I notice that there is a strange divergence between Against Marcion 3 and Against the Jews in a section of text which demonstrates they are dependent (as usual) on a common source. We read in Against Marcion 3.23:
Now since neither David nor any king of the Jews had to suffer that cross, you cannot think this a prophecy of the passion of anyone else, but only of him who alone was so notably crucified by that people. So now, if the heretic's obstinacy contemns and derides all these interpretations of mine, I shall <be prepared to> grant him that the Creator has given <in this psalm> no indication of any cross of Christ, in that even on this ground he will not prove that he who was crucified was any other <than the Creator's Christ>—unless perchance he succeeds in showing that his death in this form was prophesied by his own god, so that diversity of prophesyings may prove there was diversity of passions and, in consequence, diversity of persons. But as there was no prophecy of Marcion's Christ, far less of his cross, the prophecy of one death <and not two> is sufficient proof that the Christ who is meant is mine. From the fact that the manner of his death is not stated, it follows that it could have come about by a cross, and it could only have had reference to another if there had also been prophecy of another—unless perhaps he prefers that not even the death of my Christ was prophesied: in which case he is put to greater shame, while he tells of the death of his own Christ, whose birth he denies, but denies the death of my Christ, whose birth he admits. But I can prove both the death and the burial and the resurrection of my Christ by one word of Isaiah, who says, His sepulture hath been taken away out of the midst.g He could not have been buried without having died, nor could his sepulture have been taken away out of the midst except by resurrection. And so he added, Therefore shall he have many for an inheritance, and of many shall he divide the spoils, because his soul hath been delivered over unto death.h For in this is indicated the purpose of this grace, that it is to be a recompense for the insult of death. It is likewise indicated that he is to obtain these things after death, by virtue, that is, of resurrection ... He also in the fifty-eighth psalm demands of the Father their dispersion, Disperse them in thy strength. Again in Isaiah, ending his discourse of their being consumed with fire, he says, For my sake these things have been done to you, ye shall sleep in sorrow. Quite meaningless this, if they suffered these things not for his sake had openly stated that they would suffer them for his sake, but because of the Christ of some other god. Yes, you say (Marcion), it was the Christ of the other god who was brought to the cross, by the Creator's powers and principalities which were hostile to him. I reply that he is shown as being avenged by the Creator, And wicked men are given for his burying-place, those who affirmed that it had been robbed, and rich men for his death,k those who had paid money to Judas for his betrayal, and money to the soldiers for false witness that the dead body had been stolen away. It follows that, either these things did not happen to the Jews because of him—but on this you are confuted by the agreement of the sense of the scriptures with the course of events and the order of the times—or, if they did happen because of him, it is impossible for the Creator to have avenged any Christ but his own, since he would by preference have rewarded Judas if it had been an opponent of their Lord whom the Jews had put to death. Certainly, if the Creator's Christ has not yet come, the Christ on whose account it is prophesied that they are to suffer these things, it follows that when he does come they will suffer them. But where by that time will there be a daughter of Sion to be made desolate? Even today she is not. Where the cities to be burned with fire? They are already in ruinous heaps. Where the dispersion of that nation? It is already in exile. Give back to Judaea its polity, that the Creator's Christ may find it so: only so can you claim that he who has come is a different Christ. In any case how can the Creator have given passage through his own heaven to one whom, on his own earth, he was going to put to death, after the violation of the more noble and glorious region of his own kingdom, after the treading under foot of his own palace and citadel? Or perhaps this is what he was aiming at? Evidently a jealous God: yet he is the victor. Shame on you, who trust in a god who has been vanquished. What have you to hope for from him who was not strong enough to protect himself? Either it was through infirmity that he was overpowered by the Creator's angels and men, or it was through malice, while he desired by
tolerance to brand them with the guilt of so great a crime.
