Markus Vinzent, a historian of Christian origins, argues that the first gospel was written by Marcion* close to the middle of the second century. Our canonical gospels were therefore written as reactions to Marcion’s gospel.
It is only from Irenaeus [ca 177 CE] onward that the four gospels can safely be said to have been known, as supported by external evidence. (Vinzent 2023, 159)
For Vinzent, the current mainstream view that the gospels were all written in the first century (or close enough to it) raises a problem for us:
One must wonder where these Gospels were hidden, if they had been in existence for decades? The Gospel authors of Mark, Matthew and Luke somehow must have known each other, because they are literarily dependent in some way—but how could it be that only Gospel writers knew of each other’s works, but nobody else took any notice of it? If . . . these Gospels were written in the first century, perhaps Mark in Rome, Matthew according to most scholars in Antioch in Syria, Luke perhaps on the Peleponnese in Greece—how could these Gospel manuscripts travel without being acknowledged, recognized and quoted by any other author prior to the mid second century? And why did the first authors who work with these texts all teach in Rome (Marcion, Justin, Tatian?). My view differs . . . from our standard assumption . . . . Having studied the few, extremely thin-iced arguments that were given for a first century dating of our canonical Gospels, I am not only convinced that the later canonical Gospels have all been written shortly before the mid second century and are therefore part of the so-called Second Sophistic, urban literature, but I also suggested in my Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels that the very first witness for our canonical Gospels, Marcion of Sinope, who from around 140 A.D. lived and taught at Rome, was not only a witness as all previous scholars have thought, but that he was the very first author who wrote a Gospel and created this literary genre. When a few months ago, I first mentioned this hypothesis to my then Head of Department Paul Janz, he asked me who of my colleagues would share this view—and I had to answer: nobody. In the meantime, it seems, at least some are prepared to test the hypothesis. (Vinzent 2015. 63-65)
Vinzent finds much of his evidence especially in the writings of Tertullian. Surely, though, other scholars must have seen it, too? Vinzent is not so sure because, as he explains, Tertullian’s Latin has been read too literally, too naively, not always making sufficient allowance for his sarcasm and rhetoric. Too often T’s rhetorical over-statements are read as genuine indicators of the beliefs of his opponents.
From what we have read so far, Tertullian’s conclusions seem to be oversimplifactions and distortions of Marcion’s own views, driving his arguments by rhetorical amplification into unbased absurdities . . . or as J. Lieu put it to ‘out-Marcion Marcion’.724. . . . Using Galatians Marcion had not made a historical statement that prior to Paul, the Apostles had fabricated Gospels or that Judaizers had tampered [correcting “tempered”] with their Gospels before it reached Paul or Tertullian. All that is Tertullian drawing consequences on assumptions purely made for rhetorical reasons here, but interestingly both the assumptions and their consequences are often used in scholarship to reconstruct Marcion’s opinion.725
724 J. Lieu, Marcion and the Making of a Heretic (2015), 192.
725 See E. Norelli, ‘Marcion et les disciples de Jésus’ (2008), 11; Tertullian’s simplifications are also sometimes used to criticise my critical reading of Tertullian, see, for example, J. Carleton Paget, ‘Marcion and the Resurrection: Some Thoughts on a Recent Book’ (2012), 94, n. 47; J. Lieu, ‘The Enduring Legacy of Pan-Marcionism’ (2013), 559. (Vinzent 2015, 388)
So what does Tertullian say that leads Vinzent to think Marcion believed he wrote the first gospel and that our canonical Matthew, Mark, Luke and John plagiarized it? (The year references are to V’s works where he presents his sources and arguments — though the same point may be presented in more than one work.)
Tertullian, after going through almost every passage in Marcion’s gospel (he referred to it as “his gospel” and to Marcion as a “gospel-maker”) was “a thoroughly Marcionite text”. (This claim would appear to stand in tension against T saying elsewhere that M had interpolated another gospel to make it conform to his teachings.) T (and others) indicate that M introduced a “new form of discourse/literary work”, seemingly suggesting that M was the first to put together the Lord’s sayings with narratives. (2014, 91-93)
T informs us that M did not put his name to his gospel as its author, nor did he even give his work a title. Both of these features are required for the market, for publishing and archiving. It therefore appears that Marcion did not intend his gospel to be published. It was a tool used in his classes or “school” — comparable to other “schools” of Christians and philosophers of the day. (2014, 97; 2015, 72 ) Moreover, when T faults M for not adding his name to his gospel, we must infer that T indeed assumes the text of the gospel was by Marcion. (2016, 375)
But despite M’s intentions, his gospel did become widely known. (Followers of teachers in the various schools would be free to go from one to the other, comparing and debating ideas.) Others did respond to M’s unpublished gospel with their own versions that were meant for publication. But those authors disagreed with Marcion’s gospel that portrayed Jesus as opposing the God of the Jewish Scriptures. Their gospels were written not as “antitheses” of the Jewish Scriptures but as their “fulfilment”.
