscher, 124 §205. ↩
• ^[256] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:479. ↩
• ^[257] In LXX κάτω serves as the translation of מִתַּחַת in Exod. 20:4; Deut. 4:39; 5:8; Josh. 2:11; 3 Kgdms. 8:23. ↩
• ^[258] In LXX κάτω occurs as the translation of מַטָּה in Deut. 28:43 (2xx); 4 Kgdms. 19:30 (לְמָטָּה); 1 Chr. 27:23 (לְמָטָּה); 2 Chr. 32:30 (לְמַטָּה). ↩
• ^[259] See Wolter, 1:193. ↩
• ^[260] On the antidemonic effects of Torah observance in the rabbinic sources, see Gideon Bohak, “Jewish Exorcism Before and After the Destruction of the Second Temple,” in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple (ed. Daniel R. Schwartz et al.; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 277-300, esp. 296-297. ↩
• ^[261] On this passage, see Menahem Kister, “Demons, Theology and Abraham’s Covenant (CD 16:4-6 and Related Texts),” in The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty (ed. Robert A. Kugler and Eileen M. Schuller; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1999), 167-181. ↩
• ^[262] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:477-479. ↩
• ^[263] See Dos Santos, 175. ↩
• ^[264] See Gundry, Matt., 57. ↩
• ^[265] See Plummer, Luke, 113; Gundry, Matt., 57; Davies-Allison, 1:366. ↩
• ^[266] See Davies-Allison, 1:366; Nolland, Luke, 1:181. ↩
• ^[267] Cf. Wolter, 1:192. ↩
• ^[268] See Hatch-Redpath, 2:1457-1467. ↩
• ^[269] See Dos Santos, 94. ↩
• ^[270] See Hatch-Redpath, 1:1217. ↩
• ^[271] Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:368. ↩
• ^[272] On the author of Matthew’s redactional use of the verb φάναι (fanai, “to say”), see Darnel Among the Wheat, Comment to L19. ↩
• ^[273] Cf. Gundry, Matt., 57; Davies-Allison, 1:368. ↩
• ^[274] Cf. Harnack, 46; Marshall, 173. ↩
• ^[275] See Fitzmyer, 1:517. ↩
• ^[276] Nolland (Luke, 1:181) commented that it is as if the devil’s use of γέγραπται (“it has been written”) to introduce the quotation from the Psalms had “contaminated” this formula, and therefore Jesus switched to εἴρηται (“it has been said”). ↩
• ^[277] See Charles Cutler Torrey, Documents of the Primitive Church (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1941), 56. ↩
• ^[278] But it should be noted that the text of Deut. 6:16 has not been preserved among DSS. ↩
• ^[279] It should be mentioned, however, that the second verb in 6:16, “as you tested him at Massah,” is plural in both MT and LXX, and that the last word in 6:17, “he commanded you,” is singular in both MT and LXX. Even within the same verses, the change from singular to plural (or vice versa) seems to happen often in Deut. 6 (cf. 6:2 [LXX]; 6:3 [MT and LXX]; 6:18 [LXX]; 6:20 [MT and LXX]). ↩
• ^[280] See Lachs, 51. Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:369. ↩
• ^[281] Cf. m. Ter. 8:4. See further, Shmuel Safrai, “Teaching of Pietists in Mishnaic Literature,” Journal of Jewish Studies 16 (1965): 15-33, esp. 30-31; idem, “Jesus and the Hasidim,” under the subheading “Miracle Workers.” ↩
• ^[282] See David Flusser, “‘It Is Not A Serpent That Kills’” (JOC, 543-551). ↩
• ^[283] See Safrai, “Jesus and the Hasidim,” under the subheading “Miracle Workers.” ↩
• ^[284] See our discussion in Sending the Twelve: Conduct on the Road, Comment to L66. ↩
• ^[285] Cf., e.g., Harnack, 47; Gundry, Matt., 58; Davies-Allison, 1:373; Nolland, Luke, 182. ↩
• ^[286] Examples of ἀφιστάναι ἀπό as the translation of סָר מִן occur in Lev. 13:58; Num. 12:10; Deut. 4:9; Judg. 16:17, 20; 1 Kgdms. 16:14, 23; 28:15, 16; 2 Kgdms. 7:15; 22:23; 4 Kgdms. 3:3; 10:29; 13:2, 6, 11; 14:24; 15:9, 18, 24, 28; 17:22; Ps. 6:9; Job 21:14. ↩
• ^[287] See Flusser (“Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund,” 120-121), who makes much of what he called the “triad” consisting of the devil, wild animals and angels in the passage from T. Naphtali. See also David Flusser and Shmuel Safrai, “Who Sanctified the Beloved in the Womb,” Immanuel 11 (1980): 46-55, esp. 49 n. 9. Cf. Plummer, Mark, 60. For reservations, see Bauckham (“Jesus and the Wild Animals [Mark 1:13]: A Christological Image for an Ecological Age,” 13), who wrote: “...it is unlikely that there is a direct literary relationship between the Testaments of the Twelve and Mark 1:13, since in the Testaments of the Twelve the relationships of the wicked and the righteous to other beings are not limited to their relationships to the devil, the wild animals, and angels, but also include their relationships to God and to other humans.” ↩
• ^[288] Text and translation according to Kirsopp Lake, ed. and trans., The Apostolic Fathers (2 vols.; Loeb; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1912-1913), 2:133. ↩
• ^[289] The phrase ἄχρι καιροῦ never occurs in LXX and is not found elsewhere in the Synoptic Gospels. It does, however, occur in Acts 13:11. ↩
• ^[290] Cf. Harnack, 47. ↩
• ^[291] See Bauckham, “Jesus and the Wild Animals (Mark 1:13): A Christological Image for an Ecological Age,” 6, 8-10. On the desert as the haunt of demons, cf. Luke 8:29; 11:24. ↩
• ^[292] According to Jeremias (Theology, 69), εἶναι μετά (einai meta, “to be with”) in Mark connotes “close community.” Cf. Bauckham, “Jesus and the Wild Animals (Mark 1:13): A Christological Image for an Ecological Age,” 5. ↩
• ^[293] See Flusser, “Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund,” 116. ↩
• ^[294] On the author of Luke’s occasional deletion of ἰδού, see Friend in Need, Comment to L6. ↩
• ^[295] Lukan-Matthean agreements to write ἰδού where this term is absent in Mark are found in Matt. 8:2 ∥ Luke 5:12 (cf. Mark 1:40); Matt. 9:2 ∥ Luke 5:18 (cf. Mark 2:3); Matt. 9:18 ∥ Luke 8:41 (cf. Mark 5:22); Matt. 17:3 ∥ Luke 9:30 (cf. Mark 9:4); Matt. 24:23 ∥ Luke 17:23 (cf. Mark 13:21); Matt. 26:47 ∥ Luke 22:47 (cf. Mark 14:43). ↩
• ^[296] Examples of וְהִנֵּה + subject + perfect verb in vav-consecutive contexts are found in Exod. 16:10; Deut. 13:15; 17:4; 19:18; 2 Sam. 13:36; 1 Kgs. 20:13; Dan. 10:10. ↩
• ^[297] Rabbi Eleazar ha-Kappar was a late second-century C.E. sage. See Shmuel Safrai, “Eleazar (Eliezer) ha-Kappar,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (ed. F. Skolnik and M. Birnbaum; 22 vols; 2d ed.; Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA; Jerusalem: Keter Publishing Ltd., 2007), 6:309. ↩
• ^[298]

