Clear Sign that Against the Jews is From Something Like Justin's Dialogue and is More Original Than Against Marcion 3

[Secret Alias]

And more. It is amazing how Against Marcion abandons the text of Against the Jews as soon as it delves into the 70 weeks prophesy:

Against the Jews:

Look at the universal nations thenceforth emerging from the vortex of human error to the Lord God the Creator and His Christ; and if you dare to deny that this was prophesied, forthwith occurs to you the promise of the Father in the Psalms, which says, "My Son art Thou; to-day have I begotten Thee. Ask of Me, and I will give Thee Gentiles as Thine heritage, and as Thy possession the bounds of the earth."254 [2] For you will not be able to affirm that "son" to be David rather than Christ; or the "bounds of the earth" to have been promised rather to David, who reigned within the single (country of) Judea, than to Christ, who has already taken captive the whole orb with the faith of His gospel; as He says through Isaiah: "Behold, I have given Thee for a covenant of my family, for a light of Gentiles, that Thou mayst open the eyes of the blind"--of course, such as err--"to outloose from bonds the bound"--t[/b]hat is, to free them from sins[/b]--"and from the house of prison"[/b]--that is, of death--[/b]"such as sit in darkness" --of ignorance, to wit. And if these blessings accrue through Christ, they will not have been prophesied of another than Him through whom we consider them to have been accomplished.

Therefore, since the sons of Israel affirm that we err in receiving the Christ, who is already come, let us put in a demurrer against them out of the Scriptures themselves, to the effect that the Christ who was the theme of prediction is come; albeit by the times of Daniel's prediction we have proved that the Christ is come already who was the theme of announcement. Now it behoved Him to be born in Bethlehem of Judah. [2] For thus it is written in the prophet: "And thou, Bethlehem, are not the least in the leaders of Judah: for out of thee shall issue a Leader who shall feed my People Israel."258 But if hitherto he has not been born, what "leader" was it who was thus announced as to proceed from the tribe of Judah, out of Bethlehem? [3] For it behoves him to proceed from the tribe of Judah and from Bethlehem. But we perceive that now none of the race of Israel has remained in Bethlehem; and (so it has been) ever since the interdict was issued forbidding any one of the Jews to linger in the confines of the very district, in order that this prophetic utterance also should be perfectly fulfilled: [4] "Your land is desert, your cities burnt up by fire,"--that is, (he is foretelling) what will have happened to them in time of war "your region strangers shall eat up in your sight, and it shall be desert and subverted by alien peoples."259 And in another place it is thus said through the prophet: "The King with His glory ye shall see,"--that is, Christ, doing deeds of power in the glory of God the Father;260 "and your eyes shall see the land from afar,"261 --which is what you do, being prohibited, in reward of your deserts, since the storming of Jerusalem, to enter into your land; it is permitted you merely to see it with your eyes from afar: "your soul," he says, "shall meditate terror,"262 --namely, at the time when they suffered the ruin of themselves.263[5] How, therefore, will a "leader" be born from Judea, and how far will he "proceed from Bethlehem," as the divine volumes of the prophets do plainly announce; since none at all is left there to this day of (the house of) Israel, of whose stock Christ could be born?

Now, if (according to the Jews) He is hitherto not come, when He begins to come whence will He be anointed?264 [6] For the Law enjoined that, in captivity, it was not lawful for the unction of the royal chrism to be compounded.265 But, if there is no longer "unction" there as Daniel prophesied (for he says, "Unction shall be exterminated (exterminabitur), it follows that they267 no longer have it, because neither have they a temple where was the "horn"268 from which kings were wont to be anointed. [7] If, then, there is no unction, whence shall be anointed the "leader" who shall be born in Bethlehem? or how shall he proceed "from Bethlehem," seeing that of the seed of Israel none at all exists in Bethlehem.

[8] A second time, in fact, let us show that Christ is already come, (as foretold) through the prophets, and has suffered, and is already received back in the heavens, and thence is to come accordingly as the predictions prophesied. [9] For, after His advent, we read, according to Daniel, that the city itself had to be exterminated (civitas exterminari); and we recognise that so it has befallen. For the Scripture says thus, that "the city and the holy place are simultaneously exterminated together with the leader (civitatem et sanctum simul exterminari cum duce),"269 --undoubtedly (that Leader) who was to proceed "from Bethlehem," and from the tribe of "Judah." [10] Whence, again, it is manifest that "the city must simultaneously be exterminated (exterminari)" at the time when its "Leader" had to suffer in it, (as foretold) through the Scriptures of the prophets, who say: "I have outstretched my hands the whole day unto a People contumacious and gainsaying Me, who walketh in a way not good, but after their own sins."270 And in the Psalms, David says: "They exterminated my hands and feet: they counted all my bones; they themselves, moreover, contemplated and saw me, and in my thirst slaked me with vinegar (Expandi manus meas tota die ad populum contumacem et contradicentem mihi, qui ambulant via non bona sed post peccata sua. Item in psalmis: Exterminaverunt manus meas et pedes, dinumeraverunt omnia ossa mea; ipsi autem contemplati sunt et viderunt me, et: In siti mea potaverunt me aceto.)."271 [11] These things David did not suffer, so as to seem justly to have spoken of himself; but the Christ who was crucified. Moreover, the "hands and feet," are not "exterminated," except His who is suspended on a "tree." (manus et pedes non exterminantur nisi eius qui in ligno suspenditur) Whence, again, David said that "the Lord would reign from the tree: "273 for elsewhere, too, the prophet predicts the fruit of this "tree," saying "The earth hath given her blessings,"274 --of course that virgin-earth, not yet irrigated with rains, nor fertilized by showers, out of which man was of yore first formed, out of which now Christ through the flesh has been born of a virgin; "and the tree,"275 he says, "hath brought his fruit,"276 --not that "tree" in paradise which yielded death to the protoplasts, but the "tree" of the passion of Christ, whence life, hanging, was by you not believed!

