| Argumentative function (PRIMARY). | Gospel citation in Latin + identification. | Old Testament scripture in Latin + reference. |
|---|---|---|
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "Ut quaerant… faciem meam, ante lucem vigilabunt… Eamus et convertamur… quia ipse eripuit et curabit nos… sanabit nos post biduum, in die tertia resurgetnus" (Hos 5:15–6:2) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "sublata erat sepultura eius de medio" (Isa 57:2 LXX); (implicit typology) “in duobus testibus consistens dei sermo” |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "Mulieres… venite… a visione" (Isa 27:11 LXX) |
| Redactional anti-Marcionite framing (secondary “Luke vs Marcion” encoding) | "Nos autem putabamus… ipsum esse redemptorem Israelis" [Gospel: Luke] | (—) |
| Distinctively Lukan-dependent argument | "O insensati et tardi corde in non credendo omnibus quae locutus est ad vos" [Gospel: Luke] | (—) |
| Distinctively Lukan-dependent argument | "Rememoramini quae locutus sit vobis in Galilaea… dicens quod oportet tradi filium hominis et crucifigi et tertia die resurgere" [Gospel: Luke] | (—) [“scriptum” asserted, no OT lemma cited] |
| Distinctively Lukan-dependent argument | "Quid turbati estis?… Videte manus meas et pedes, quia ego ipse sum… quoniam spiritus ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere" [Gospel: Luke] | (—) |
| Redactional anti-Marcionite framing (secondary “Luke vs Marcion” encoding) | "spiritus ossa non habet… sicut me videtis habentem" [Gospel: Luke/Marcionite framework] | (—) |
| Harmony/logia-compatible interpretive scholion | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (—) |
| Redactional anti-Marcionite framing (secondary “Luke vs Marcion” encoding) | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "in omnem terram exire sonum eorum et in terminos terrae voces eorum" (implicit typology: psalmus, no reference given in text) |
The chapter is structurally governed by prophetic fulfillment, but it advances into a distinctly Lukan register whenever it needs fixed verbal anchors: the Emmaus confession (“Nos autem putabamus… redemptorem Israelis”), the rebuke (“O insensati et tardi corde”), the angelic reminder in Galilee with the threefold passion-resurrection formula (“oportet tradi… crucifigi… tertia die resurgere”), and the corporeal self-identification (“Videte manus meas et pedes… spiritus ossa non habet”). These are not incidental quotations; they function as hinges for the two central claims, continuity with “creatoris” and the reality of the risen body.
Nevertheless the chapter’s opening triad—women before dawn, the third day, the sepulchre’s removal, and the two angels—operates primarily as transferable exegesis. Hosea provides the interpretive psychology of the women (“percussit… miserebitur… post biduum… die tertia”), Isaiah supplies the motif of the sepulture being taken “de medio,” and the Isaianic “Mulieres… venite… a visione” anticipates the return as proclamation. Here the narrative is read as a fulfillment-pattern whose intelligibility does not require a uniquely Lukan phrasing. Even the “two witnesses” remark is framed as a general scriptural principle (“in duobus testibus consistens dei sermo”), functioning as an inherited hermeneutical rule rather than a gospel-dependent detail.
The anti-Marcionite “Luke-text” framing becomes explicit once the discourse reaches the disciples’ incomprehension and the post-resurrection appearances. The insistence that the disciples still speak in “creatoris” categories (“redemptorem Israelis”) is exploited as evidence that Jesus had not “edidisse” another god. That argument depends on a Lukan scene, yet its logic is not strictly Lukan: it treats the disciples’ vocabulary as a control on what Christ could have plausibly taught them. The polemical edge is sharpened by attributing to any alternative reading either Christ’s complicity in “error” or a violation of “veritas,” making the narrative’s delay of recognition serve a doctrinal end.
Prophetic fulfillment remains the interpretive engine even within the Lukan material, because “oportet” is taken to signal scriptural necessity (“nisi quia ita a deo creatore scriptum?”), though no specific lemma is introduced at that point. The effect is to subordinate the gospel’s wording to an antecedent “scriptum” logic: the gospel supplies the remembered formula; the explanatory ground is a prior divine script. In this respect, the chapter reads like an inherited “must” theology of passion and resurrection that has been re-encoded as a creator-confirming argument.
The corporeality section is the most text-dependent, yet it also shows the strongest logia-style portability. The proof turns on a short set of saying-units: “ego ipse sum,” the demonstratives “manus… pedes,” and the maxim “spiritus ossa non habet.” The subsequent refutation of Marcion’s tortuous construal is framed as a contest over syntactic plainness, not over narrative sequence. This is characteristic of a scholion layer: a brief dominical lemma is parsed, and a rival construal is dismissed as rhetorically unnecessary and materially incoherent (why display “membra ex ossibus” if there are no “ossa”?). The added note about requesting food to show “dentes” continues the same anti-phantasm strategy by appealing to ordinary bodily functions.
Detached from Luke as a fixed text, the chapter would lose its most forceful verbal proofs—especially the resurrection-body lemma and the Emmaus confession—because these are pressed as decisive quotations. Yet the scaffolding would still stand: Hosea’s “die tertia” logic, Isaiah’s motifs, the “two witnesses” principle, and the general inference that passion-resurrection belongs to what is “scriptum.” What changes is not the existence of a fulfillment-driven reading but the precision of its anti-Marcionite deployment, which here relies on Luke’s distinctive post-resurrection speech to make the continuity and corporeality claims maximally determinate.