  Yeshua’s Testing
  Luke’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  Ἰησοῦς δὲ πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου ὑπέστρεψεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου καὶ ἤγετο ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα πειραζόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ οὐκ ἔφαγεν οὐδὲν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις καὶ συντελεσθεισῶν αὐτῶν ἐπείνασεν εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ διάβολος εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰπὲ τῷ λίθῳ τούτῳ ἵνα γένηται ἄρτος καὶ ἀπεκρίθη πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Ἰησοῦς γέγραπται ὅτι οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἀναγαγὼν αὐτὸν ἔδειξεν αὐτῷ πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐν στιγμῇ χρόνου καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ διάβολος σοὶ δώσω τὴν ἐξουσίαν ταύτην ἅπασαν καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν ὅτι ἐμοὶ παραδέδοται καὶ ᾧ ἂν θέλω δίδωμι αὐτήν σὺ οὖν ἐὰν προσκυνήσῃς ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ ἔσται σοῦ πᾶσα καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς αὐτῷ εἶπεν Ἰησοῦς γέγραπται κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις ἤγαγεν δὲ αὐτὸν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ ἔστησεν ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ βάλε σεαυτὸν ἐντεῦθεν κάτω γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ τοῦ διαφυλάξαι σε καὶ ὅτι ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσί σε μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὅτι εἴρηται οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου καὶ συντελέσας πάντα πειρασμὸν ὁ διάβολος ἀπέστη ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ἄχρι καιροῦ		Ἰησοῦς δὲ πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου ὑπέστρεψεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου καὶ ἤγετο ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα πειραζόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ οὐκ ἔφαγεν οὐδὲν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις καὶ συντελεσθεῖσαι ἐπείνασεν καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ διάβολος εἶπεν αὐτῷ εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰπὲ τῷ λίθῳ τούτῳ ἵνα γένηται ἄρτος καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν γέγραπται ὅτι οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἀναγαγὼν αὐτὸν εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν ἔδειξεν αὐτῷ πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τῆς οἰκουμένης καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ πάντα ταῦτά σοι δώσω ἐὰν προσκυνήσῃς ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ γέγραπται κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις ἤγαγεν δὲ αὐτὸν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ ἔστησεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ βάλε σεαυτὸν [ἐντεῦθεν] κάτω γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἴρηται οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου καὶ συντελέσας ὁ διάβολος πάντα πειρασμὸν ἀπέστη ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ [καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελοι προσῆλθον καὶ διηκόνουν αὐτῷ]
  Total Words:	202	Total Words:	178 [186]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	165 [166]	Total Words Taken Over in Luke:	165 [166]
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	81.68 [82.18]%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Luke:	92.70 [89.25]%