Against Marcion 3

Even at the very beginning of the Psalms the Father's promise will meet you: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee: require of me and I will give thee the gentiles for thine inheritance, and the boundaries of the earth for thy possession.a You cannot claim that David, rather than Christ, is his son: or that the boundaries of the earth were promised to David, whose reign was confined to the one single nation of the Jews, rather than to
Christ, who has by now taken the whole world captive by the faith of his gospel. So also by Isaiah: I have given thee for a covenant of the race, for a light of the nations, to open the eyes of the blind, those who are in error, to loose from their bonds those that are bound, that is, to set them free from sins, and from the cell of the prison, which is death, those who sit in darkness, the darkness of ignorance. If these things are coming to pass through Christ, they cannot have been prophesied of any other than him through whom they are coming to pass. Also in another place: Behold I have set him for a testimony to the nations, a prince and commander to the nations: nations which know not thee shall call upon thee, and peoples shall take refuge with thee.c You cannot interpret this of David on the ground that he had just previously said, And I will ordain for you an eternal covenant, the religious and faithful things of David.d Nay rather, the more so from this <text> will you need to understand that Christ is reckoned <as derived> from David by carnal descent, because of the lineage of Mary the virgin.

What Against Marcion 3 avoids is the strange translation "Exterminaverunt manus meas et pedes" which is unique to this text. Elsewhere Tertullian cites the scripture in the normal way shared by Jerome among others "foderunt manus meas et pedes."

Now I have to admit "exterminating" or "expelling" my hands and feet really makes no sense. But the author of Against the Jews connects it with the Jews being told by Daniel that their cities would be 'exterminated' as well as the oil for anointing would be 'exterminated' in Daniel chapter 9. Perhaps we have the germ of the idea here of the Marcionites not thinking that the messiah (Christ) was in the Jewish prophesies. For the normal way of translating Daniel 9:26 is that the messiah will be cut off (yikkaret). Aquila translates this line:

And after the seven weeks and the sixty-two, he that is anointed (ἠλειμμένος) shall be destroyed (ἐξολοθρευθήσεται), and there is no place for him

So by saying the unction will be destroyed I think the author is following the Aquila translation and thus - from the perspective of the editor of the third edition of Against Marcion denying that 'Christ' is mentioned in this verse.

Look at how Lactantius preserves a similar tradition about those who prefer 'Chrestos' and the Aquila translation:

Some one may perhaps ask who this is who is so powerful, so beloved by God, and what name He has, who was not only begotten at first before the world, but who also arranged it by His wisdom and constructed it by His might. First of all, it is befitting that we should know that His name is not known even to the angels who dwell in heaven, but to Himself only, and to God the Father; nor will that name be published, as the sacred writings relate, before that the purpose of God shall be fulfilled. In the next place, we must know that this name cannot be uttered by the mouth of man, as Hermes teaches, saying these things: Now the cause of this cause is the will of the divine good which produced God, whose name cannot be uttered by the mouth of man. And shortly afterwards to His Son: There is, O Son, a secret word of wisdom, holy respecting the only Lord of all things, and the God first perceived by the mind, to speak of whom is beyond the power of man. But although His name, which the supreme Father gave Him from the beginning, is known to none but Himself, nevertheless He has one name among the angels, and another among men, since He is called Jesus among men: for Christ is not a proper name, but a title of power and dominion; for by this the Jews were accustomed to call their kings.

But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account of the error of the ignorant, who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus. The Jews had before been directed to compose a sacred oil, with which those who were called to the priesthood or to the kingdom might be anointed. And as now the robe of purple is a sign of the assumption of royal dignity among the Romans, so with them the anointing with the holy oil conferred the title and power of king. But since the ancient Greeks used the word anointing (χρίεσθαι), which they now express by anointed them with oil (ἀλείφεσθαι) as the verse of Homer shows,

“But the attendants washed, and anointed (χρισαν) them with oil;”

on this account we call Him Christ, that is, the Anointed, who in Hebrew is called the Messias. Hence in some Greek writings, which are badly translated from the Hebrew, the word eleimmenos (ἠλειμμένος) is found written, from the word aleiphesthai (ἀλείφεσθαι), anointing. But, however, by either name a king is signified: not that He has obtained this earthly kingdom, the time for receiving which has not yet arrived, but that He sways a heavenly and eternal kingdom, concerning which we shall speak in the last book. But now let us speak of His first nativity. [Lactantius Divine Institutes 4.7]

My point of course is that the final editor of the third edition of Against Marcion employed Against the Jews up to this point - i.e. the point at which the author made this point about 'the unction' being 'destroyed' before the destruction of the temple and how this relates to Jesus's 'hands and feet' being 'exterminated' as well as the cities of Judea. In the parallel sections of Against Marcion he accuses the Marcionites of denying that these prophesies pertain to Christ and posit 'another Christ' in his place. But this has to go back to an alternative edition of Daniel where a different word was used to denote 'anointing' and 'the anointed one' which the author clearly took to denote 'a different Christ' (than the Christos) of the Christians. But is this really so? I don't think so. Sounds like a lot of ado about nothing to me. I think the choice of the preferred Marcionite translation of Daniel (i.e. ἠλειμμένος) as denoting 'messiah' was understood to be a denial of a prophesy regarding 'Christ' in the preferred Catholic translation of Daniel i.e. the LXX.

It is very interesting to see in the later Roman law books that Aquila's translation was expressly forbidden - undoubtedly for this reason - and that 'the Jews' seemed to have preferred this translation.

[Secret Alias]

Note also that Mark clearly employs the other verb:

And they cast out many devils and anointed (ἤλειφον) with oil many that were sick and healed them [Mark 6:13]

And when the sabbath was past Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome had bought sweet spices that they might come and anoint (ἀλείψωσιν) him [Mark 16:1]

[Secret Alias]

And it is worth noting that there are two subtly distinct arguments made about the Marcionites in Book 3 which both derive from a (deliberate) misreading of Against the Jews. Namely, there are two Christs and the Jewish scriptures had nothing to do with 'Christ.' In the former case it is worth

