| (iii) Argumentative function (PRIMARY). | (i) Gospel citation in Latin + identification. | (ii) Old Testament scripture in Latin + reference. |
|---|---|---|
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) “duodecim… fontes in Elim… septuaginta… arbusta palmarum” (Exod 15:27; Num 33:9) |
| Harmony/logia-compatible interpretive scholion | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) Exodus equipment vs mission austerity explained by differing “causarum offerentia” (no lemma quoted) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | "Neminem… per viam salutaveritis" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain] | "Accinge lumbos tuos… quemcunque conveneris in via, ne benedixeris eum… et qui te benedixerit, ne responderis ei" (2 Kgs 4:29) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | "pax ei dicere" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain] | "Pax viro tuo, pax filio tuo" (2 Kgs 4:26) |
| Harmony/logia-compatible interpretive scholion | "Dignus est autem operarius mercede sua" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain] | "Bovi… terenti os non colligabis" (implicit typology; cited as the lemma itself) (Deut 25:4, by incipit “Bovi… terenti”; no explicit reference printed here) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) Exodus “vasis aureis et argenteis… vestium” as merces operariorum (“villas et urbes operati… digni… mercede”) (no lemma quoted) |
| Harmony/logia-compatible interpretive scholion | "Regnum dei… appropinquasse" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain] | (—) (implicit typology) semantic argument: “appropinquasse” presupposes prior distance/antiquity |
| Redactional anti-Marcionite framing (secondary “Luke vs Marcion” encoding) | "Scitote tamen appropinquasse regnum dei" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain] | (—) (implicit typology) comminatio implies executio and iudicium (no lemma quoted) |
| Redactional anti-Marcionite framing (secondary “Luke vs Marcion” encoding) | "pulverem… excuti… in testificationem" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain] | (implicit typology) inhospitalitas punished: Ammonitae/Moabitae “prohibeat recipi in ecclesiam” (Deut 23:3) |
| Composite harmonized tradition (multiple gospel streams conflated) | "Qui vos spernit, me spernit" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain] | "Non te contempserunt, sed me" (Num 14:27, cited as Num 14:27) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | "potestatem calcandi super colubros et scorpios" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain] | (implicit typology) “conicere manum in cavernam aspidum… nec laedi” (Isaiah promise; lemma not quoted here, only described) |
| Composite harmonized tradition (multiple gospel streams conflated) | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "Super aspidem et basiliscum incedes, et conculcabis leonem et draconem" (Ps 91:13); "Illa die superducet dominus deus machaeram… in draconem… colubrum… et interficiet eum" (Isa 27:1) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "Via munda et via sancta vocabitur… non transibit illic immundum… non erit iam illic leo…" (Isa 35:8–9) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "Invalescite manus dimissae… tunc patefient oculi caecorum… saliet claudus… clara erit lingua mutorum" (implicit in Isa 35 context; cited via Isa 35:8 sqq. LXX in apparatus) |
The chapter’s controlling movement is typological and semantic rather than distinctively Lukan. The opening alignment of “duodecim” and “septuaginta” is driven by the Elim paradigm: twelve springs and seventy palms serve as a schematic precedent for the doubling of apostolic personnel. That is already a transferable, harmony/logia-friendly move, because it does not require any uniquely Lukan phraseology; it requires only the tradition of an expanded mission contingent and the hermeneutic habit of reading numeric correspondences as providential patterns.
The central rebuttal to “Antitheses” is framed as a correction of category error: apparent divergences in discipline arise from diversitas causarum, not diversitas potestatum. The Exodus spoliation and the mission’s austerity are not set in contradiction but subordinated to a single providential logic adjusting equipment to itinerary—solitudo versus civitates, penuria versus copia. Even where gospel directives are echoed (“Neminem… per viam salutaveritis”; “pax… dicere”), the argument proceeds by anchoring them in Elisha’s praxis, explicitly quoted in the case of the no-greeting injunction and the peace formula. The effect is to treat the dominical mission rules as prophetic reprise rather than as programmatic innovations: the “engine” is precedent, not Lukan textuality.
The “Dignus est operarius mercede sua” unit is similarly handled as an axiom of iudicium and retributio, then tied back to creatorly legislation via the threshing-ox rule. The reasoning does not depend on any distinctively Lukan wording; it depends on the inference that any doctrine of merces presupposes a judge who adjudicates worth. On that basis, even the Exodus seizure of Egyptian valuables is reframed as merces compensatio for labor, not fraud—again, continuity by moral-juridical logic rather than by a fixed gospel text.
When the chapter turns to “Regnum dei… appropinquasse,” it uses a semantic argument: “appropinquare” implies what was once “longe,” so the kingdom is confirmed as neither “novum” nor “inauditum.” This is emphatically detachable from Luke as a stabilized document, because it relies on lexical entailment rather than on redactional sequencing. The anti-Marcionite encoding enters more sharply with comminatio: “Scitote tamen appropinquasse regnum dei,” the dust-shaking “in testificationem,” and the maxim “Qui vos spernit, me spernit,” all pressed to show that mission rejection entails ultionis expectation and thus an executing judge. Yet even here the argument’s scaffolding is inherited: the logic of testimony presupposing judgment, and the Pentateuchal precedent of excluding Ammonites and Moabites for inhospitality, function as the explanatory base; the polemical edge is a later rhetorical deployment of those premises against Marcion.
The final movement on “potestas calcandi super colubros et scorpios” is overtly prophetic and composite. It is read both figuratively (spiritual malitia signified by serpents/scorpions) and scripturally (Psalm 91’s aspis/basiliscus/leo/draco; Isaiah’s draco/coluber slain by the “machaera” and the “via munda” where no lion ascends). The chapter explicitly integrates healing-time motifs from Isaiah 35 (eyes opened, ears hearing, lame leaping, tongue clarified) with subjection of hostile beasts, so that miraculous cures and dominion over “bestiae” are co-located within a single prophetic horizon. The argument would therefore still function if detached from Luke as a fixed text: it depends on prophetic fulfillment and typological continuity that can attach to a harmonized dominical tradition, with the “Luke vs Marcion” framing operating as a secondary encoding that rides atop an older exegetical grammar of law, prophets, and retribution.