  ↩

• ^[299]

  Yeshua’s Testing
  Mark’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  καὶ εὐθὺς τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτὸν ἐκβάλλει εἰς τὴν ἔρημον καὶ ἦν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τεσσεράκοντα ἡμέρας πειραζόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ σατανᾶ καὶ ἦν μετὰ τῶν θηρίων καὶ οἱ ἄγγελοι διηκόνουν αὐτῷ		Ἰησοῦς δὲ πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου ὑπέστρεψεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου καὶ ἤγετο ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα πειραζόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ οὐκ ἔφαγεν οὐδὲν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις καὶ συντελεσθεῖσαι ἐπείνασεν καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ διάβολος εἶπεν αὐτῷ εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰπὲ τῷ λίθῳ τούτῳ ἵνα γένηται ἄρτος καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν γέγραπται ὅτι οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἀναγαγὼν αὐτὸν εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν ἔδειξεν αὐτῷ πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τῆς οἰκουμένης καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ πάντα ταῦτά σοι δώσω ἐὰν προσκυνήσῃς ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ γέγραπται κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις ἤγαγεν δὲ αὐτὸν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ ἔστησεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ βάλε σεαυτὸν [ἐντεῦθεν] κάτω γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἴρηται οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου καὶ συντελέσας ὁ διάβολος πάντα πειρασμὸν ἀπέστη ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ [καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελοι προσῆλθον καὶ διηκόνουν αὐτῷ]
  Total Words:	30	Total Words:	178 [186]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	8 [12]	Total Words Taken Over in Mark:	8 [12]
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	26.67 [40.00]%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Mark:	4.50 [6.45]%

  ↩

• ^[300]

