If we just read this single line we might not notice that the author does not cite the rest of Luke but only (weakly) implies that hands and feet are meant. It is only in the parallel text of Against Marcion that we learn that the Marcionite text did not have the hands and feet reference only this single line.In such a case he was a phantasm even after the resurrection when he offered his hands and feet for his disciples to examine, saying, Behold that I am I, because a spirit hath not bones as ye see me having - undoubtedly meaning hands and feet and bones which a spirit has not but flesh has. How do you interpret this saying, Marcion, when you deduce Jesus from a god who is supremely good and candid and free from all evil?
If we are to trace the new argument in Against Marcion, the author (or editor) begins by citing Psalms 22:16 "they pierced my hands and feet" and then proceeds
Now concerning the verity of his body, what could be clearer? When they were in doubt whether he were not a phantasm, or even supposed that he was a phantasm, he said to them, Why are ye troubled, and why do thoughts arise in your hearts ? Behold my hands and feet, that it is I myself: for a spirit hath not bones, as ye see me having. Now here Marcion, on purpose I believe, has abstained from crossing out of his gospel certain matters opposed to him, hoping that in view of these which he might have crossed out and has not, he may be thought not to have crossed out those which he has crossed out, or even to have crossed them out with good reason. But he is only sparing to statements which he proceeds to overturn by strange interpretation no less than by deletion. He will have it then that <the words> A spirit hath not bones as ye see me having, were so spoken as to be referred to the spirit, 'as ye see me having', meaning, not having bones, even as a spirit has not. And what sense would there be in such a round-about way of putting it, when he might have said quite plainly, For a spirit hath not bones, as ye see that I have not'? Why again did he offer his hands and feet for them to examine—and these members consist of bones—if he had no bones? Why does he add, And know that it is I myself, though of course they knew beforehand that he had a body? Or else, if he was in every respect a phantasm, why did he upbraid them for thinking him a phantasm?
And yet, while they still believed not, he asked them for food, so as to show that he even had teeth.
But if you actually look at what is in this new material it becomes increasingly clear what happened. The author/editor saw the original reference which agreed with the Marcionites (because they apparently shared a very similar gospel) that there was only this one line:
and from that the original author said something like "surely this means hands and feet" as we still see in De Carne Christi. Indeed De Carne Christi just leaves open the question of how the Marcionites interpreted the passage.ψηλαφήσατέ με καὶ ἴδετε, ὅτι πνεῦμα ὀστέα οὐκ ἔχει, καθὼς ἐμὲ θεωρεῖτε ἔχοντα.
But as we just saw with the 'blessed is the womb' (a saying which only appears in Luke and was stripped away from its original context with 'behold your mother and brothers stand outside') and 'behold your mother and brothers stand outside' Luke has gone out of its way to 'allow' for these sayings (i.e. they are 'retained' in Luke) but only under very careful conditions. In the case of 'behold your mother and brothers stand outside' some of the original material has been removed and now the narrator of the gospel (= 'Luke') adds by way of emphasis that the mother and brothers were REALLY outside. Now again with respect to "Behold that I am I, because a spirit hath not bones as ye see me having" all the stuff that the original author of the Against Marcion material 'supposes' to be true (i.e. 'he MUST HAVE MEANT hands and feet' now literally appear in the reconstructed narrative:
Now with respect to the objection of the author/editor of Against Marcion that the language here is clunky - that may be so in Greek but as is often the case with material only found in Luke, it seems to have its basis in Hebrew or reflects what we might call Hebraisms. Notice the 'Shalom' at the beginning of the narrative and then we see a negative followed by a conjunction. The same situation occurs in Hebrew often times only the conjunction there is כִּיWhile they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. , He said to them “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
Take the example of Genesis 42:16:
.וְאִם-לֹא--חֵי פַרְעֹה, כִּי מְרַגְּלִים אַתֶּם
It is true that the LXX does not translate the subjunctive either here or in verse 15 but the pattern of a subordinate followed by an imperative is a clear indication of Hebrew syntax.
