There will be no need for a reconstruction here as so far my review of locally available literature on the subject of the temptation narrative of Luke 4:1-13 indicates that there is little or nothing in the way of arguing for Lukan dependency on Q rather than Matthew or an Ur-Matthew. Indeed, it seems rather that dependency on Q is assumed as a matter of course, in order to meld with the remainder of the theory. The "argument from order" (which argues for dependency based on order of events reported in Matt and Luke respectively) obviously does not have any force, since the Temptation had to occur at only this time in Jesus' ministry, as Mark agrees.

Neither do the differences in the narratives provide any support for a Q document, as they are easily explicable within the context of direct dependency of Luke on Matthew or Ur-Matthew. The most obvious switch is the order of the temptations: The second and third are reversed in each Gospel. Matthew's is regarded as having the original order, since he makes a logical progression both in locales (desert floor ---> temple roof ---> mountain) and a logical regression in cites of Scripture (Deut. 8:3, 6:16, 6:13) -- and Luke's placement of the temple temptation last figures well into his prominence given to Jerusalem. Obviously this fits hand in glove with Luke directly using Matthew/Ur-Matthew. Other minor variations fit just fine within the parameters of variations in oral tradition, further information gathered by Luke, and/or stylistic preferences and changes Luke could have made. One gospel author prefers to use Satan; the other prefers the devil. Matthew refers to stones and loaves in the plural; Luke prefers the singular for each. (Not that there aren't the usual attempts at pscyho-explanation from the ivory towers of the critics: Fitzmyer, in his Anchor commentary on Luke, explains the difference as due to Luke's desire for "plausibility" in that the "changing of one stone to a loaf would suit (Jesus') need and reduce the grotesque image of a desert full of loaves." [!] I am inclined to doubt that Luke actually underwent such a tortuous thought process; does it occur to Fitzmyer that Satan may have been gesturing to a specific grouping of stones and not intending to refer to the entire desert full of them? Does Fitzmyer really think that Matthew was that stupid? Needless to say, I find such exotic explanations to be rather silly, albeit here rather harmless.)

Another argument proffered by Stein [SSG.57] is that Matt and Luke have used "less confusing and more easily understood" verbs to describe what the Spirit did to Jesus to get him into the wilderness, for Mark's verb, ekballo, "bears an almost universally negative connotation of expulsion." Two points here. First, one wonders why this is not rather evidence of each writer making a different word choice for an original Aramaic verb. Second, why is this not an instance of Mark doing a little creative typology? His "drove out" would make Jesus a type of the scapegoat that was cast out into the wilderness (Lev. 16:10). As Witherington [Mark commentary, 75-6] puts it, along similar lines, "Jesus must experience the full wilderness experience of God's people and, in a sense, the full consequences of their sin." Or, there could be a parallel here to the first Adam being "driven out" of Eden into the wilderness, and the second Adam, Jesus, succeeding where the first Adam failed. In any event Stein merely assumes the literary dependence thesis and then explains the differences in terms of that thesis. Independent composition based on a common oral tradition, or an original Ur-Matthew, is just as viable.

All of this has led at least one Q theorist, Kloppenborg, to suggest that the temptation narratives may not have come from Q at all (The Formation of Q, 42n1), although Burton Mack does include it in a second edition of Q among his innumerable hypothesized layers in that fictional document. The bottom line for our purposes is that there is really no obstacle to supposing that Luke derived the bulk of his material here directly from Matthew/Ur-Matthew, or that along with knowledge garnered from other traditions.