chapter 39 of Against Marcion has what I consider to be the strangest argument anywhere. We all know the drill. Marcion is supposed to have held that there are two gods, one the "Jewish god" (because the Jews only worshipped one god) and "the stranger." So the logic throughout Against Marcion is that the Marcionite god CANNOT BE the god/a god mentioned in the Jewish writings because the Jews only worship Yahweh. Ok even if that is true we stumble upon chapter 39 of Book 4 which reads:
39. [Luke 21: 8-38.] We have already reached agreement on the rightful ownership of the names, that it appertains to him who first proclaimed his own Christ among men, and changed a name to Jesus. Thus we shall also be in agreement concerning the presumption of one who says that many will come in his name, when it is not his name if he is not the Christ and Jesus of the Creator, to whom the rightful possession of the name belongs, and when, what is more, he forbids our acceptance of others who are in like case with himself, seeing that he, no less than they, has come in a name not his own—unless it was his purpose to forewarn the disciples against lying claimants to the name, he himself through rightful ownership of the name possessing the truth of it.1 So then those people will come, saying I am Christ.a You, <Marcion,> will receive them: you have received one exactly like them. For this one too has come in his own name. What then of the fact that there is still to come the real owner of the names, the Christ and Jesus of the Creator? Shall you reject him? But how unfair, how unjust, how unworthy of a god supremely good, that you should not receive him when he conies in his own name, when you have already received another in his name.
I haven't a fucking clue what Tertullian is on about. However the one thing I have going for me is that I have read Against Marcion millions of times so I know the section he is talking about when he starts with "we have already reached agreement on the rightful ownership of the names." That's way back in Book Three where the same ideas are dealt with in more detail. After talking about Isaiah's prediction regarding "Emmanuel" we read:
Next, as concerns his other names, and in particular his name of Christ, what answer are my opponents going to give? If in your opinion the name of Christ is a common noun, just as the name of god is, with the result that it is permissible for the sons of each of two gods to be called Christ, as also for each <of those gods> to be called father <and> lord, assuredly reason will controvert this proposition. The name of god, being as it were a natural description of divinity, can be shared among all for whom divinity is claimed, such as idols, as the apostle says, For there are also those that are called gods, whether in heaven or on earth.a But the name of Christ, which comes not from nature but from revelation, becomes the peculiar property of him by whom it is known to have been fore-ordained: nor is it subject to sharing with another god, especially one who is hostile, and has a dispensation of his own, for which he will need to provide specific names. How ridiculous it is that when they have invented the idea of two gods with hostile dispensations, they admit a partnership of names into this discord of dispensations, although they could have to hand no more cogent proof of two hostile gods than that in their dispensation there should also be found diversity of names. For there exists no case of opposing attributes which is not marked off by its own particular terminology: and when a particular terminology is lacking, if it ever is, then the Greek catachresis— of the improper use of a term which does not belong—comes to one's rescue. But with a god, I imagine, there can be no possibility of anything lacking, or of his needing to furnish his own dispensations with property which belongs to another. What sort of a god is yours, who even for his own son lays claim to names from the Creator—names that are not only not his own, but are ancient and well known, and even on that account ought to be unsuitable for a god who is new and unknown ? In fact how can he tell us that a new patch is not sewn on to an old garment, nor new wine entrusted to old wineskins,b if he is himself patched on to, and dressed up in, names that are old? How has he managed to strip the gospel away from the law, if himself dressed up in the whole law—for that is what the name of Christ involves? Who has bidden him not to use a different name, seeing he is a preacher of something different, and comes from a different place, when in fact he has refused to take to him a veritable body with the express intention of not being thought the Creator's Christ? 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. As things stand, he has rejected the objective reality of one whose name he has accepted, though he could not avoid expressing approval of that objective reality by his use of its name. For if Christ means 'anointed', anointing is certainly something which is done to a body. One who had no body could not in any sense be anointed: one who could not in any sense be anointed could not by any means have had the name of Christ. It is another matter if he also pretended to a phantasm of the name. 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? You tell a tale of a god without courage and without principles, since to promote a policy by deception is the device either of self-distrust or of dishonesty. With greater honesty and absence of guile the false prophets acted in opposition to the Creator by coming in the name of their own god. So I do not see how this device had any effect, since the Jews found it easier to believe he was either their own Christ, or else rather some deceiver, than the Christ of a different god—and so the gospel will prove.
