As already mentioned, of the three great German historians of dogma,

it was Friedrich Loofs who was particularly fascinated by Marcellus. In

his earliest writings on Marcellus37
he followed Zahn and concluded that
the basis of Marcellus' theology is "the economic-Trinitarian monotheism
of the traditions of Asia Minor."38
In his later writings39
Loofs replaced
"Asia Minor" with a more general "Antiochene" as the designation for
Marcellus' thought and lost some of his enthusiasm for Marcellus.
In a book on Paul of Samosata published in 1924, Loofs asserted that
this Antiochene tradition is found in Paul of Samosata, Marcellus, and
Eustathius of Antioch, as well as in Tertullian, and can be traced back to
Irenaeus. It is characterized by economic Trinitarianism, an unphilosophical
doctrine of the Logos, the restriction of the title "Son" to the
historical Jesus, a Dyophysite Christology, and strict monotheism.40
But
in the same work Loofs stated that Marcellus departed from the economic-Trinitarian
schema and called the Logos "Son" before the Incarnation. The Logos was in fact,
for Marcellus (Loofs asserts), the subject
of the incarnate Christ; this results in a Monophysite Christology and a
tendency toward a pluralistic conception of the Trinity. Loofs attributed
these foreign elements in Marcellus* Antiochene system to the influence
of church orthodoxy and popular piety.41