DOI Heft:
Nr. 2
DOI Artikel:Dobrzeniecki, Tadeusz: Tentatio Christi
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18940#0033
In tlie first Temptation, Jesus' łmnger prompts the Devil to action as he is convinced that
lie faces an ordinary man. His demand unveils his ignorancc, which is the guiding motif of
Early Christian commentaries. According to Clement of Alexandria, the Devil wants to assure
himself of Jesus' true naturę, and f ind out whether he is the Son of God. In the Greek fragment
of Origen's eommentary, the Dcvil does not know about the Incarnation of the Son of God
although he heard a voice and John the Baptist's statement during the Baptism in Jordan.1
Few exegetes go beyond the earlier statements about the Devil's ignorance. Origcn's eommen-
tary is very important to research into iconography of the Temptation as his interpretation
of the Scriptures implies that the Devil handles a. stone and shows it to Jesus, saying: "Command
this stone that it be made into bread."4 The mc.in scenę of the Temptation in the triptych under
discussion is a precise illustration of Origen's comment.
Jesus' reply
Early-Christian commentators stress the Tempter's ignorance and anxiety to gain know-
ledge of Jesus' true naturę. While commenting on Jesus' reply, they admire his skill in leaving
the Devil insecure so that he makes a wrong conjecture. This particular interpretation is in-
cluded in Irenaeus' treatisc Aduersus haereseos: 'Ad illud ąuidem quod ait: Sifilius Dei es, tacuit:
excecavit autem eum.'5 St. Ambrose argues that with the words: 'Man sha.ll not live by bread
alone', Jesus provcs that it is his human naturę, not his divinity, that has been expcsed to the
Temptation.6
The Second Temptation: 'Tunc assumpsit eum diabolus in sanctam ciritalem et
statuit eum super pinnaculum tempłi' eg dixit ci: Si filius Dei es, rnitte te deorsum. Scriptum est
enim: Quia angelis suis mandewit de te, et in manibus tollent te, ne forte offendas ad lapidem pędem
tuum. Ait Uli Iesus: Rursum est: Non tentabis Dominum Deum tuum'.'
Jesus evidently gives an evasive reply to the Devil who has misinterpreted a line from Psalm
XCI.8
The Third Temptation: 'Iterum assumpsit eum diabolus in moniem excelsum valde:
et ostendit ei omnia regna mundi, et gloriam eorum, et dixit ei: Haec omnia tibi dabo, si cadens
adoraveris me. Tunc dicit ei Iesus: Vadc Satccna: Scriptum est enim: Dominum Deum tuum ado-
rubis, et Uli soli servies'.
And when the Devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him "for a season"
(usąue ad tempus, Lukę, IV, 13).
The Devil's demand oceurs in two versions, a shorter one in Matthew (IV, 6—7), and
a longer one in Lukę: 'Tibi dabo potestatem hanc universam, et gloriam illorum: ąuia mihi tradita
sunt: et cui volo do Ula. Tu ergo si adoraveris coram me, erunt tua omnia'.
The oldest example of an even more elaborate wording of this demand may be found in Pseu-
do-Clement's homilies: "He has approached [him] like the King of the Present, the King of the
Futurę, and said: 'all the kingdoms of the world are in my charge; besides, in my authority
are gold, silver, and all the earthly delights. So fali beforc me and ask, and it shall all be yours.'"
But he said so because he knew that this Would give him power over Jesus.
The Satan calls himself the sovereign of the State of the Present, and Jesus the sovereign
of the State of the Futurę. Only Jesus' renouncement of God will guarantee the Devil's power
over him.
3. M. Steiner, La Tentation de Jesus dans Vinterpretation palristipue de Saint Justin a Origene, Paris, 1962, Origene, pp. 107—
—192.
4. K. Koppcn, Die Auslcgung der Versuchungsgeschichte unler besondere BerCcksithligurg der Allen Kirche. Ein Beitrsg zur
Geschichle der Schriftauslegung (Beitrage zur Geschichte der BibhEclicn Exegcic 4), Tiibingeri, 1961, pp. 36—37.
5. Kóppen, op. cit., op. II, p. 39.
6. Exposilion in Evangclium Lucae VI, 20 : Thomas Aquinatus, Catena Aurea; Opera, V, Venezia, 1775, pp. 636—664 a.
7. Matthew IV ,3; Jesus's reply after VI, 16.
8. Psalm CXI, 11—12; Liber Prouerbiorum III, 23; Koppen, Die Auslegung der VersuchungsgeschichU, op. cit., pp. 45—51?
,,Die Versuchung auf der Tcmpelzinne".