Marcion was forced to respond to those “plagiarizing” gospels. He wrote explicit criticisms of those four gospels in his Antitheses, a writing that also introduced a new copy of his own gospel, which he now titled simply “Gospel”, and a collection of ten letters of Paul. This was the first “New Testament”. (2014, 100, 277) V further suggests that M’s use of the title “Antitheses” makes sense if his work was a response to the published four gospels. (2023, 162)
M criticized the four gospels of tampering with the true gospel, of adding passages that contradicted Jesus’ message. T responded by declaring that the four gospels pre-dated M’s own gospel and therefore were more authentic. T accused M of cutting out passages of an earlier gospel — he thinks it was the Gospel of Luke he used. (The Latin word used by T, “videtur”, is “usually a reference to an uncertain statement” (2023, 43).) The text T mostly uses for comparison with M’s gospel is in fact the Gospel of Matthew. (2016, 378 and 396ff; 2014, 148; 2023, 44)
A key passage is Tertullian’s Against Marcion IV 3,2. Vinzent has referred to this passage in several of his works and only once in passing in his introduction to Resetting the Origins of Christianity (2023, 161). Here T denounces M’s criticisms of the four gospels. The key passage:
[2] But Marcion has got hold of Paul’s epistle to the Galatians, in which he rebukes even the Apostles themselves for not walking uprightly according to the truth of the gospel (cf. Gal. 2:14), and accuses also certain false Apostles of perverting the gospel of Christ (cf. Gal. 1:7; 2:14): and on this ground Marcion strives hard to overthrow the credit of those gospels which are the Apostles’ own and are published under their names [sc. John and Matthew], or even the names of Apostolic men [sc. Luke and Mark], with the intention no doubt of conferring on his own gospel the repute which he takes away from those others.
Details:
| connititur ad destruendum | Marcion strives hard to overthrow / destroy |
| statum | the credit / standing / established position / authority / validity |
| eorum evangeliorum | of those gospels |
| quae propria | which belong to |
| et sub Apostolorum nomine | and under the name of / bearing the name of the Apostles |
| eduntur | are brought forth / are published / are issued / are put into circulation |
| vel etiam Apostolicorum | or even of apostolic men / persons |
| ut scilicet fidem quam illis adimit suo conferat. | so that, namely, he may transfer to his own [gospel/text] the credibility (or authority) that he takes away from those [others]. |
It is clear from the above that Marcion knew of the four gospels, Matthew, John, Luke and Mark. T understands that Marcion believes that these four gospels usurped the authority of his own gospel. T will argue that since the four gospels appeared before Marcion’s did, that those four must be more authoritative than Marcion’s. It may be suggested — but I cannot right now locate where V made this observation — that T’s argument assumes M believed that his gospel (though unpublished) had been the original one. Note that Tertullian does not say the apostles themselves wrote the gospels, but that the gospels were written “under their names” and were true to their own gospel preaching.
There is more to add and clarify in future posts as time permits. I may return to edit the above post but will indicate updates in the opening line.
Since I have been keen to find all published critiques of Vs argument for my formal studies, I had the misfortune of coming across Richard Carrier’s online rebuttal: Was the Entire New Testament Forged in the Second Century? Unfortunately Carrier misreads the Tertullian passage, or fails to read the Latin behind what he imputes into a certain translation; he certainly did not bother to investigate V’s actual argument, admitting he hadn’t read it all — but none of that prevented him from characterizing V of being “illogical and factless” here.
Vinzent, Markus. Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels (Studia Patristica Supplements): 2. Peeters, 2014.
——. Tertullian’s Preface to Marcion’s Gospel. Peeters, 2016.
——. “Marcion’s Gospel and the Beginnings of Early Christianity.” Annali Di Storia Dell’Esegesi 32, no. 1 (2015): 55–87.
——. Writing the History of Early Christianity: From Reception to Retrospection. Cambridge University Press, 2019.
——. Christ’s Torah: The Making of the New Testament in the Second Century. Routledge, 2023.
——. Resetting the Origins of Christianity: A New Theory of Sources and Beginnings. Cambridge University Press, 2023.
