In his reconstruction of the development of Q, J. S. Kloppenborg suggests several parallels to the temptation story in Q (Q 4:1-13), which he believes is only included in Q at a final stage of redaction: the Apocalypse of Abraham, the Testament of Job, Ankhsheshonq, Ahikar, and the Sentences of Secundus. 1 Regardless of whether or not one believes in Kloppenborg's redactional stratification of Q, the parallels to the temptation story are both interesting and useful; but it seems a much closer parallel has been overlooked by Kloppenborg, one that would make the inclusion of the temptation story in Q's account of Jesus even more likely and understandable: the testing of Solomon by the Queen of Sheba, I Kgs 10:1-13 (II Chr 9:1-12).
In a passage as heavily Septuagintalized as is the temptation in Q, it would seem that the Septuagint should be our first recourse for parallels. 2 If one reviews the Septuagintal usage of the verb used at Q 4:2 for "tempt" - - one finds that it is most often used of YHWH "testing" the people or an individual, 3 and almost as often of the people or of an individual "testing" YHWH. 4 It is sometimes used of "testing" a thing, 5 and in the Maccabean literature in the sense of "try" or "attempt" (to do something), usually taking an infinitive rather than a direct object. 6 Only in a few cases is it used as it is at Q 4:2, of one individual or group "tempting" or "testing" another individual, 7 and two of those are of the "testing" of Solomon by the Queen of Sheba (I Kgs 10:1; II Chr 9:1), in a story quite similar to the temptation story of Q 4:1-13.
In both stories, the great sage - Solomon or Jesus - is confronted by an adversary - the Queen of Sheba or Satan - who "tests" him (I Kgs 10:1; II Chr 9:1; Q 4:2). The adversary asks difficult questions, which the sage successfully answers (I Kgs 10:1-5; II Chr 9:1-2; Q 4:3-12). Upon hearing the answers of the great sage, the adversary is defeated and put to flight (I Kgs 10:13; II Chr 9:12; Q 4:13). Both stories take place (at least in part) in Jerusalem (I Kgs 10:2; II Chr 9:1; Q 4:9). In terms of character, setting, plot, and resolution, the two stories are remarkably similar.
In the context of a tradition as deeply sapiential as Q, a parallel between Solomon, the patron of Wisdom, and Jesus would make perfect sense. 8 Further, a parallel between the Queen of Sheba and Satan also seems likely because of Jewish traditions not much later than Q that identified the Queen of Sheba with Lilith, the demon queen. 9 That Q would not want to make the parallel explicit, both because of the sexual overtones of the Solomonic story and Q's otherwise favorable portrayal of the Queen of Sheba (Q 11:31), seems easy enough to understand. 10
None of this would invalidate Kloppenborg's placement of the temptation story in Q within the larger context of successful trials used to legitimate the sayings of various sages; rather, it provides yet another parallel of exactly such a legitimation by testing. Significantly, it is a parallel that comes from a tradition - the Septuagint - of which this Q passage is obviously aware. Further, it is a parallel that shares many similarities of character and plot, as well as being one that Q would have been interested in exploiting, at least implicitly.
1 J. S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q. Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadephia: Fortress, 1987) 258-262, 278-279, 307-308, 326-327. His parallels are critiqued by C. M. Tuckett, "The Temptation Narrative in Q," in The Four Gospels, 1992. Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. by F. Van Segbroeck, et. al., 2 vols. (Leuven: University Press, 1992) vol. 1, 479-507, esp. 493-494. I have adopted the convention of using the Lukan numbering prefaced by "Q" to refer to the pericope's place and function in Q. The presence of a temptation story in Mk 1:12-13 does not affect its inclusion or function in Q.
2 On the Septuagintalization of the temptation story, see Tuckett, "Temptation Narrative," 483-485.
3 Gn 22:1; Ex 15:25; 16:4; 20:20; Dt 4:34; 8:2; 13:3; Jdg 2:22; 3:1,4; II Chr 32:31; Ju 8:25,26; Ps 25(26):2; Wi 3:5; 11:9; 19:5; Dan 12:10.
4 Ex 17:2,7; Num 14:22; Ju 8:12; Ps 77(78):41,56; 94(95):9; 105(106):14; Wi 1:2; 2:24; 12:26; Sir 18:23; Is 7:12.
5 Jdg 6:39; I Sam (I Kgdms) 17:39; Ec 2:1; 7:24; Sir 4:17; 37:27; 39:4.
6 I Mac 12:10; II Mac 2:23; 10:12; 11:19; III Mac 1:25; 2:32; IV Mac 9:7; 12:3. Only IV Mac 9:7 lacks the infinitive construction.
7 Dt 33:8; I Kgs (III Kgdms) 10:1; II Chr 9:1; Ps 34(35):16; Wi 2:17; Sir 13:11; IV Mac 15:16.
8 Q is obviously aware of such a Solomon/Jesus parallelism, Q 11:31, though it will go even further and assert Jesus' superiority.
9 On the development of the Jewish tradition, which begins with the targum to Job 1:15, perhaps as early as the 1st century C.E., see L. H. Silberman, "The Queen of Sheba in Judaic Tradition," in Solomon & Sheba, ed. by J. B. Pritchard (London: Phaidon, 1974) pp. 65-84.
10 Based on Q 11:31, later Christian tradition developed a very favorable portrayal of the Queen of Sheba as the archetypal Gentile convert: see P. F. Watson, "The Queen of Sheba in Christian Tradition," in Solomon & Sheba, pp. 115-145.