22
lie faces an ordinary man. His demand unveils his ignorancc, which is the guiding motif of
Early Christian commentaries. According to Clement of Alexandria, the Devil wants to assure
himself of Jesus' true naturę, and f ind out whether he is the Son of God. In the Greek fragment
of Origen's eommentary, the Dcvil does not know about the Incarnation of the Son of God
although he heard a voice and John the Baptist's statement during the Baptism in Jordan.1
Few exegetes go beyond the earlier statements about the Devil's ignorance. Origcn's eommen-
tary is very important to research into iconography of the Temptation as his interpretation
of the Scriptures implies that the Devil handles a. stone and shows it to Jesus, saying: "Command
this stone that it be made into bread."4 The mc.in scenę of the Temptation in the triptych under
discussion is a precise illustration of Origen's comment.
Jesus' reply
Early-Christian commentators stress the Tempter's ignorance and anxiety to gain know-
ledge of Jesus' true naturę. While commenting on Jesus' reply, they admire his skill in leaving
the Devil insecure so that he makes a wrong conjecture. This particular interpretation is in-
cluded in Irenaeus' treatisc Aduersus haereseos: 'Ad illud ąuidem quod ait: Sifilius Dei es, tacuit:
excecavit autem eum.'5 St. Ambrose argues that with the words: 'Man sha.ll not live by bread
alone', Jesus provcs that it is his human naturę, not his divinity, that has been expcsed to the
Temptation.6
The Second Temptation: 'Tunc assumpsit eum diabolus in sanctam ciritalem et
statuit eum super pinnaculum tempłi' eg dixit ci: Si filius Dei es, rnitte te deorsum. Scriptum est
enim: Quia angelis suis mandewit de te, et in manibus tollent te, ne forte offendas ad lapidem pędem
tuum. Ait Uli Iesus: Rursum est: Non tentabis Dominum Deum tuum'.'
Jesus evidently gives an evasive reply to the Devil who has misinterpreted a line from Psalm
XCI.8
The Third Temptation: 'Iterum assumpsit eum diabolus in moniem excelsum valde:
et ostendit ei omnia regna mundi, et gloriam eorum, et dixit ei: Haec omnia tibi dabo, si cadens
adoraveris me. Tunc dicit ei Iesus: Vadc Satccna: Scriptum est enim: Dominum Deum tuum ado-
rubis, et Uli soli servies'.
And when the Devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him "for a season"
(usąue ad tempus, Lukę, IV, 13).
The Devil's demand oceurs in two versions, a shorter one in Matthew (IV, 6—7), and
a longer one in Lukę: 'Tibi dabo potestatem hanc universam, et gloriam illorum: ąuia mihi tradita
sunt: et cui volo do Ula. Tu ergo si adoraveris coram me, erunt tua omnia'.
The oldest example of an even more elaborate wording of this demand may be found in Pseu-
do-Clement's homilies: "He has approached [him] like the King of the Present, the King of the
Futurę, and said: 'all the kingdoms of the world are in my charge; besides, in my authority
are gold, silver, and all the earthly delights. So fali beforc me and ask, and it shall all be yours.'"
But he said so because he knew that this Would give him power over Jesus.
The Satan calls himself the sovereign of the State of the Present, and Jesus the sovereign
of the State of the Futurę. Only Jesus' renouncement of God will guarantee the Devil's power
over him.
3. M. Steiner, La Tentation de Jesus dans Vinterpretation palristipue de Saint Justin a Origene, Paris, 1962, Origene, pp. 107—
—192.
4. K. Koppcn, Die Auslcgung der Versuchungsgeschichte unler besondere BerCcksithligurg der Allen Kirche. Ein Beitrsg zur
Geschichle der Schriftauslegung (Beitrage zur Geschichte der BibhEclicn Exegcic 4), Tiibingeri, 1961, pp. 36—37.
5. Kóppen, op. cit., op. II, p. 39.
6. Exposilion in Evangclium Lucae VI, 20 : Thomas Aquinatus, Catena Aurea; Opera, V, Venezia, 1775, pp. 636—664 a.
7. Matthew IV ,3; Jesus's reply after VI, 16.
8. Psalm CXI, 11—12; Liber Prouerbiorum III, 23; Koppen, Die Auslegung der VersuchungsgeschichU, op. cit., pp. 45—51?
,,Die Versuchung auf der Tcmpelzinne".
22