Now supposing it true that he pilfered the name of Christ, like a petty thief after the dole-basket, why did he also choose to be called Jesus, a name about which the Jews had no such expectations? Although we for our part have by the grace of God obtained understanding of his mysteries, and recognize that this name too was destined for Christ, it does not follow that the Jews, deprived of wisdom, were to be aware of that fact. Indeed until this present day they are hoping for Christ, not for Jesus, and they would rather interpret Elijah as Christ, than Jesus [i.e. Joshua]. He then who has come also in this name in which Christ was not expected, had it in his power to come in that name alone which was the only one expected. But as he has combined the two, the expected and the unexpected, both of his designs are put out of court. For if his reason for being Christ was that he might for a time steal in on the pretence of belonging to the Creator, <the name of> Jesus opposes <this>, because there was no expectation of Jesus [Joshua] in the Creator's Christ: or if <he was named> Jesus so that he might be taken to belong to the other <god>, <the name> Christ forbids <this>, because the Christ that was hoped for belonged to no other than the Creator. Which of these <names> can hold its ground, I know not. But both can hold their ground in the Creator's Christ, in whom also <the name of> Jesus is found to be. In what way, you ask. Have your answer here, along with the Jews, who hold the half of your error.1 When Auses [Oshea] the son of Nave [Nun] was marked out as successor to Moses, you admit he is changed from his original name, and begins to be called Jesusa [Jehoshua] ?2 Just so, you answer. We observe first that this was a figure of him who was to be. Because Jesus the Christ was going to bring the second people, which are we, born in the wilderness of <this> world, into the land of promise, flowing with milk and honey, which means the inheritance of eternal life, than which nothing is sweeter: and because this was going to be effected not by Moses, not, that is, by the discipline of the law, but by Jesus, through the grace of the gospel, after we had been circumcised with the knife of flint, that is, the precepts of Christ—for the rock was Christ—therefore that man who was being set aside for the similitudes of this mystery was also first established in the like- ness of our Lord's name, being surnamed Jesus [Jehoshua]. Christ himself, when talking with Moses, bore witness that this name is his own. For who was it that was talking? Surely the Creator's Spirit, who is Christ. When therefore he spoke to the people, to whom he had given the commandments, and said, Behold I send my angel before thy face, to guard thee in the way, and to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee: give heed to him and hear him, disobey him not, for he will not hide it from thee that my
name is upon him:b he called him an angel because of the greatness of the exploits he was to perform, and because of his office of prophet in declaring the will of God: but he called him Jesus [Joshua] because of the mystery of his own name which was to be. Again and again he asserted his own name which he had conferred upon him, because he had ordered him to be addressed in future not as angel or as Auses [Oshea] but as Jesus [Joshua]. Therefore in as much as both these names are appropriate to the Creator's Christ, to that extent neither of them is appropriate to the Christ of a non-creator—nor again is the rest of what he did. So from this point onwards there must be marked out between you and me that firm and definite ruling, necessary to both parties, by which it is laid down that there can be nothing at all in common between the Christ of another god and the Christ of the Creator. You will have as great a need to defend their diversity, as I to oppose it: because you will only be able to prove that another god's Christ has come, by showing that he is far and away different from the Christ of the Creator: while I shall only be able to prove him the Creator's by showing him to be such a one as is commissioned by the Creator. On the matter of the names I have now gained my point: I claim Christ as mine, I assert that Jesus belongs to me.
