| 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] | (implicit typology) “mari rubro… virgam Moysi imperantem… in quod opus et austri servierunt” (Exod 14:21) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) “machaeram… in transitu… Iordanis… Iesus… transmeantibus stare” (Josh 5:13) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "Dominus… super aquas multas" (Ps 29:3); "Dispargens… aquas itinere" (Hab 3:9); "Comminans… mari et arefaciens illud" (Nah 1:4) |
| Redactional anti-Marcionite framing (secondary “Luke vs Marcion” encoding) | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) appeal to “famuli creatoris” to deny a “novus dominator… exclusi creatoris” |
| Harmony/logia-compatible interpretive scholion | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "Dominus validus, dominus potens in bello" (Ps 24:8) |
| Harmony/logia-compatible interpretive scholion | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) “ultimo hoste morte… per tropaeum crucis” (cf. “ultimus hostis” motif; 1 Cor 15:26 noted in apparatus) |
| Redactional anti-Marcionite framing (secondary “Luke vs Marcion” encoding) | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) daemonum “tormenta et abyssum” as creator’s jurisdiction and as proof they know no “novus… ignotus” deus |
| Composite harmonized tradition (multiple gospel streams conflated) | "Quis me tetigit?" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain]; "Tetigit me aliquis" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain]; "Sensi enim virtutem ex me profectam" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain] | "Adam ubi es?" (implicit typology; Gen 3:9) |
| Redactional anti-Marcionite framing (secondary “Luke vs Marcion” encoding) | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) “Habes et creatorem cum Christo excusatum et Christum creatori adaequatum” (rhetorical leveling move) |
| Composite harmonized tradition (multiple gospel streams conflated) | "Fides tua te salvam fecit" [Gospel: harmonized/uncertain] | (—) (implicit typology) “fidei remuneratio” as the dominical rationale against “aemulatio legis” |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) “lex a contactu feminae sanguinantis summovet” (Lev 15:19 sqq.) |
| Harmony/logia-compatible interpretive scholion | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) “misericordiam malle quam ipsum sacrificium” (Hos 6:6 logic invoked without citation-formula in this chapter) |
| Harmony/logia-compatible interpretive scholion | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) distinction within the law: “ordinarium… menstrui vel partualis… ex officio naturae” vs “ex vitio valetudinis” (Lev 15 frame reapplied) |
| Prophetic fulfillment exegesis independent of specific gospel wording | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | "Nisi credideritis… non intellegetis" (Isa 7:9) |
| Redactional anti-Marcionite framing (secondary “Luke vs Marcion” encoding) | (—) [No explicit gospel wording; narrative/argument only] | (implicit typology) anti-phantasma: “vestimentum… corpori… non phantasmati”; phantasma “contaminari… non posset” |
The chapter’s opening argument about mastery over “ventis et mari” is built to deny novelty in cosmic dominion and instead to reattach the episode to the creator’s prior operations. The logic proceeds by exempla (Moses at the Red Sea; the drawn sword in the Jordan crossing narrative) and then pivots to prophetic antecedents, treating the maritime crossing as something already “praedicatio… antecessisset.” The proof-texts—“Dominus… super aquas multas,” “Dispargens… aquas itinere,” “Comminans… mari et arefaciens illud”—supply the interpretive engine: the event is not a new deity displacing an old one but the same dominus acting within the already-scripted regime of sea, winds, and passage. This reasoning is not distinctively Lukan; it is transferable exegesis that could be attached to any tradition in which Christ stills sea and winds or “transfretat.” The anti-Marcionite framing is nonetheless explicit at the surface (“novus dominator… exclusi creatoris? Non ita est”), and it reads as a secondary encoding laid over a more basic, inherited pattern: deeds are authenticated by prophetic preannouncement and by earlier creatorly exempla.
The next unit, the demoniac “legio,” is interpreted through a spiritual-war hermeneutic: if a “multitudo daemonum… legionem” is present, then Christ must be understood as “spiritaliter armatum… spiritaliter bellicosum,” and the psalm “Dominus… potens in bello” is recruited as a prophecy of this kind of combat. The argument does not hinge on a uniquely Lukan turn of phrase; it is a conceptual mapping that assumes a harmonized demonology (legion language, abyss, tormenta, expulsion). Its anti-Marcionite force comes from the claim that the demons recognize the creator’s jurisdiction (“abyssum… veniam scilicet abyssi creatoris”) and that their successful petition (“Denique impetraverunt”) would be incoherent if they were lying about the identity of Christ as “ultoris dei filium.” Here again the “Luke vs Marcion” register feels like a polemical overlay: the logical core is that recognition, fear, and requested remission presume continuity of the deity’s known punitive order.
The section on the hemorrhaging woman is overtly framed as a concessionary parody of the heretics’ “pusillitates… creatoris,” proposing ignorance ascribed to Christ: “Quis me tetigit?” and the insistence “Tetigit me aliquis… Sensi enim virtutem ex me profectam.” The comparison to “Adam ubi es?” is used to normalize interrogative speech as a divine strategy (provoking confession, testing fear) rather than literal ignorance. The move is not dependent on Luke as a fixed text so much as on a broadly circulated narrative motif—divine questioning—and on a typological equivalence between creator and Christ.
From there the polemic turns to the law’s impurity rules (“lex a contactu feminae sanguinantis summovet”) and rejects an “aemulatio legis” explanation for Christ’s acceptance and healing. The dominical rationale is located in “Fides tua te salvam fecit,” making faith the controlling hermeneutical principle against the adversary’s rivalry reading. The core of the exegesis is a distinction within the legal category itself: the law targets an “ordinarium… menstrui vel partualis” flux “ex officio naturae,” whereas the woman’s condition is “ex vitio valetudinis,” requiring not temporal waiting but “divinae misericordiae auxilium.” This is a law-clarifying argument that could operate independently of Luke: it depends on Levitical categories and on a general Christian principle that faith accesses divine mercy beyond ordinary ritual sequencing. The Isaianic maxim “Nisi credideritis… non intellegetis” then supplies a prophetic warrant for the claim that faith yields interpretive intelligence, so that the woman “legem non inrupisse, sed distinxisse” can be presented as lawful insight rather than rebellion.
Finally, the docetic/phantasma polemic is tethered to the same episode: touching the garment implies a real body, and a phantasm would be incapable of contamination, so the idea that Christ “voluisset” to flaunt the law by accepting contact collapses into deception. This last move is clearly redactional and anti-heretical in tone, but it is still parasitic on the prior inherited exegetical logic: prophetic fulfillment and legal distinction do most of the explanatory work, while “Luke-text” specificity remains minimal. Detached from Luke as a fixed text, the chapter’s arguments largely stand: creatorly precedents for elemental obedience, prophetic scripts for sea mastery and spiritual battle, and a Levitical-typological distinction securing the woman’s act as faithful intelligence rather than law-breaking.