Against the Jews 14

Learn now (over and above the immediate question) the clue to your error. We affirm, two characters of the Christ demonstrated by the prophets, and as many advents of His forenoted: one, in humility (of course the first), when He has to be led "as a sheep for a victim; and, as a lamb voiceless before the shearer, so He opened not His mouth," not even in His aspect comely. [2] For "we have announced," says the prophet, "concerning Him, (He is) as a little child, as a root in a thirsty land; and there was not in Him attractiveness or glory. And we saw Him, and He had not attractiveness or grace; but His mien was unhonoured, deficient in comparison of the sons of men,"320 "a man set in the plague,321 and knowing how to bear infirmity: "to wit as having been set by the Father "for a stone of offence,"322 and "made a little lower" by Him "than angels,"323 He pronounces Himself "a worm, and not a man, an ignominy of man, and the refuse of the People."324 [3] Which evidences of ignobility suit the First Advent, just as those of sublimity do the Second; when He shall be made no longer "a stone of offence nor a rock of scandal," but "the highest corner-stone,"325 after reprobation (on earth) taken up (into heaven) and raised sublime for the purpose of consummation,326 and that "rock"--so we must admit--which is read of in Daniel as forecut from a mount, which shall crush and crumble the image of secular kingdoms.327 [4] Of which second advent of the same (Christ) Daniel has said: "And, behold, as it were a Son of man, coming with the clouds of the heaven, came unto the Ancient of days, and was present in His sight; and they who were standing by led (Him) unto Him. And there was given Him royal power; and all nations of the earth, according to their race, and all glory, shall serve Him: and His power is eternal, which shall not be taken away, and His kingdom one which shall not be corrupted."328 [5] Then, assuredly, is He to have an honourable mien, and a grace not "deficient more than the sons of men; "for (He will then be) "blooming in beauty in comparison with the sons of men."329 "Grace," says the Psalmist, "hath been outpoured in Thy lips: wherefore God hath blessed Thee unto eternity. Gird Thee Thy sword around Thy thigh, most potent in Thy bloom and beauty!"330 while the Father withal afterwards, after making Him somewhat lower than angels, "crowned Him with glory and honour and subjected all things beneath His feet."331 [6] And then shall they "learn to know Him whom they pierced, and shall beat their breasts tribe by tribe; "332 of course because in days bygone they did not know Him when conditionedin the humility of human estate. Jeremiah says: "He is a human being, and who will learn to know Him? "333 because, "His nativity," says Isaiah, "who shall declare?" [7] So, too, in Zechariah, in His own person, nay, in the very mystery334 of His name withal, the most true Priest of the Father, His own335 Christ, is delineated in a twofold garb with reference to the Two Advents.336 First, He was clad in "sordid attire," that is, in the indignity of passible and mortal flesh, when the devil, withal, was opposing himself to Him--the instigator, to wit, of Judas the traitor337 --who even after His baptism had tempted Him. In the next place, He was stripped of His former sordid raiment, and adorned with a garment down to the foot, and with a turban and a clean mitre, that is, (with the garb) of the Second Advent; since He is demonstrated as having attained "glory and honour." [8] Nor will you be able to say that the man (there depicted) is "the son of Jozadak,"338 who was never at all clad in a sordid garment, but was always adorned with the sacerdotal garment, nor ever deprived of the sacerdotal function. But the "Jesus" there alluded to is Christ, the Priest of God the most high Father; who at His First Advent came in humility, in human form, and passible, even up to the period of His passion; being Himself likewise made, through all (stages of suffering) a victim for us all; who after His resurrection was"clad with a garment down to the foot,"340 and named the Priest of God the Father unto eternity.341 [9] So, again, I will make an interpretation of the two goats which were habitually offered on the fast-day.342 Do not they, too, point to each successive stage in the character of the Christ who is already come? A pair, on the one hand, and consimilar (they were), because of the identity of the Lord's general appearance, inasmuch as He is not to come in some other form, seeing that He has to be recognised by those by whom He was once hurt. But the one of them, begirt with scarlet, amid cursing and universal spitting, and tearing, and piercing, was cast away by the People outside the city into perdition, marked with manifest tokens of Christ's passion; who, after being begirt with scarlet garment, and subjected to universal spitting, and afflicted with all contumelies, was crucified outside the city.343 The other, however: offered for sins, and given as food to the priests merely of the temple,344 gave signal evidences of the second appearance; in so far as, after the expiation of all sins, the priests of the spiritual temple, that is, of the church, were to enjoy345 a spiritual public distribution (as it were) of the Lord's grace, while all others are fasting from salvation. Therefore, since the vaticinations of the First Advent obscured it with manifold figures, and debased it with every dishonour, while the Second (was foretold as) manifest and wholly worthy of God, it has resulted therefrom, that, by fixing their gaze on that one alone which they could easily understand and believe (that is, the Second, which is in honour and glory), they have been (not undeservedly) deceived as to the more obscure--at all events, the more unworthy--that is, the First. And thus to the present moment they affirm that their Christ is not come, because He is not come in majesty; while they are ignorant of346 the fact that He was first to come in humility.

Against Marcion 3

It is now possible for the heretic to learn, and the Jew as well, what he ought to know already, the reason for the Jew's errors: for from the Jew the heretic has accepted guidance in this discussion, the blind borrowing from the blind, and has fallen into the same ditch. I affirm that two descriptions of Christ, set forth by the prophets, indicated beforehand an equal number of advents: one of them, the first, in humility, when he was to be led like a sheep to sacrifice, and as a lamb before his shearer is voiceless so he opens not his mouth, and not even in form was he comely. For, he says, We have announced concerning him: as a little boy, as a root in thirsty ground: and he has no appearance nor glory, and we saw him, and he had no appearance or beauty, but his appearance was unhonoured, defective more than the sons of men, a man in sorrow, and knowing how to bear infirmity:a because set by the Father for a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence.b Made by him a little lower than the angels declaring himself a worm and no man, the scorn of man and the outcast of the people.d These tokens of ignobility apply to the first advent, as the tokens of sublimity apply to the second, when he will become no longer a stone of stumbling or a rock of offence, but the chief corner-stone, after rejection taken back again and set on high at the summit of the temple—that is, the Church—that rock in fact mentioned by Daniel, which was carved out of a mountain, which will break in pieces and grind to powder the image of the kingdoms of this world.2,e Concerning this advent the same prophet speaks: And behold, one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, came even to the Ancient of days: he was in his presence: and the attendants brought him forward, and there was given to him royal power, and all nations of the earth after their kinds, and all glory to serve <him>, and his power even for ever, that shall not be taken away, and his kingdom, that shall not be destroyed:f then, it means, he will have an honourable appearance, and beauty unfading, more than the sons of men. For it says, Fairer in beauty beyond the sons of men; grace is poured forth in thy lips; therefore God hath blessed thee for ever. Gird the sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty in thy worshipfulness and thy beauty.g Then also the Father, now that he has made him a little lower than the angels, will crown him with glory and honour, and will put all things beneath his feet. Then those who pierced him will know who he is, and will smite their breasts, tribe to tribe— because in fact they formerly failed to recognize him in the humility of human condition: And he is a man, says Jeremiah, and who shall know him?h Because also, Isaiah says, His nativity, who shall tell of it?i So also in Zechariah, in the person of Jeshua, yes truly, in a name which is itself a sacrament, the veritable high priest of the Father, Christ Jesus, is by two styles of raiment marked out for two advents: he is at first clothed in filthy garments, which means the indignity of passible and mortal flesh, when also the devil stands as his adversary, the devil who put it into the heart of Judas the traitor, not to mention himself being the tempter after <Christ's> baptism: afterwards he is divested of his previous foulness, and arrayed in robe and mitre and shining crown, which means the glory and dignity of his second coming.3 If also I am to submit an interpretation of the two goats which were offered at the Fast,j are not these also figures of Christ's two activities?4 They are indeed of the same age and appearance because the Lord's is one and the same aspect: because he will return in no other form, seeing he has to be recognized by those of whom he has suffered injury. One of them however, surrounded with scarlet, cursed and spit upon and pulled about and pierced, was by the people driven out of the city into perdition, marked with manifest tokens of our Lord's passion: while the other, made an offering for sins, and given as food to the priests of the temple, marked the tokens of his second manifestation, at which, when all sins have been done away, the priests of the spiritual temple, which is the Church, were to enjoy as it were a feast of our Lord's grace, while the rest remain without a taste of salvation. So then, seeing that the first advent was for the most part prophesied under the obscurity of figures, and borne down with every sort of indignity, while the second was both clearly told of, and was of divine dignity, they set their eyes on that one alone which they could easily understand and easily believe, the second, and thus were, as might have been expected, misled in respect of the less evident, admittedly less dignified, which was the first. Thus even until this day they refuse to admit that their Christ has come, because he has not come in majesty, being unaware that he was first also to come in humility.

