70 oLeGS ANdreJeVS The Christological implications of this development are of considerable significance for our present discussion. In Q2 only those chosen by the Son (10,22d) can understand and accept the group’s proclamation. As the compositional history of the mission speech indicates, this view likely reflects the group’s defensive outlook in the wake of their Galilean rejection. But the Q2 author’s apologetic extended beyond ostracizing his opponents. Since the primary reason for the group’s rejection was likely the problematic nature of their initial proclamation about Jesus — especially in Galilee where the memory of the historical Jesus may still have been recent — some Christological adjustment was also necessary. By presenting Jesus as God’s uniquely privileged ui`oj, the Q2 author was able to legitimize the group’s proclamation in a strikingly effective new way. Not only were the teachings of Jesus reasserted as the ultimate path to salvation, but in his capacity as the Son he was shown to be subordinate to yHWH. The divine status of Jesus among his followers was thereby made more compatible with the group’s traditionally Jewish roots. Just as importantly, by virtue of the overarching concept of divine sonship all of the group’s Christological categories could now be unified under the single umbrella of God’s Son, the Messiah. II. Son of God Christology in 4,1-13 The connections between 10,21-22 and the temptation story 4,1- 13 are polemical and Christological. With respect to the former, I read 4,1-13 and especially the climactic temptation sequence 4,9-12 as di- rected in a rather damning fashion against the priestly establishment of the Second Temple period 23. The main arguments supporting this view include: (a) the critique of the temple elsewhere in the document (Q2 redactional texts 11,49-51; 13,34-35); (b) the imagery of the devil as present in the temple 24; (c) the devil’s use of the liturgical psalm 91 (Lxx psalm 90), citing from a section containing a priestly response 25. 23 That would be the opposite of Kloppenborg’s Q3 hypothesis in which 4,1- 13 is seen as advocating a view of the temple as “now (again) a holy place.” KLoppeNBorG VerBIN, Excavating Q, 212. 24 The strangeness of this imagery has largely proven elusive, although one wonders (along with Kloppenborg!) why an altitude based miracle required the Jerusalem temple as its setting. KLoppeNBorG VerBIN, Excavating Q, 212. 25 As noted by erich zenger, psalm 91 (Lxx psalm 90) appears to have a liturgical background. F-L. HoSSFeLd – e. zeNGer, Psalms 2 (Minneapolis, MN 2005) 428-429. The voice representing yHWH in vv. 1-13 and promising protection on his behalf represents the temple’s priestly personnel.