Part of #27. A source-verification task: no Lean until the text has been read.
Why
The dominical strand of sola fide rests on two premises about Luke 7:36–50:
sozoIsSoteriological: σέσωκέν σε at 7:50 means saved, not made well. It is rated wellSupported.luke7_47LoveIsEvidence: her love at 7:47 is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground. It is rated plausible.
After #84 and #87 they are cited as follows:
- Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession. Primary source for σῴζω and supporting for 7:47. He reads 7:47 by 7:50.
- Padilla, STR 12.2 (2021) 54–55. Primary source for 7:47 and supporting for σῴζω. He reads 7:50 as salvation received by faith.
Neither argues the word. Neither answers the fact that the same formula means "made you well" at Luke 8:48, 17:19 and 18:42. That is a philological question, and Marshall's commentary on the Greek text is the obvious place to settle it. The library already has an entry for it (marshallLuke, ISBN 9780802835123). It is cited only as a lead, because nobody working on this has read its note on 7:50.
Where to find it
I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Eerdmans, 1978).
- Internet Archive has two scans (
gospeloflukecomm0000mars and gospeloflukecomm00mars_1). Both are restricted to readers with print disabilities.
- Bible software: the NIGTC series is sold as digital volumes in the major libraries, Logos among them.
- Print: Eerdmans still publishes it, and any seminary library will have it (WorldCat).
- Pages: Padilla (n. 46) cites pp. 304–7 for the tradition history of 7:36–50, so the exegesis starts around there. The exact pages for vv. 47 and 50 are not yet known.
What to record
For each question, record the page number and an exact quotation:
- Luke 7:50. Does Marshall read σέσωκέν σε as salvation or forgiveness rather than healing? Does he address the same formula at 8:48, 17:19 and 18:42?
- Luke 7:47. Does he read ὅτι as giving the evidence of forgiveness, or its cause? How does he relate v. 47a to v. 47b and to the parable of vv. 41–43?
What follows from each answer
- He argues the salvation sense against healing: make Marshall the primary source for
sozoIsSoteriological, with Melanchthon moving to supporting, and replace the "lead" comment with his quotation.
- He reads 7:50 as salvation without arguing it: make him supporting beside Padilla. The philological gap stays open and is recorded as such.
- He takes the healing sense, or leaves it open: this is a cited dissent. The premise's rating drops to
disputed, and a healing-reading party enters the sola fide dispute. That could change dominical_case_skeptically_accepted, and the dispute's documentation says so.
- On 7:47: cite him beside Padilla, as primary or supporting depending on how directly he argues it. If he reads ὅτι causally, that is a dissent on 7:47 and is recorded as one.
Either way, the documentation moves in the same commit, per CLAUDE.md: the SolaFide.lean module docstring, Dispute.lean's "An absence" paragraph, and the roadmap finding.
Related lead
Kilgallen, "Forgiveness of Sins (Luke 7:36-50)", Novum Testamentum 40 (1998) 105–116. The metadata is confirmed in Crossref; the text is paywalled (Brill), so it is not yet read. It is the same kind of check for 7:47, and can be done in the same pass if the text is to hand.
Done when
Marshall's pages on 7:47 and 7:50 have been read. The two premises cite what he actually says, whichever way it cuts, and every page describing the dominical strand agrees with the citations.
Part of #27. A source-verification task: no Lean until the text has been read.
Why
The dominical strand of sola fide rests on two premises about Luke 7:36–50:
sozoIsSoteriological: σέσωκέν σε at 7:50 means saved, not made well. It is ratedwellSupported.luke7_47LoveIsEvidence: her love at 7:47 is the evidence of her forgiveness, not its ground. It is ratedplausible.After #84 and #87 they are cited as follows:
Neither argues the word. Neither answers the fact that the same formula means "made you well" at Luke 8:48, 17:19 and 18:42. That is a philological question, and Marshall's commentary on the Greek text is the obvious place to settle it. The library already has an entry for it (
marshallLuke, ISBN 9780802835123). It is cited only as a lead, because nobody working on this has read its note on 7:50.Where to find it
I. Howard Marshall, The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Eerdmans, 1978).
gospeloflukecomm0000marsandgospeloflukecomm00mars_1). Both are restricted to readers with print disabilities.What to record
For each question, record the page number and an exact quotation:
What follows from each answer
sozoIsSoteriological, with Melanchthon moving to supporting, and replace the "lead" comment with his quotation.disputed, and a healing-reading party enters the sola fide dispute. That could changedominical_case_skeptically_accepted, and the dispute's documentation says so.Either way, the documentation moves in the same commit, per
CLAUDE.md: theSolaFide.leanmodule docstring,Dispute.lean's "An absence" paragraph, and the roadmap finding.Related lead
Kilgallen, "Forgiveness of Sins (Luke 7:36-50)", Novum Testamentum 40 (1998) 105–116. The metadata is confirmed in Crossref; the text is paywalled (Brill), so it is not yet read. It is the same kind of check for 7:47, and can be done in the same pass if the text is to hand.
Done when
Marshall's pages on 7:47 and 7:50 have been read. The two premises cite what he actually says, whichever way it cuts, and every page describing the dominical strand agrees with the citations.