Notice that the red material marks a line of argumentation that the editor of Against Marcion 3 wanted to avoid - namely that the 'Jesus' of Zechariah was the Christian Lord Jesus.

[Secret Alias]

I notice Evans came to the same conclusions I did about the 'final editor' of the third edition of Against Marcion being the one who compiled Against Marcion Book 3 from a footnote at the beginning of chapter 12 which is the parallel to Against the Jews 9 (and dealt with earlier in this thread). Evans writes:

The substance of Chapters 12—14 reappears as adv. Jud. 9. It is disputed whether that part of adv. Jud. was written by Tertullian or by someone who made use of his work—perhaps the unauthorized transcriber mentioned at I. 1. 1 above.

But don't scholars think these things through? The 'unauthorized transcriber' is by necessity the final editor of the work Against Marcion as we have it now. It's hard to separate him from the 'real work.' The real work was originally written in Greek by Irenaeus and before him most of the material came from Justin. There isn't a 'real Against Marcion' left to read or examine any longer.

[rakovsky]

What do other people think?

[Secret Alias]

Overview of the contents of Against Marcion 3:

INTRODUCTION TO THE AUTHOR'S USE OF AGAINST THE JEWS

Chapter 1: intro to the work. Thesis identified: "Christ cannot be thought of as belonging to any god except the Creator." This allegedly derives from the thesis already established in previous books "that there cannot be any god besides the Creator." Moreover "no mention was ever made of a second god or a second Christ until Marcion's offence came in." This is an echo of the statement in 1.19 " it was under Antoninus that, as I have proved, Marcion first brought this god on the scene." This is what is acknowledged in 3.1 "This is quite easily proved by a review of the apostolic churches and those of the heretics—namely, that where we find late appearance, there we must decide that the rule of the faith has been overturned. I have touched upon this already in my first book." But this is also a key argument in Book 4. Yet over and over again the author states that his purpose in this book is to discuss the Marcionite "this discussion, like bees swarming, breaks off to treat of the Christ separately, and will have the result that in proving that Christ is the Creator's we shut out Marcion's god from this side as well."

With this we can I think begin to see why Against the Jews might have been chosen for falsification. The Jews say that Jesus wasn't the messiah prophesied by scripture. Against the Jews makes a comprehensive case for Jesus as the messiah of the 'Old Testament.' To this end, it was a useful text as the main argument could - at least in theory - be repurposed for another group which denied this understanding. Yet as I have noted once before, one can't get the feeling that the Marcionites 'denied' the same premise owing to their translation of Daniel where mashiach is rendered something other than the Greek christos.

Chapter 2: argument for Christ not coming unexpectedly (apparently a Marcionite understanding because of the lack of prophecy for 'Christ'). But again how much knowledge the did the final editor have of the Marcionite tradition? Could a sophisticated author have really repurposed a writing against the Jews to make arguments against Marcion? Why not compose a text from scratch with actual knowledge of the group? Clearly even if there was an underlying similarity between Jews and Marcionites with respect to the resistance to "Christ" - why not, if you are intimate with Marcionites develop an argument based upon knowledge of the group rather than reusing a treatise which has nothing to do with Marcionism? Unknown source.

Chapter 3 argument about faith. The author says that the Christ had to have prophesy associated with his coming otherwise it would be irrational for God to put judgment on mankind for not 'believing' in Jesus. Yet the author puts forward that the Marcionites simply argued that God expected to believe in his miracles. Here is the key exchange:

Only by being built up in this order (i.e. prophesy first and then Christ' advent) could faith with good cause be imposed upon man by God, and shown towards God by man—a faith which, since there was knowledge, might be required to believe because belief was a possibility, and in fact had learned to believe by virtue of that previous announcement. There was no need, you say, for such an ordering of events, seeing that he would immediately by the evidence of miracles prove himself in actual fact both son and emissary, and the Christ of God.

What's interesting of course is that Against the Jews has the same notion. In other words we hear the repeated standard that 'preaching and power' identified Jesus as the Christ. To this end suggests that often times the orthodoxy of the author of Against the Jews becomes 'Marcionism.' Of course the author cites the text and transforms the adversary (i.e. the Jews) into 'Marcion.' But Marcionism itself - in this case arguing that it was enough for the witnesses of Jesus miracles to believe in him because of his miracles is the stated position of the author of Against the Jews. Unknown source (but likely a reaction to the stated position of Against the Jews).

Chapter 4. the parallels which exist between Jesus and the awaited messiah of the Jews make it more likely 'Christ' was an emissary of the Creator. Again, if the whole business about Marcion 'denying' Christ because his translation of Daniel translates mashiach by something other than Christos we could read this whole section as developing out of hyperbole and exaggeration. Again likely only a response to Against the Jews.