  Yeshua’s Testing
  Matthew’s Version		Anthology’s Wording (Reconstructed)
  τότε Ἰησοῦς ἀνήχθη εἰς τὴν ἔρημον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος πειρασθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ νηστεύσας ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα καὶ νύκτας τεσσεράκοντα ὕστερον ἐπείνασε καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ πειράζων εἶπεν αὐτῷ εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰπὲ ἵνα οἱ λίθοι οὗτοι ἄρτοι γένωνται ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν γέγραπται οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι ἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ στόματος θεοῦ τότε παραλαμβάνει αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν πόλιν καὶ ἔστησεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ βάλε σεαυτὸν κάτω γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσί σε μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου ἔφη αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς πάλιν γέγραπται οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου πάλιν παραλαμβάνει αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λείαν καὶ δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ ταῦτά σοι πάντα δώσω ἐὰν πεσὼν προσκυνήσῃς μοι τότε λέγει αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὕπαγε σατανᾶ γέγραπται γάρ κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις τότε ἀφίησιν αὐτὸν ὁ διάβολος καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελοι προσῆλθον καὶ διηκόνουν αὐτῷ		Ἰησοῦς δὲ πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου ὑπέστρεψεν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰορδάνου καὶ ἤγετο ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἡμέρας τεσσεράκοντα πειραζόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ οὐκ ἔφαγεν οὐδὲν ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις καὶ συντελεσθεῖσαι ἐπείνασεν καὶ προσελθὼν ὁ διάβολος εἶπεν αὐτῷ εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ εἰπὲ τῷ λίθῳ τούτῳ ἵνα γένηται ἄρτος καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν γέγραπται ὅτι οὐκ ἐπ᾿ ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁ ἄνθρωπος καὶ ἀναγαγὼν αὐτὸν εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλὸν λίαν ἔδειξεν αὐτῷ πάσας τὰς βασιλείας τῆς οἰκουμένης καὶ τὴν δόξαν αὐτῶν καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ πάντα ταῦτά σοι δώσω ἐὰν προσκυνήσῃς ἐνώπιον ἐμοῦ καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ γέγραπται κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις ἤγαγεν δὲ αὐτὸν εἰς Ἰερουσαλὴμ καὶ ἔστησεν αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὸ πτερύγιον τοῦ ἱεροῦ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ βάλε σεαυτὸν [ἐντεῦθεν] κάτω γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ ἐντελεῖται περὶ σοῦ καὶ ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσίν σε μήποτε προσκόψῃς πρὸς λίθον τὸν πόδα σου καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἴρηται οὐκ ἐκπειράσεις κύριον τὸν θεόν σου καὶ συντελέσας ὁ διάβολος πάντα πειρασμὸν ἀπέστη ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ [καὶ ἰδοὺ ἄγγελοι προσῆλθον καὶ διηκόνουν αὐτῷ]
  Total Words:	183	Total Words:	178 [186]
  Total Words Identical to Anth.:	117 [124]	Total Words Taken Over in Matt:	117 [124]
  Percentage Identical to Anth.:	63.93 [67.76]%	Percentage of Anth. Represented in Matt.:	65.73 [66.67]%

  ↩

• ^[301] Note that Martin (Syntax 1, 91) classified Luke’s verson of Yeshua’s Testing as much more Semitic than Matthew’s. ↩
• ^[302] Cf. Davies-Allison, 1:360; Nolland, Matt., 162; Witherington, 89; France, Matt., 126. ↩
• ^[303] See Flusser, “Die Versuchung Jesu und ihr jüdischer Hintergrund,” 110. Proponents of the typological approach to the temptation narrative include Robinson, “The Temptations,” 53-60; G. H. P. Thompson, “Called—Proved—Obedient: A Study in the Baptism and Temptation Narratives of Matthew and Luke,” Journal of Theological Studies 11.1 (1960): 1-12; Gerhardsson, The Testing of God’s Son, esp. 51-52; Marshall, 166; Fitzmyer, 1:510; J. Green, 192-193. ↩
• ^[304] Cf. Hagner, 1:65; Luz, 1:150-151. ↩
• ^[305] Pace Edwards (124), who asserted that “Jesus’ encounter with the devil in the wilderness is a narrative without parallel in the OT, intertestamental literature, Dead Sea Scrolls, or rabbinic literature.” ↩
• ^[306] See Hagner, 1:63 (“...the temptations are to be regarded as subjective experiences of Jesus rather than involving the literal transportation of Jesus to other places [however miraculously]...”), 66 (“In his trance-like vision [sic!] Jesus sees himself perched upon one of the highest points of the temple”). Cf. France, Matt., 131; Witherington, 90. ↩
• ^[307] See J. K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (New York: Arthur A. Levine Books, 2007), 723 (Chapter 25). ↩
• ^[308] For abbreviations and bibliographical references, see “Introduction to ‘The Life of Yeshua: A Suggested Reconstruction.’” ↩
• ^[309] This translation is a dynamic rendition of our reconstruction of the conjectured Hebrew source that stands behind the Greek of the Synoptic Gospels. It is not a translation of the Greek text of a canonical source. ↩