| Argumentative function (PRIMARY). | Gospel citation in Latin + identification. | Old Testament scripture in Latin + reference. |
|---|---|---|
| Composite harmonized tradition (multiple gospel streams conflated) | "Qui dimiserit uxorem suam et aliam duxerit, adulterium committit; qui dimissam a viro duxerit, aeque adulter est" [Gospel: Luke]; "Moyses propter duritiam cordis vestri praecepit libellum repudii dare; a primordio autem non fuit sic" [Gospel: Matt]; "Erunt duo… in carne una… quod deus itaque iunxit, homo disiunxerit?" [Gospel: Matt/harmonized/uncertain] | "Si sumserit quis uxorem… scribet libellum repudii… et dimittet illam de domo sua" (Deut 24:1 sqq.); "Erunt duo… in carne una" (Gen 2:24) (implicit typology) |
| Harmony/logia-compatible interpretive scholion | "Qui dimiserit… et aliam duxerit…; et qui a marito dimissam duxerit…" [Gospel: Luke] | (—) (implicit typology) ratio: “manet matrimonium quod non rite diremptum est” |
| Redactional anti-Marcionite framing (secondary “Luke vs Marcion” encoding) | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) polemical application to Marcionite discipline: “nec coniungens marem et feminam… nec… admittens nisi… coniuraverint adversus fructum nuptiarum” |
| Composite harmonized tradition (multiple gospel streams conflated) | "Qui dimiserit uxorem suam praeter causam adulterii, facit eam adulterari" [Gospel: Matt]; "Aeque adulter censetur et ille qui dimissam a viro duxerit" [Gospel: Luke/harmonized/uncertain] | "Uxorem iuventutis tuae non dimittes" (Mal 2:15); (implicit typology) “eum qui ex compressione matrimonium fecerat non posse dimittere uxorem” (Deut 22:28 sqq.) |
| Harmony/logia-compatible interpretive scholion | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) lex leviratus invoked: “non alias… quam si frater illiberis decesserit… supparetur semen” (implicit typology: Deut 25:5–10) |
| Distinctively Lukan-dependent argument | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) nexus Ioannis: “Ioannes… retundens Herodem… coniectus in carcerem… et occisus” as framing for ensuing exemplum mercedum |
| Distinctively Lukan-dependent argument | "Habent illic Moysen et prophetas, illos audiant" [Gospel: Luke] | (—) (implicit typology) “Moysen et prophetas” as scriptural sufficiency for post-mortem retribution |
| Harmony/logia-compatible interpretive scholion | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) topography: “Aliud enim inferi… aliud… Abrahae sinus… magnum… profundum” (implicit typology; “Elysios” as comparative register) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "ad quam ascensum suum Christus aedificat in caelum" (Amos 9:6 LXX); "Quis annuntiabit vobis locum aeternum…?" (Isa 33:14 sq. LXX) |
| Composite harmonized tradition (multiple gospel streams conflated) | "Hunc audite" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain]; "Tu es Christus" [Gospel: Matt/Mark] | (—) (implicit typology) christological proof from “Moysen et prophetas… a quibus solis adhuc Christus annuntiabatur” |
| Redactional anti-Marcionite framing (secondary “Luke vs Marcion” encoding) | "Habent illic Moysen et prophetas, audiant illos" [Gospel: Luke] | (implicit typology) unicum iudicium: “apud unicum deum… qui occidat et vivificet” (implicit typology: Deut 32:39 / 1 Sam 2:6) |
The chapter’s argument begins from a logion that is recognizably Lukan in its compressed form (“Qui dimiserit uxorem suam et aliam duxerit…”), yet it is immediately re-situated within a composite tradition by importing the explanatory response preserved elsewhere (“Moyses propter duritiam cordis vestri… a primordio autem non fuit sic”) and by grounding the whole dispute in the creation-saying “Erunt duo… in carne una.” The reasoning does not require Luke as a fixed textual base so much as it presupposes that the divorce logion circulates within a harmonized matrix where Deuteronomy (libellus repudii) and the primordial union formula can be made to cohere. The polemical “diversitas legis et evangelii” is therefore treated as only apparent, because the interpretive engine is the creation-rooted axiom that what God joins is not to be dissolved, with Mosaic concession explained by “duritia cordis.”
Tertullian’s most decisive move is not a claim about Lukan wording but a transferable scholion: the prohibition is read “condicionaliter,” aimed at repudiation ordered toward a new union. On that reading, “illicite… dimissam pro indimissa ducens adulter est” because the first marriage “manet” when it has not been “rite diremptum.” This is a piece of inherited exegetical logic that could attach to the logion regardless of whether the point is phrased in Luke’s terse form or in a Matthean expansion. The subsequent appeal to “praeter causam adulterii” (explicitly cited from Matthew) confirms that the unit operates by aligning multiple gospel strands into a single casuistic rule, then retrofitting that rule to the Mosaic text so that Moses is “protectus” rather than destroyed.
Anti-Marcionite framing appears most clearly where the discussion pivots from the logion’s logic to Marcionite practice: the charge that they “nuptias dirimis” and exclude the married from sacramental participation unless they conspire “adversus fructum nuptiarum.” This looks secondary to the inherited exegetical core, functioning as an applied reductio: if Christ absolutely prohibits divorce, Marcionite rigor would still require a justice-grounded exception in cases of adultery, and the gospel tradition itself supplies that exception. Here the polemic depends less on a uniquely Lukan textual feature than on the capacity of harmonized gospel material to generate a coherent rule that exposes inconsistency in the opponent’s discipline.
The chapter then discloses a further compositional layer by attaching the divorce saying to the mention of Ioannes and the Herodian marriage. The prohibition is presented as not “subito interposita,” but rooted in the Ioannes frame: Ioannes had attacked an “illicitum matrimonium,” suffered imprisonment and death, and the dominical saying is cast as a targeted “figura iaculata” against Herodes. This is again not a Lukan verbal argument so much as a narrative-exegetical linkage: the logion functions as prophetic-judicial speech whose point is sharpened by a concrete exemplar of adultery and persecution of a prophet.
That same Ioannes–Herodes linkage becomes the bridge to the rich man and Lazarus. The chapter reads “Herodis tormenta et Ioannis refrigeria” through the Lukan refrain “Habent illic Moysen et prophetas, illos audiant,” and then argues about the spatial logic of “inferi” versus “sinus Abrahae.” The emphasis falls on scriptural coherence rather than on Luke’s distinct phraseology: “magnum… profundum” and the rich man’s upward gaze support a differentiated underworld geography, with Abraham’s bosom construed as a “localis determinatio” for the faithful, including those “ex nationibus” who share Abraham’s faith “nullo sub iugo legis.” This intermediate state is defended as compatible with a creator-grounded eschatology in which fuller reward awaits the “consummatio rerum” and the “resurrectio omnium.”
Prophetic fulfillment, finally, supplies the positive horizon that stabilizes the entire construction. The “ascensum suum… in caelum” is anchored “secundum Amos,” and the “locus aeternus” is tied to Isaiah’s description of the righteous path. These prophetic citations function as the warrant that a truly “caelestis promissio” belongs to the creator’s economy, so that Marcion’s attempt to split rewards between different gods is re-described as a category mistake: the diversity lies not in divinities but in “materiae,” in distinct modes and stages of retribution and refreshment within a single judicial and salvific order. On that basis, the argument would continue to work even if detached from Luke as a fixed text, because its backbone is a harmonized logia-casuistic reading of divorce and a prophetic-esoteric mapping of post-mortem states that is validated by Amos and Isaiah rather than by any uniquely Lukan turn of phrase.