Chapter 5. "I propose to prove that Christ belonged to the Creator." But again it is important to note that the concept of messiah does not appear in scriptures outside of Daniel. The author of Against the Jews used Theodotion's translation of Daniel or a translation which did not translate mashiach as Christos. To this end there were no explicit examples of 'messiah' to make the connection. It is interesting that Epiphanius claims that Theodotion was a Marcionite - https://books.google.com/books?id=bbIlD ... on&f=false In other words, the idea must be already there that the Marcionite text had 'unction' rather than 'Christ.' To this end, the fact that the author of Against the Jews used Theodotion (cf. Dunn for confirmation https://books.google.com/books?id=UL7CR ... QQ6AEIKTAA) might be the entire basis for connecting Theodotion to Marcion. In other words, Marcion's 'denial' that Christ was referenced by the prophets is in my mind simply a product of the author of Against the Jews usage of Theodotion. Once you eliminate Daniel it's hard to argue for a coming messiah.

To this end the author of Against the Jews in this chapter argues for two concessions to make his case that Jesus was the Christ of the prophets. "The first is that by which things future are sometimes set down as if they had already taken place." This is clearly to make up for the absence of prophetic references for the term christos once you eliminate Daniel. Secondly he argues "another form of speech will be that by which not a few things are set forth figuratively by means of enigmas and allegories and parables, and are to be understood otherwise than as they are written." In other words, in order to make it accepted that the Old Testament predicts the coming of the Christ we will have to read the texts symbolically. But again this is to address the textual difficulty that there are no explicit predictions regarding any figure call 'the Christ' in the Old Testament.

Chapter 6. More attempts to deal with the textual difficulties raised by the 'Marcionites.' The author writes again that anyone looking for Christ being predicted in the Old Testament has to acknowledge these "two peculiarities of Jewish literature" - namely things said to have occurred in the past can be 'reinterpreted' as happening in the future (with regards to Isaiah's Emmanuel references clearly) and literal things have to be re-examined figuratively. Clearly this situation is brought about by a lack of explicit references to a 'Christ' appearing in the future in these same texts. To this end the author goes on to say:

since heretical madness was claiming that that Christ had come who had never been previously mentioned, it followed that it had to contend that that Christ was not yet come who had from all time been foretold: and so it was compelled to form an alliance with Jewish error, and from it to build up an argument for itself, on the pretext that the Jews, assured that he who has come was an alien, not only rejected him as a stranger but even put him to death as an opponent, although they would beyond doubt have recognized him and have treated him with all religious devotion if he had been their own.

Yet as we have noted while the author claims that Marcionites adapted to Judaism, we've just seen that it is the author who has adapted a text originally written against the Jews to one against Marcion. What he is saying here is garbage. What is really at issue is the fact that Against the Jews used Theodotion which 'takes away' the only explicit reference to Christ in the Old Testament. For whatever reason the author took the author essentially as a Marcionite, and despite this adapted all his arguments against the Jews against Marcion. Could the original author have been Apelles and thus a historical justification was somehow rendered (i.e. because Apelles was claimed to have 'broken' with Marcion)? Not clear.

But the chapter goes on to attack the emphasis in Against the Jews that Christ was to be recognized according to "preaching and power":

for their principal wise men, the scribes, and their prudent men, the pharisees, were to be in error against him; as likewise the people were to hear with their ears and not hear— Christ teaching—and to see with their eyes and not see—Christ working miracles—as it is said also in another place,

The author goes on to say that the Marcionites took over Jewish arguments (again because he himself took over a treatise against the Jews, it wasn't based on any plausible historical context). But says that the prophesies mention the fact that 'Christ' would be rejected by the Jews. Yet the scriptures he references do not explicitly reference a Jewish rejection of someone named 'Christ' but instead he is 'the servant' (the Suffering Servant) and a host of other names.

THE AUTHOR'S DIRECT COPYING OF AGAINST THE JEWS BEGINS (AND ON THE FLESH OF CHRIST)

Chapter 7. According to Evans "This chapter is taken up again, adv. Jud. 14"

Chapter 8. The author deals with the Marcionite claim that "Christ was a phantasm." The principal source for this assertion is 1 John 4.2. Indeed given the fact that the author has appropriated material from a treatise on the Flesh of Christ in the next chapter this is just a preliminary chapter justifying identifying the Marcionites as that sect.

Chapter 9. According to Evans "This chapter is almost verbally reproduced in de carne Christi 3."

Chapter 10. According to Evans "On gnostic and Marcionite vilification of the human body, de carne Christi 4, de res. carnis 4."

Chapter 11. Has parallels with the next section in On the Flesh of Christ according to Evans "Apelles: de carns Christi 6-9. On the virgin Philumena see the statement of Rhodo, quoted by Eusebius, H.E. v. xiii. 2-7"

Chapter 12 - 14. Evans writes "The substance of Chapters 12—14 reappears as adv. Jud. 9. It is disputed whether that part of adv. Jud. was written by Tertullian or by someone who made use of his work—perhaps the unauthorized transcriber mentioned at I. 1. 1 above. It is curious to note that the arguments for 'Christ' being foretold in the Jewish scriptures in Against the Jews here has absolutely no explicit readings of 'christos' anywhere owing to the use of Theodotion. The section concludes "so the Christ who has come will be Isaiah's Christ, for the very reason that he was not a warrior, because he is not by Isaiah described as such."

Chapter 15 here we have a discussion about whether or not the term 'christos' was a common noun - " in your opinion the name of Christ is a common noun, just as the name of god is." And again "It was to no effect that he chose not to be taken for that one whose name he chose to bear, when even if he had in fact possessed a body, he would have been more likely not to be taken for the Creator's Christ if he were not using his name... For if Christ means 'anointed' ..." And again "But how, they ask, could he have worked his way into the Jews' confidence except by a name which was usual and familiar among them?" These arguments make little sense.

Chapter 16. discussion about the name Jesus (Justin Dialogue)

Chapter 17. hodgepodge of arguments from Against the Jews

Chapter 18. Evans notes "This chapter runs parallel with adv. Jud. 10."

Chapter 19. Reflection on material from Against the Jews

Chapter 20. Evans notes "This chapter runs parallel with adv. Jud. 12."

Chapter 21. Reflection on material from Against the Jews

Chapter 22. Evans notes "This chapter runs parallel with adv. Jud. 11"

Chapter 23. Culmination of the work. " Next, seeing you agree with the Jews in denying that their Christ has come, take note also of the end which it was prophesied they would bring upon themselves after Christ's coming, through their impiety in despising him and putting him to death." Note that this is the reality reported repeatedly by Celsus especially in what is now Against Celsus Book 3.

