reexAMINING Q2: SoN oF God CHrISToLoGy 71 Certainly it does not seem coincidental that the devil should address Jesus by citing from that psalm and from that “priestly speech” while being present, of all places, in the temple, which was supposed to serve as a “shelter” from demonic forces 26. This critique of the tem- ple’s priestly personnel as apparently controlled by the devil fits rather well into the polemical outlook of 10,21-22 where an opposition group designated sofoi. kai. sunetoi, is similarly left outside the circle of God’s chosen children. As we have seen, in the document’s mission speech section, 10,21- 22 continued the Q2 author’s polemic against Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum begun in 10,13-15. It seems doubtful, however, that the Galilean towns would be understood by the author as the primary lo- cation of Israel’s sages. It is probably better to read sofoi. kai. sunetoi, in 10,21 as comprising the Q group’s entire spectrum of perceived Jewish opposition, which in 4,1-13 is shown to include the Second Temple priesthood. If that inference is correct, then according to the author of Q2 not only the movement’s initial Galilean mission but in- deed any outreach to the various contemporary forms of Judaism were at least for the time being destined to fail. Turning to the Christological aspect of the temptation story, 4,1- 13 marks the only compositional unit in Q outside 10,21-22 where Jesus is presented as ui`o.j tou/ qeou/ (4,3.9) 27. Above I have suggested that in 10,21-22 this title provides the ultimate validation for the his- torical Jesus as the Messiah. Messianic categories are encountered across Q2: throughout the document’s redactional layer, Jesus is frequently portrayed as o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou (6,22; 7,34; 11,30) 28 with its correlative o` evrco,menoj (3,16; 7,19; 13,35) and as ku,rioj (6,46; 7,6; 12,42-46; 13,25; 14,21; 19,12-26). The concept of divine sonship can be detected in the background of each of those claims. In particular, it is the only Christological category that can explain how the title ku,rioj could be shared by both Jesus and yHWH (who is described as ku,rioj in 4,8.12; 10,2.21; 13,35; 16,13). Because that important category is made explicit only in 4,1-13 and 10,21-22, it 26 In the Lxx the psalm’s “priestly speech” section notably includes a promise of assistance against demonic powers in v. 6: avpo. pra,gmatoj diaporeuome,nou evn sko,tei( avpo. sumptw,matoj kai. daimoni,ou meshmbrinou/. 27 See n. 6 above. 28 These are the Q2 instances (in Kloppenborg’s compositional model) which clearly identify Jesus with the Son of Man. Q 12,8.10; 12,40; 17,24.26.30 are ambiguous and, in my view, do not feature that identification.