The question of the dating of the Synoptic Gospels has been a source of fascination throughout the period of modern biblical scholarship. The strength of Vinzent's work is to be found in his summaries of previous scholarship, either in relation to Marcion or the dating of the Synoptic Gospels, and in showing that many scholarly proposals are based on slender evidence.

It is, however, difficult to find his own proposal clearly articulated in the book, or to see how the extensive textual data that he marshals actually supports what he appears to be arguing. On the back cover of the book, the blurb (which presumably was written by Vinzent) states that the monograph argues for ‘Marcion's crucial role in the Gospel making and argues for a re-dating of the Gospels to the years between 138 and 144 ad’. This is never stated so clearly in the book itself. Vinzent does argue against Mark being a source for Matthew and Luke. Instead he suggests that ‘[a]ll witnesses, including Mark, have integrated the one source Marcion’ (p. 274). Furthermore, he comments upon ‘the likely priority of Marcion's gospel to that of Luke’ (p. 275). However, in the chapter on ‘Re-dating the Gospels’, he nowhere states the putative dates of the Synoptic Gospels, unlike the statement on the back cover. The other disconcerting feature of the monograph is that earlier scholars are often cited as being in broad agreement with Vinzent's work. However, when the carefully nuanced statements of scholars such as Andrew Gregory or Christopher Tuckett are read in context it appears that what Vinzent draws from them, at least to this reader, is in fact markedly different from what they seem to be saying.

I am aware that in the introduction Vinzent cites a reviewer of his previous monograph, Christ's resurrection (2011), who stated that ‘it is, however, difficult to see how one could disprove what he [Vinzent] has argued’ (p. x). This is presented as suggesting that reviewer was open to Vinzent's proposals. Again, reading the review in its entirety, it is obvious the person was being extremely nuanced and careful in his selection of words, but clearly did not agree with what was being argued. So in order to avoid misunderstanding, albeit at the cost of candour, this reviewer's assessment of Vinzent's new book is as follows. It is a useful assemblage of previous scholarship. It helpfully problematises some aspects of the standard proposals for dating the Synoptic Gospels. None the less, Vinzent's attempts to re-date the Dynoptic Gospels to the period after the writing of Marcion's gospel are entirely unpersuasive. Textual evidence is read in ways that are highly problematic, and the details that are discussed do not lead to the conclusions being drawn. Moreover, the whole argument is disconnected and logically fallacious. As a whole the book is unpersuasive and idiosyncratic throughout.