Abstract
In recent years, a renewed interest in Marcion has resulted in the publication of several studies considering this figure and the texts utilized by him and his followers. In this volume, Lieu offers her own contribution to the discussion, focusing upon recovering both ‘the Marcion who is offered by those who wrote against him’ and the Marcion who emerges ‘when the most marked characteristics of the profiles that have been discovered are set within the currents of the second century’ (pp. 10–11). Part I is comprised of six chapters devoted to considering the manner in which Marcion is presented by the sources interacting with him, including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Epiphanius, and the Adamantius Dialogue, amongst others, along with Syriac sources like Ephraem and Eznik of Kolb. Lieu devotes particular attention to the manner in which Marcion serves as a foil for the expression and development of a given heresiologist’s own context, concerns, theology, and exegesis. Three chapters on Marcion’s writings, including his ‘Gospel’, the ‘Apostolikon’, and the ‘Antitheses’, are found in Part II. Lieu argues that Marcion did not simply edit Luke or Paul’s letters, nor did he simply reproduce the text available to him; rather, his readings are a combination of textual choices and interpretation (cf., e.g., pp. 203, 206, 242). Part III contains the final six chapters, focusing primarily on Marcion’s thought in his second-century context. Even as Lieu offers her own interpretations, she highlights the manner in which ‘any attempt to elicit from such multiple ‘constructed Marcions’ a plausible ‘historical Marcion’ is fraught with difficulties’ (p. 293). Along these lines, despite the fact that in discussions of Marcion there will always be a certain level of inevitable disagreements or differences of interpretation, Lieu’s contribution to the discussion is a vital and indispensible one, rich in insight concerning both the Marcion who we encounter in the sources and the Marcion who ‘still retains his secrets’ (p. 439).