Concentrated interest in Marcion, once seen especially in the nineteenth century during which luminaries such as Baur and Ritschl made pronouncements and then retracted or modified them, has returned, at least if the quantity of recent monographs on Marcion is an indicator. What was lacking until recently, however, was a reliable text of Marcion's own writings, to the extent that it is possible to recover such a thing. This we now have, thanks to Ulrich Schmid's 1995 reconstruction of Marcion's Pauline collection, and now, twenty years later, the present volume on the Gospel text. The claims of Roth's volume here are relatively modest, aiming at the ‘best attainable text’; this means that, rather than anything like a full reconstruction of the Gospel, it seeks what we can know, in varying degrees of certainty, of a text which is available only in citations by Marcion's detractors. A translation of a sample from the reconstructed text printed sequentially at the end of book will illustrate this (the verse numbering, as is conventional, follows that of Luke's Gospel):

This excerpt illustrates two things. First, it evinces the considerable degree of nuance in Roth's treatment, the varying typographies highlighting the varying degrees of confidence with which one can attribute the wording to Marcion. Secondly, the lacunae and the typography (only plain, bold type – i.e. none of the text cited above – represents ‘secure’ readings) indicate that the results may be disappointing, especially for those such as Vinzent and Klinghardt who wish to construct grand theories about Marcion's textual relations. The reconstruction offered here, then, is a very sober one, and much of Roth's interaction is with previous scholars, especially von Harnack, who have had too high a degree of confidence in their reconstructions.

The book proceeds in three main stages: first, an introduction, history of research and summary of the sources and method; second, a detailed commentary on the relevant passages in Tertullian (pp. 83–269), Epiphanius (pp. 270–346), the Adamantius Dialogue (pp. 347–95), and some brief comments on ‘additional sources’; finally, there follows the printing of ‘The reconstruction of Marcion's Gospel’ in Greek and a conclusion.

The history of research at the beginning is a valuable discussion of how some of the key methodological principles in current scholarship came into focus. Already in 1829 Schulz questioned both the assumed accuracy of the patristic quotations, and the possibility of deciding on the contents of Marcion's texts on the hypothesised compatibility or incompatibility with his theology. Zahn highlighted the importance of distinguishing between unattested passages and those attested as absent. Schmid's work on Marcion's Apostolos emphasised the study of the relevant Fathers’ citation techniques as a conditio sine qua non of assessing the usefulness of their references to Marcion's text. These principles are central to Roth's project, and the justification for his book in the first place is that editors of the gospel text, even when professing attachment to such principles, have not adequately adhered to them in previous reconstructions. Roth shows admirable discipline in following the rules that he sets himself, and the result is therefore a text and textual commentary which will be the standard for many years to come. The book is lucidly written, though it is no airport novel: the texts of Tertullian, Epiphanius and Adamantius are presented in untranslated Latin and Greek, and the commentary dives straight into questions of relevance to Marcion's text without remarks on the meaning (understandably, given the length of the book already).

I have only two minor quibbles. The presentation of the text at the end (which will be the most widely read part) is, overall, cleanly presented but there are a few slips. Some diacritics have gone awry (in 6.1; 8.45; 9.12; 9.31a; 15.6; 17.3; 19.22; 24.21a), two wrong endings (apēngelō in 8.20; hetoimai in 12.40), a few misspellings (16.13; 20.25; 23.2) and possibly mistaken typography in 11.12. These are easy to spot, however, and will not gravely mislead the reader.

A second question relates to the use of the Lukan textual tradition in parallel with the patristic testimonies to the wording of Marcion's text. Early on in the book Roth mentions the criticisms in an early reaction to von Harnack, namely that he did not take full account of all the variants known in the textual tradition of Luke. Although the methodological principle is never quite clearly set out (the remarks in the final paragraph of chapter iii are rather too brief), it emerges that phraseology of Marcion attested in the patristic references is rendered more plausible by agreement with Greek texts of Luke and with versional evidence. The Greek Vorlage of versions such as the witnesses to the Diatessaron, however, is even more difficult to recover than Marcion, and so there is a danger of obscurum per obscurius. Just as a tentative reading (italicised, and so ‘possible’) finds its way into Roth's text in part through its attestation in the Persian and Arabic versions of the Diatessaron (p. 267), so also another possible reading is cited on the strength of the Old Georgian and one Vetus Latina manuscript (p. 122). It is true that these factors are contributory rather than determinative, but assessment of versions requires a great deal of attention to translation technique, and even the use of Greek texts may result in some blunting of the distinctiveness of Marcion's voice; it is hard to tell. On the other hand, not all of Marcion's distinctive features are nefarious mutilations; some of his readings will reflect the text that he received, a text which (Roth confirming what has long been recognised) has noticeable affinities with the Western text. All the same, this particular dimension of Roth's method along with its basis and application could be more clearly set out.

These are minor points and are not mentioned in order to detract from what overall is a magnificent achievement. The text printed at the end of the volume will now replace that of von Harnack, and will no doubt be much photocopied by New Testament scholars and patrologists for decades to come. The conclusion offers some tentative hints at wider questions, noting the relevance for New Testament textual criticism and suggesting that there may be evidence for the priority of canonical Luke over Marcion's Gospel. It is also to be hoped, however, that the method and textual commentary will be widely read, especially in the current climate of so many fanciful theories about the arch-heretic from Sinope.