In Resetting the Origins of Christianity, Professor Markus Vinzent presents a history of Christianity in a ‘retrospective mode’ (p. vii). Instead of narrating Christian history from its presumed beginnings to some later period of maturity, Vinzent works backwards from the ancient narratives that have shaped our historical understanding, paying critical attention at each stage to the writers’ ideological agendas and rhetorical strategies. The goal is to analyse how the sources construct their pictures of Christian origins and to get behind the accounts presented in the sources, so that, moving from later sources to earlier ones, we can arrive at a fresh perspective on Christian origins that challenges generally held assumptions.
The first writer treated in detail is Gregory of Tours (c. 538–594), whose Ten Books of Histories closely align Roman and church histories with the history of Gaul. Chapter 1 also deals with the historian Orosius (c. 375–420), who likewise identifies Christianity with Romanitas and attributes a Christian salvation-historical task to Rome. Vinzent shows how each writer reflects his own time in recounting Christian history (for example, Orosius' claim that early emperors supported the church). Discussion is also offered of the Letter Exchange between Seneca and Paul, which presents an ethical reading of Paul in harmony with Roman morality. Each of these texts has points of interest, but it was not made clear how these texts remain influential in shaping today's assumptions about Christian origins.
Chapter 2 is devoted to Eusebius of Caesarea, whose Church History served as the master narrative for all later accounts of Christian origins. Vinzent describes how Eusebius relies heavily on citations but uses these to construct a history with clear political and theological aims. It is pointed out that Eusebius depicts whatever he approves as early and close to the apostles, whereas rejected elements are said to have arisen later. It is noted that Eusebius often chose to cite non-New Testament sources, preferring other texts such as Josephus. Based on where in his historical framework Eusebius discusses New Testament texts in the Chronicle and Church History, Vinzent suggests that Eusebius knew that the Gospels and much of the New Testament were written in the mid-second century. The reader is urged not to trust Eusebius’ portrayal of the past, because he manipulates his sources to construct his own story. The question is raised, for example, why scholars who reject the details of what Eusebius reports about the Gospel of Mark still follow Eusebius in their early dating of this Gospel. In general, Vinzent asks, can a plausible historical core be extracted from the narrative constructed by Eusebius, or should we essentially dispense with his account altogether?
Continuing to move backwards in time, chapter 3 treats Julius Africanus, Origen and Tertullian. In general, these figures operate with the canonical Gospels and at least portions of what became the New Testament as starting points for their reflections on Christian history. It is argued from the forward to Origen's On First Principles that the communal reading and scriptural status of the Old and New Testaments were not commonly practiced/recognised in Origen's day. It is observed that Tertullian understands orthodoxy as coming from the original apostolic churches, whereas he depicts heresies as developing later.
The main subject of chapter 4 is Irenaeus, whose importance in advocating for the four canonical Gospels is emphasised. We are reminded that Irenaeus and Tertullian claimed that Marcion published his Gospel in response to the four canonical Gospels, but also that Tertullian reported Marcion's assertion that his own Gospel was the basis for the others. Vinzent accepts this latter assertion of Tertullian (i.e. that Marcion said his Gospel was earlier) and ultimately agrees that Marcion's Gospel was earlier than the canonical Gospels. Vinzent does not believe Tertullian that Marcion rejected the book of Acts, since he doubts that Acts yet existed in Marcion's day. It is shown that Irenaeus relied heavily on Acts, but he is said to have used it as evidence for truth, not for history. Chapter 4 ends with a brief discussion of the New Testament, which is said to have made clear to its readership that it is primarily a collection of writings about Jesus.
Chapter 5 offers a treatment of the New Testament subcollection called the Praxapostolos, consisting of Acts, James, 1–2 Pet, 2 or 3 Epistles of John and Jude. A prominent discussion in this chapter surrounds the order of the Praxapostolos in early manuscripts vis-à-vis the Pauline Epistles. In some manuscripts (e.g. Vaticanus, Alexandrinus) the books of the Praxapostolos directly follow the Gospels, making James and the Twelve Apostles primary in Christian origins; but in other manuscripts (e.g. Sinaiticus), Paul's Epistles follow the Gospels, presenting a different, Pauline-centred view of the beginnings of Christianity.
The end point of this retrospective history is reached in chapter 6, with a comparative analysis of Pauline traditions and traditions associated with Ignatius of Antioch (early second century). Vinzent adopts the view that only the three letters of Ignatius preserved in a shorter form in Syriac are authentically Ignatian, these three letters were revised and supplemented with pseudepigraphic works to form the seven-letter collection known to Eusebius, and further supplementation created the larger thirteen letter Ignatian corpus known to later centuries. In this reconstruction, not only was the corpus expanded over time to include new letters, but also the older letters were revised and augmented to harmonise them with the new material. According to Vinzent, something similar happened with the letters of Paul. The historical Paul is reflected in the seven letters considered authentic by the consensus of contemporary scholarship, although the original forms of these letters is now lost. Marcion knew a ten-letter collection (adding Ephesians, Colossians and 2 Thessalonians) that still lacked numerous passages appearing in the present, canonical forms of these letters (as is deduced from Tertullian's discussion in Against Marcion 5). The final fourteen-letter collection represents another expansion of the corpus and further supplementation (e.g. the addition of Rom 14–16 to harmonise Romans with the book of Acts). Marcion's work is said to give us our earliest window into the development of Paul's letters and the New Testament generally. In an afterword titled ‘Outlook: How Were Things Actually’, Vinzent explains that we cannot go further back historically than Marcion, who, it is said, wrote the first Gospel, launched the New Testament, and was responsible for the transition from scroll to codex and the introduction of nomina sacra.
I found the basic idea of Resetting the Origins of Christianity, working backwards from later retellings of history to theories about what might have happened behind the texts, compelling. The book contains numerous intriguing discussions. Especially stimulating are Vinzent's willingness to question Eusebius and his creative use of Marcion traditions.
I will note three aspects of the book that left me uncertain or wishing for more. First, a constant question I faced is whether having an agenda necessarily makes a writer's claims false. Another is whether being marginalised by tradition necessarily makes a writer's claims true. Vinzent often seems to be intentionally pushing the boundaries on these questions. Second, given the desire to correct commonly held ideas about Christian origins and debate novel approaches, I was surprised that more diverse sources were not integrated into the discussion. Because Vinzent focuses on revealing the rhetoric of traditional authors, much of the book contains (critical) summaries of major authors such as Eusebius and Irenaeus. Some use is made of Justin Martyr and Theophilus of Antioch, for example, but not much. More importantly, I was expecting more substantial interaction with the so-called New Testament Apocrypha and texts from Nag Hammadi. A more thoroughgoing revision of early Christian history might seek to integrate these works into the narrative. Finally, Vinzent alludes to theological revisions that may follow from historical revisions. Resetting the Origins of Christianity does not address contemporary theology, which, in the end, seems appropriate for this work. But I hope Vinzent will do so elsewhere. It is important that early Christian history and Christian theology not operate in total isolation from one another.
