| Argumentative function (PRIMARY). | Gospel citation in Latin + identification. | Old Testament scripture in Latin + reference. |
|---|---|---|
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | "Concupiscentia concupivi pascha edere vobiscum, antequam patiar" [Gospel: Luke]; "paschae diem elegit" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain] | "Pascha est domini" (Lev 23:5) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "tanquam ovis ad victimam adduci… os non aperturus" (Isa 53:7) |
| Composite harmonized tradition (multiple gospel streams conflated) | "Qui mecum panem edit, levabit in me plantam" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain] | (—) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "Pro eo quod venumdedere iustum" (Amos 2:6) |
| Composite harmonized tradition (multiple gospel streams conflated) | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "Et acceperunt triginta argenteos… et dederunt eos in agrum figuli" (Zech 11:12–13; cf. Jer: as claimed) |
| Redactional anti-Marcionite framing (secondary “Luke vs Marcion” encoding) | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (—) |
| Distinctively Lukan-dependent argument | "Hoc est corpus meum… id est figura corporis mei" [Gospel: Luke] | (—) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "Adversus me cogitaverunt… Venite coniciamus lignum in panem eius" (Jer 11:19 LXX) |
| Harmony/logia-compatible interpretive scholion | "in calicis mentione testamentum constituens sanguine suo obsignatum" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain] | (—) |
| Harmony/logia-compatible interpretive scholion | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) “Nullius… corporis sanguis… nisi carnis” (argument from “sanguis” to “caro,” no explicit OT) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "Quis… qui advenit ex Edom… Quare rubra vestimenta tua… torcularis pleno conculcato?" (Isa: as cited) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "Lavabit in vino stolam suam et in sanguine uvae amictum suum" (Gen: benediction of Judah, as cited) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | "sanguinem suum in vino consecravit" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain] | (implicit typology) “qui tunc vinum in sanguine figuravit” (Gen benediction as cited) |
The chapter is built as a chain of fulfillment-logic in which the narrative of the meal and betrayal is treated as the telos of scriptural figures: paschal calendrics, lamb imagery, price-oracle, and the ancient tropes of bread and wine as vehicles of body and blood. The explicitly cited gospel words are few but heavy: “Concupiscentia concupivi pascha edere vobiscum, antequam patiar” and “Hoc est corpus meum.” Yet the argumentative force does not rest primarily on distinctively Lukan turns of phrase; rather, Luke supplies a convenient locus for sayings that are then driven outward into Levitical prescription and prophetic typology. “Pascha est domini” anchors the claim that the chosen day is not arbitrary but already sacramentally set within the creator’s festal law, and Isaiah’s “tanquam ovis” supplies the passion-pattern that makes the “concupiscentia” intelligible as a desire to complete “figuram sanguinis… salutaris,” not a taste for Jewish ritual.
The betrayal section shows the composite quality of the tradition being worked. The psalm line “Qui mecum panem edit, levabit in me plantam” is invoked as a possibility even before the decisive appeal to price prophecy, and the sale of the righteous (“Pro eo quod venumdedere iustum”) is made to demand not only a transaction but one with a determinate “quantitas et exitus pretii.” The formulation “sicut in evangelio Matthaei continetur” is not a citation of Matthew’s wording but a notice of where the tradition is contained; the proof itself is prosecuted by the oracle “Et acceperunt triginta argenteos… et dederunt eos in agrum figuli,” attributed to “Hieremias” while citing the form of the Zecharian text. This is precisely the kind of harmonized dossier in which the gospel narrative is read as the enactment of a prophetic script, regardless of which evangelist is the immediate carrier.
The anti-Marcionite thrust is present but works as a secondary framing around an inherited exegetical core. The sarcasm “O legis destructorem, qui concupierat etiam pascha servare!” sets the polemical stage, but the real engine is the claim that the passion is “lex figurat,” and that Christ’s actions align with the creator’s sacramentum rather than abolish it. Likewise, the discussion of “figura corporis mei” is aimed at Marcionite docetism, yet it proceeds by a general semiotic premise: a “figura” presupposes a “veritas,” and “phantasma” cannot “figuram capere.” This is not dependent on a Lukan textual nuance so much as on a conceptual grammar of sign and reality brought to bear on the dominical identification of bread with body.
Prophetic fulfillment continues to do the heavy lifting in the eucharistic arguments. The bread-body association is claimed to have an antecedent in Jeremiah: “Venite coniciamus lignum in panem eius,” interpreted as “crucem in corpus eius.” The cup/blood reasoning likewise moves by an ontological inference (“Nullius… corporis sanguis… nisi carnis”) that is then supported by a typological archive for wine-as-blood: Isaiah’s crimson garments from the “torcular” and Genesis’ benediction over Judah, “Lavabit in vino stolam suam et in sanguine uvae amictum suum.” The concluding reversal—“sanguinem suum in vino consecravit, qui tunc vinum in sanguine figuravit”—makes the gospel rite the realization of an older scriptural figure rather than a novelty needing a uniquely Lukan textual base.
Detached from Luke as a fixed text, the argument largely persists so long as the passion-at-Passover setting, the dominical identification of bread/body and wine/blood, and the betrayal-for-price motif remain available within a harmony/logia stream. Luke’s wording functions as a convenient carrier for two key utterances, but the chapter’s reasoning is transferable because it is structured as a fulfillment dossier: law prefigures, prophets specify, the gospel event completes, and anti-Marcionite polemic is then overlaid as the conclusion demanded by that inherited exegetical logic.