[Secret Alias]

Allusions to Daniel in Against the Jews

Daniel 2:34,35 - 3 § 8 (p.1346, l.61) BP1
Daniel 7:14 - 6 § 2 (p.1353, l.25) BP1
Daniel 9:26 8 § 1 (p.1356, l.4) BP1
Daniel 9:1, 2 - 8 § 4 (p.1357, l.16) BP1
Daniel 9:20 - 8 § 4 (p.1357, l.19 - V)
Daniel 9:27 8 § 4 (p.1357, l.19 - V) BP1
Daniel 9:25 - 8 § 7 (p.1358, l.44 - V) BP1
Daniel 9:26 8 § 8 (p.1358, l.51 - V) BP1
Daniel 9: 27 8 § 8 (p.1358, l.51 - V) BP1
Daniel 9:25 - 8 § 9 (p.1359, l.59 - V) BP1
Daniel 9:24 - 8 § 12 (p.1361, l.88) BP1
Daniel 9:24 - 8 § 16 (p.1363, l.129) BP1
Daniel 9:26 - 8 § 17 (p.1363, l.134) BP1
Daniel 9:24 - 11 § 10 (p.1383, l.57) BP1
Daniel 9:26 - 13 § 6 (p.1385, l.34) BP1
Daniel 9:26 - 13 § 9 (p.1386, l.42) BP1
Daniel 2:34, 35 - 14 § 3 (p.1392, l.19) BP1
Daniel 7:13, 14 - 14 § 4 (p.1392, l.22) BP1

References to Daniel in Against Marcion 3

Daniel 2.34, 35 3 7 § 3 (p.516, l.25) BP1
Daniel 7:13, 14 3 7 § 4 (p.516, l.27) BP1
Daniel 7:14 3 24 § 11 (p.544, l.25) BP1

That's quite a loss of material! Clearly when the editor of Against Marcion 3 was making changes to Against the Jews he completely removed any discussion of Daniel chapter 9 - which formed a central part of Against the Jews's original argument. This is where the lack of reference to 'Christos' in Daniel chapter 9 forms an important part of the author's understanding.

[Secret Alias]

If we go a little deeper Daniel is cited in chapters 3, 6, 8, 11, 13 and 14 in Against the Jews but only one of those references is retained in Against the Jews - viz. the following reference:

Which evidences of ignobility suit the First Advent, just as those of sublimity do the Second; when He shall be made no longer "a stone of offence nor a rock of scandal," but "the highest corner-stone,"325 after reprobation (on earth) taken up (into heaven) and raised sublime for the purpose of consummation,326 and that "rock"--so we must admit--which is read of in Daniel as forecut from a mount, which shall crush and crumble the image of secular kingdoms.327 [4] Of which second advent of the same (Christ) Daniel has said: "And, behold, as it were a Son of man, coming with the clouds of the heaven, came unto the Ancient of days, and was present in His sight; and they who were standing by led (Him) unto Him. And there was given Him royal power; and all nations of the earth, according to their race, and all glory, shall serve Him: and His power is eternal, which shall not be taken away, and His kingdom one which shall not be corrupted."328 [5] Then, assuredly, is He to have an honourable mien, and a grace not "deficient more than the sons of men; "for (He will then be) "blooming in beauty in comparison with the sons of men. [Against the Jews 14.3]

These tokens of ignobility apply to the first advent, as the tokens of sublimity apply to the second, when he will become no longer a stone of stumbling or a rock of offence, but the chief corner-stone, after rejection taken back again and set on high at the summit of the temple—that is, the Church—that rock in fact mentioned by Daniel, which was carved out of a mountain, which will break in pieces and grind to powder the image of the kingdoms of this world.2,e Concerning this advent the same prophet speaks: And behold, one like a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, came even to the Ancient of days: he was in his presence: and the attendants brought him forward, and there was given to him royal power, and all nations of the earth after their kinds, and all glory to serve <him>, and his power even for ever, that shall not be taken away, and his kingdom, that shall not be destroyed:f then, it means, he will have an honourable appearance, and beauty unfading, more than the sons of men. [Against Marcion 3.7]

So to put this in perspective:

Against the Jews 3 § 8 (p.1346, l.61) (Daniel 2:34,35)
Against the Jews 6 § 2 (p.1353, l.25) (Daniel 7:14)
Against the Jews 8 § 1 (p.1356, l.4) (Daniel 9:26)
Against the Jews 8 § 4 (p.1357, l.19 - V) Daniel 9:1, 20, 27)
Against the Jews 8 § 7 (p.1358, l.44 - V) (Daniel 9:25)
Against the Jews 8 § 8 (p.1358, l.51 - V) (Daniel 9:26, 27)
Against the Jews 8 § 9 (p.1359, l.59 - V) (Daniel 9:25)
Against the Jews 8 § 12 (p.1361, l.88) (Daniel 9:24)
Against the Jews 8 § 16 (p.1363, l.129) (Daniel 9:24)
Against the Jews 8 § 17 (p.1363, l.134) (Daniel 9:26)
Against the Jews 11 § 10 (p.1383, l.57) (Daniel 9:24 )
Against the Jews 13 § 6 (p.1385, l.34) (Daniel 9:26 )
Against the Jews 13 § 9 (p.1386, l.42) (Daniel 9:26 )
Against the Jews 14 § 3 (p.1392, l.19) (Daniel 2:34, 35)
Against the Jews 14 § 4 (p.1392, l.22) (Daniel 7:13, 14)

Only one of the dozen references to Daniel is kept from Against the Jews in the new creation Against Marcion 3 and not only that. The editor actually reached all the way back to the end of the original work and made this section (Against the Jews 14.3) the second paragraph of the work as a whole:

Our heretic will now have the fullest opportunity of learning the clue of his errors along with the Jew himself, from whom he has borrowed his guidance in this discussion. Since, however, the blind leads the blind, they fall into the ditch together. We affirm that, as there are two conditions demonstrated by the prophets to belong to Christ, so these presignified the same number of advents; one, and that the first, was to be in lowliness, when He had to be led as a sheep to be slain as a victim, and to be as a lamb dumb before the shearer, not opening His mouth, and not fair to look upon. For, says (the prophet), we have announced concerning Him: "He is like a tender plant, like a root out of a thirsty ground; He hath no form nor comeliness; and we beheld Him, and He was without beauty: His form was disfigured; " "marred more than the sons of men; a man stricken with sorrows, and knowing how to bear our infirmity; "placed by the Father as a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence; "made by Him a little lower than the angels; "declaring Himself to be "a worm and not a man, a reproach of men, and despised of the people."