'Yes,' you object, 'but I do hope for something from him— and this itself amounts to a proof that there are two different Christs—I hope for the kingdom of God, with an eternal heavenly inheritance: whereas your Christ promises the Jews their former estate, after the restitution of their country, and, when life has run its course, refreshment with those beneath the earth, in Abraham's bosom. Such a very good God, if when calmed down he gives back what he took away when angry: your God, who both smites and heals, who creates evil and makes peace: a God whose mercy reaches even down to hell.'
This is a most puzzling passage. The author has - as is with the treatise as a whole attempted to negate or put in the negative a series of statements which were originally positive in the original text Against the Jews. But sometimes he confuses himself and says two different things in the same section. So let's pay close attention to what he is saying.
The author clearly says:
Yes, you say (Marcion), it was the Christ of the other god who was brought to the cross, by the Creator's powers and principalities which were hostile to him.
This is what the negation of the original argument in Against the Jews does at this point. But if we go back to the original argument it is clear that the original author makes the case that 'Christ' - the one crucified in the gospel - was the true messiah of the Jews:
Now, if the hardness of your heart shall persist in rejecting and deriding all these interpretations, we will prove that it may suffice that the death of the Christ had been prophesied, in order that, from the fact that the nature of the death had not been specified, it may be understood to have been affected by means of the cross and that the passion of the cross is not to be ascribed to any but Him whose death was constantly being predicted. For I desire to show, in one utterance of Isaiah, His death, and passion, and sepulture. "By the crimes," he says, "of my people was He led unto death; and I will give the evil for His sepulture, and the rich for His death, because He did not wickedness, nor was guile found in his mouth; and God willed to redeem His soul from death," and so forth. [16] He says again, moreover: "His sepulture hath been taken away from the midst." For neither was He buried except He were dead, nor was His sepulture removed from the midst except through His resurrection. Finally, he subjoins: "Therefore He shall have many for an heritage, and of many shall He divide spoils: " who else (shall so do) but He who "was born," as we have above shown?--"in return for the fact that His soul was delivered unto death? "For, the cause of the favour accorded Him being shown,--in return, to wit, for the injury of a death which had to be recompensed,--it is likewise shown that He, destined to attain these rewards because of death, was to attain them after death--of course after resurrection. For that which happened at His passion, that mid-day grew dark, the prophet Amos announces, saying, "And it shall be," he says, "in that day, saith the Lord, the sun shall set at mid-day, and the day of light shall grow dark over the land: and I will convert your festive days into grief, and all your canticles into lamentation; and I will lay upon your loins sackcloth, and upon every head baldness; and I will make the grief like that for a beloved (son), and them that are with him like a day of mourning." For that you would do thus at the beginning of the first month of your new (years) even Moses prophesied, when he was foretelling that all the community of the sons of lsrael was234 to immolate at eventide a lamb, and were to eat235 this solemn sacrifice of this day (that is, of the passover of unleavened bread) with bitterness; "and added that "it was the passover of the Lord,"236 that is, the passion of Christ. Which prediction was thus also fulfilled, that "on the first day of unleavened bread"237 you slew Christ;238 [19] and (that the prophecies might be fulfilled) the day hasted to make an "eventide,"--that is, to cause darkness, which was made at mid-day; and thus "your festive days God converted into grief, and your canticles into lamentation." For after the passion of Christ there overtook you even captivity and dispersion, predicted before through the Holy Spirit.
So clearly the original argument simply was made TO THE JEWS and it was to the effect that "hey Jews, the one described in the gospel as being crucified was your messiah" and then all sorts of scriptural arguments are lined up to show that.
Oddly enough when the same text was adapted to combat Marcion (for what reasons no one has ever made sense of) another layer or actually many layers are added to the text. The argument becomes:
1. a new argument - i.e. the Marcionites say that there are two Christs, one of the Creator another of their god
2. the old argument against the Jews - namely that the crucified Christ in the gospel was the expected Jewish messiah - now spun with an additional you deny this Marcion.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote