So, the deeper you dig, the more you see the manipulating work that was taking place in the development of early Christianity, which remains largely unknown by your average Joe. These are not slanders, but facts, and some people just can't handle the truth.
The fact is that text revision is endemic in not only the NT, but the Old as well.
Yes, Mark, but think about it, what is the earliest copy of Matthew 4? The oldest known Papyrus, P102, dated at end of the 3rd and the beginning of the 4th century AD. The famous Chester-Beatry collection (end of 2nd and beginning of 3rd century AD) contains only Matthew's chapters 20, 21, 25, and 26. Then other ealry collection, the Bodmer Papyri, specifically Bodmer XIX contains a section of Matthew'as Gospel 14:28-28:20 only.
So, the earliest copy of Matthew 4 is rather late. Thre copies of Mark 1 and Luke 1 fair no better than the 3rd century. This leaves plenty of room for the story to fit the already developed and established beliefs. In absence of earlier copies and/or originals, we can't say for sure.
The nest best approach is to search what the early Christian apologetics and Church Fathers wrote on the temptation of Jesus referencing the earlier copies of Matthew, Mark, and Luke the way Eusebius references the earlier copy of the Great Commission without the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost (no less than 17 times before Nicene 1)!
It is well and interesting, but the Church still has decreed them Canon.
It is notable to mention that the Gospel accounts differ, as to what happened before and after. And John's Gospel omits it altogether.
And none of the accounts of Resurrection Sunday or the inscription above Jesus' head on the Cross agree either.
Is it important?
By Christians, yes. Not by the Jews. You had a buffet of different verison of ths LXX commissioned in the Christian era.
Is it important?
Depends.