Now these signs of degradation quite suit His first coming, just as the tokens of His majesty do His second advent, when He shall no longer remain "a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence," but after His rejection become "the chief corner-stone," accepted and elevated to the top place of the temple, even His church, being that very stone in Daniel, cut out of the mountain, which was to smite and crush the image of the secular kingdom [4] Of this advent the same prophet says: "Behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days; and they brought Him before Him, and there was given Him dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away; and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed." Then indeed He shall have both a glorious form, and an unsullied beauty above the sons of men.

Note that Daniel forms the second part of a two part advent 'explained' from scriptures. But people haven't considered this deeply enough. You basically have two different messianic prophesies - citations from Isaiah (i.e. Isa 53:2, 3, 8:14) for what is called the weak messiah and citations from Daniel to describe the glorious royal messiah (Daniel 2.34, 35 and Daniel 7:13, 14). The two figures are very different but it is argued here that both advents, both figures are of the same person - the Christ. But clearly a strong case could be made that really what we have are two different messianic figures.

To that end it is very interesting to see the editor of Against Marcion 3 to reach back to what is the very 'back' of Against the Jews and pluck this passage out of context and start his re-purposed work from this particular use of Daniel and then avoid all subsequent references to Daniel in what follows. It almost begins to appear as if Daniel is a 'problem' and the author systematic turns around virtually all the other words in Against the Jews for his new project. The fact that the rest of Against the Jews is so focused on Daniel chapter 9 - chapter 9 of Daniel being the only prophetic reference to 'the Christ' is preserved in our preferred Greek text - and that same author prefers a Greek translation which avoids the use of christos is a big deal:

Against the Jews 8 § 1 (p.1356, l.4) (Daniel 9:26)
Against the Jews 8 § 4 (p.1357, l.19 - V) Daniel 9:1, 20, 27)
Against the Jews 8 § 7 (p.1358, l.44 - V) (Daniel 9:25)
Against the Jews 8 § 8 (p.1358, l.51 - V) (Daniel 9:26, 27)
Against the Jews 8 § 9 (p.1359, l.59 - V) (Daniel 9:25)
Against the Jews 8 § 12 (p.1361, l.88) (Daniel 9:24)
Against the Jews 8 § 16 (p.1363, l.129) (Daniel 9:24)
Against the Jews 8 § 17 (p.1363, l.134) (Daniel 9:26)
Against the Jews 11 § 10 (p.1383, l.57) (Daniel 9:24 )
Against the Jews 13 § 6 (p.1385, l.34) (Daniel 9:26 )
Against the Jews 13 § 9 (p.1386, l.42) (Daniel 9:26 )

Look carefully again. The author of Against the Jews essentially makes a Marcionite-like assertion that there are two 'messianic figures.' He also uses the Marcionite-associated targum, Theodotion, to develop his understanding. It would seem as if the author and the Marcionites were superficially very similar to one another.

Moreover Against the Jews references the idea of 'the advent' of Christ no less than 25 times. When the editor of Against Marcion 3 transferred information over to his new work from Against the Jews he only left one reference to the two advent concept standing and this is at the very beginning of the work as we have seen. It is almost as if he is saying - Daniel is a problem because he doesn't use of the term 'Christ' to denote the coming one and he is a separate being from the suffering servant of Isaiah. The editor of Against Marcion 3 makes it seem as if the Marcionites opposed any Jewish scripture being used to apply to the glorious messianic figure. But isn't this just a product of his manipulation of what Against the Jews actually says - viz. Daniel's 'one who is to come' is not 'the Christ.'

Indeed if we dig into the author's most comprehensive statement of this name 'Christos' - and remembering that Marcion and the heretics preferred the homonym 'Chrestos' as the title in question we might find the author admitting that the truth about the Marcionite attitude toward the Jewish scriptures was wholly misrepresented in Against Marcion. For he writes in chapter 15:

Whenever these are wanting, there occurs what the Greeks call the katachresis of a term, by its improper application to what does not belong to it. In God, however, there ought, I suppose, to be no defect, no setting up of His dispensations by katachrestic abuse of words. Who is this god, that claims for his son names from the Creator? I say not names which do not belong to him, but ancient and well-known names, which even in this view of them would be unsuitable for a novel and unknown god. How is it, again, that he tells us that "a piece of new cloth is not sewed on to an old garment," or that "new wine is not trusted to old bottles," when he is himself patched and clad in an old suit of names? How is it he has rent off the gospel from the law, when he is wholly invested with the law,--in the name, forsooth, of Christ? What hindered his calling himself by some other name, seeing that he preached another, came from another source, and refused to take on him a real body, for the very purpose that he might not be supposed to be the Creator's Christ? Vain, however, was his unwillingness to seem to be He whose name he was willing to assume; since, even if he had been truly corporeal, he would more certainly escape being taken for the Christ of the Creator, if he had not taken on him His name. But, as it is, he rejects the substantial verity of Him whose name he has assumed, even though he should give a proof of that verity by his name. For Christ means anointed, and to be anointed is certainly an affair of the body. He who had not a body, could not by any possibility have been anointed; he who could not by any possibility have been anointed, could not in any wise have been called Christ. It is a different thing (quite), if he only assumed the phantom of a name too. [7] But how, he asks, was he to insinuate himself into being believed by the Jews, except through a name which was usual and familiar amongst them? Then 'tis a fickle and tricksty God whom you describe! To promote any plan bydeception, is the resource of either distrust or of maliciousness. Much more frank and simple was the conduct of the false prophets against the Creator, when they came in His name as their own God. But I do not find that any good came of this proceeding, since they were more apt to suppose either that Christ was their own, or rather was some deceiver, than that He was the Christ of the other god; and this the gospel will show.

The section not only defines the title pronounced 'chreestos' as meaning anointed one (christos) but it actually seems to also echo a denial of the way Marcionites interpreted the name - i.e. chrestos.

For the passage in Luke that he cites reads:

No one tears a piece of cloth from a new garment and sews it on an old one. If he does, he will tear the new garment as well, and the patch from the new will not match the old. 37And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will spill, and the wineskins will be ruined. 38Instead, new wine is poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants new, for he says, ‘The old is χρηστός (good enough).’”