My point isn't just to show that the Church Fathers made stupid arguments. For the argument here can be paraphrased as follows "Marcion you stole the name "Christ" from the Jewish scriptures where such a figure is predicted but how you dare pick another name "Jesus" which isn't predicted in the Jewish writings." But what is really important to see is that even in Book Four Against Marcion isn't always using arguments directed against Marcion. For this entire section was originally directed against the Jews. From Tertullian's Against the Jews we find much of the Latin verbatim:
"But if the Christ," say they, "who is believed to be coming is not called Jesus, why is he who is come called Jesus Christ?" [21] Well, each name will meet in the Christ of God, in whom is found likewise the appellation160 Jesus. Learn the habitual character of your error. In the course of the appointing of a successor to Moses, Oshea161 the son of Nun162 is certainly transferred from his pristine name, and begins to be called Jesus.163 Certainly, you say. This we first assert to have been a figure of the future. [22] For, because Jesus Christ was to introduce the second people (which is composed of us nations, lingering deserted in the world164 aforetime) into the land of promise, "flowing with milk and honey"165 (that is, into the possession of eternal life, than which nought is sweeter); and this had to come about, not through Moses (that is, not through the Law's discipline), but through Joshua (that is, through the new law's grace), after our circumcision with "a knife of rock"166 (that is, with Christ's precepts, for Christ is in many ways and figures predicted as a rock167 ); therefore the man who was being prepared to act as images of this sacrament was inaugurated under the figure of the Lord's name, even so as to be named Jesus.168 For He who ever spake to Moses was the Son of God Himself; who, too, was always seen.169 For God the Father none ever saw, and lived.170 [23] And accordingly it is agreed that the Son of God Himself spake to Moses, and said to the people, "Behold, I send mine angel before thy"--that is, the people's--"face, to guard thee on the march, and to introduce thee into the land which I have prepared thee: attend to him, and be not disobedient to him; for he hath not escaped171 thy notice, since my name is upon him."172 For Joshua was to introduce the people into the land of promise, not Moses. Now He called him an "angel," on account of the magnitude of the mighty deeds which he was to achieve (which mighty deeds Joshua the son of Nun did, and you yourselves read), and on account of his office of prophet announcing (to wit) the divine will; just as withal the Spirit, speaking in the person of the Father, calls the forerunner of Christ, John, a future "angel," through the prophet: "Behold, I send mine angel before Thy"--that is, Christ's--"face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee."173 Nor is it a novel practice to the Holy Spirit to call those "angels" whom God has appointed as ministers of His power. [24] For the same John is called not merely an "angel" of Christ, but withal a "lamp" shining before Christ: for David predicts, "I have prepared the lamp for my Christ; "174 and him Christ Himself, coming "to fulfil the prophets,"175 called so to the Jews. "He was," He says, "the burning and shining lamp; "176 as being he who not merely "prepared His ways in the desert,"177 but withal, by pointing out "the Lamb of God,"178 illumined the minds of men by his heralding, so that they understood Him to be that Lamb whom Moses was wont to announce as destined to suffer. [25] Thus, too, (was the son of Nun called) Joshua, on account of the future mystery179 of his name: for that name (He who spake with Moses) confirmed as His own which Himself had conferred on him, because He had bidden him thenceforth be called, not "angel" nor "Oshea," but "Joshua." Thus, therefore, each name is appropriate to the Christ of God--that He should be called Jesus as well (as Christ).
The ultimate origin of this material which goes from Book 4 to Book 3 of Against Marcion and then Against the Jews is something originally written by Justin Martyr as we see from the Dialogue:
Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was Jesus, and was declared mysteriously through Moses. Thus it is written: 'And the Lord spake to Moses, Say to this people, Behold, I send My angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Give heed to Him, and obey Him; do not disobey Him. For He will not draw back from you; for My name is in Him.' Now understand that He who led your fathers into the land is called by this name Jesus, and first called Auses(Oshea). For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, 'for My name is in Him,' was Jesus. For, indeed, He was also called Israel, and Jacob's name was changed to this also. Now Isaiah shows that those prophets who are sent to publish tidings from God are called His angels and apostles. For Isaiah says in a certain place, 'Send me.' And that the prophet whose name was changed, Jesus[Joshua], was strong and great, is manifest to all.
So arguments originally made against the Jews by Justin were taken and developed in a work against the Jews by Tertullian (or copied by the latter from a previous Church Father) but then ultimately, and this is critical for our purposes, incorporated into chapter 4, a section that is supposedly an authoritative understanding from firsthand experience with the canon of Marcion.