The implication seems to be that 'good enough' - χρηστός - is not χριστός. As Ribbens notes:

The filling of the hands was part of the ritual of priestly ordination or consecration; as a result, to fill the hands became a technical term for consecration, which is evidenced in Lev 4:5, where the LXX translates (“the anointed priest”) with (“the anointed priest, who has had his hands filled/perfected” https://books.google.com/books?id=ZwC5D ... 22&f=false

The way Luke hints at it christos means 'perfection' and chrestos only 'good enough.'

To be honest I don't know where this leads other than acknowledging that Against Marcion is clearly engaging in misinformation. You wouldn't repurpose a work 'against the Jews' into one which was 'Against Marcion' if you were striving for accuracy. My best guess again is that since the original author of Against the Jews used Theodotion and Theodotion's translation of Daniel with its lack of 'christos' in chapter 9 is the ultimate source of the Marcionites deny that the Jewish scriptures prophesied regarding christos (Christ) the actual controversy might not have lived up to its billing.

[Secret Alias]

In his Stromata book 1, chapter 21, Clement cited the Theodotionic version of Daniel 9:24–27 and then linked this to Jesus Christ (whom he regard as the “most holy” one, v. 24):

From the captivity at Babylon, which took place in the time of Jeremiah the prophet, was fulfilled what was spoken by Daniel the prophet as follows: Seventy weeks are determined upon your people, and upon your holy city, to finish the transgression, and to seal sins, and to wipe out and make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal the vision and the prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. Know therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the word commanding an answer to be given, and Jerusalem to be built, to Christ the Prince, are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; and the street shall be again built, and the wall; and the times shall be expended. And after the sixty-two weeks the anointing shall be overthrown, and judgment shall not be in him; and he shall destroy the city and the sanctuary along with the coming Prince. And they shall be destroyed in a flood, and to the end of the war shall be cut off by desolations. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the middle of the week the sacrifice and oblation shall be taken away; and in the holy place shall be the abomination of desolations, and until the consummation of time shall the consummation be assigned for desolation. And in the midst of the week shall he make the incense of sacrifice cease, and of the wing of destruction, even till the consummation, like the destruction of the oblation. That the temple accordingly was built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras. And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judæa was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, the Holy of Holies, having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those sixty and two weeks, as the prophet said, and in the one week, was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said.

So Clement shares what we might call a 'Marcionite' - that is a preference for Theodotion like the author of Against the Jews - and that means not having 'christos' in Daniel 9:26. But that isn't the end to their affinity. Adler reminds us that 'Christ' still appears in Daniel 9:25 - the previous verse - and that Clement intimates that he is Jeshua the high priest. We should remember that this was one of the sections which the editor of Against Marcion explicitly removed from his Book 3.

Let's pay careful attention to what Adler says because I think it solves one mystery and opens another. He writes:

Like most Christian commentators, Clement understands the 'holy of holies' of v24 as foreshadowing Christ. However, he makes the beginning of the reign of the 'anointed one, a prince' contemporary with the rebuilding of the temple after seven weeks. After this 'all of Judea was at peace, and free from warfare' for 62 weeks. In casting the χριστοῦ ἡγουμένου of Dan 9:25 as a figure distinct from the anointed one expected after the ensuing 62 weeks, Clement's interpretation of v25 presupposes the Masoretic syntax of the verse.w While not expressly identifying the it is antecedently likely that Clement had in mind Jeshua, the first of the post-exilic high priests. The context of the passage suggests as much, and later representatives of the same exegetical tradition explicitly identify the χριστοῦ ἡγουμένου with either Jeshua or the whole succession of the post-exilic Jewish high priesthood.

Now let's look again at what Against Marcion 3 left out from Against the Jews:

Nor will you be able to say that the man (there depicted) is "the son of Jozadak,"338 who was never at all clad in a sordid garment, but was always adorned with the sacerdotal garment, nor ever deprived of the sacerdotal function. But the "Jesus" there alluded to is Christ, the Priest of God the most high Father; who at His First Advent came in humility, in human form, and passible, even up to the period of His passion; being Himself likewise made, through all (stages of suffering) a victim for us all; who after His resurrection was"clad with a garment down to the foot,"340 and named the Priest of God the Father unto eternity.

So here is what is strange about Clement and the author of Against the Jews. Not only do they 'agree' that there is no future prophesy or reference to 'Christ' in Daniel 9:26 - i.e. it the unction which is 'cut off' as Jacob of Edessa explains “the cutting off” to mean “the cessation of the unction by which judgment and sovereignty were established" - but more startling their Theodotion translation of Daniel was interpreted to mean that there was a 'Jesus' who was Christ - but in the distant past viz. Jeshua the high priest.

And Clement isn't the only one here. Hippolytus asks regarding Dan 9.25:

[O]f what anointed one (“Christ”) does it speak other than Jesus son of Josedek who at that time returned [[125]] with the people and in the 70th year, when he had rebuilt the holy place, offered a sacrifice in accordance with the law

So there seems to have been a very strong tradition in early Christianity identifying a 'Jesus' who is 'Christ' albeit near the start of the 70 weeks. Then we have to factor that for those who preferred Theodotion's translation there is no 'Christ' at the end of the 70 weeks. We begin to see the start of a completely different Christianity emerging.

[Secret Alias]

Clement's explanation from Theodotion assumes that the 'anoint the Holy of Holies' reference in 9:24 is speaking about the culmination of the seventy weeks:

That the temple accordingly was built in seven weeks, is evident; for it is written in Esdras. And thus Christ became King of the Jews, reigning in Jerusalem in the fulfilment of the seven weeks. And in the sixty and two weeks the whole of Judæa was quiet, and without wars. And Christ our Lord, the Holy of Holies, having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy, was anointed in His flesh by the Holy Spirit of His Father. In those sixty and two weeks, as the prophet said, and in the one week, was He Lord. The half of the week Nero held sway, and in the holy city Jerusalem placed the abomination; and in the half of the week he was taken away, and Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius. And Vespasian rose to the supreme power, and destroyed Jerusalem, and desolated the holy place. And that such are the facts of the case, is clear to him that is able to understand, as the prophet said.

The point here is that this reading understands 'the holy of holies' - i.e. the awaited one - to have been anointed at the end of the Jewish War. This figure cannot be Jesus and - as we have already seen 'Jesus Christ' is already supposed to have occurred nearer the beginning of the Seventy Weeks. Who then is this later Christ? Very, very curious.