To be honest, it is an understatement to say that it was controversial.
Vincent's paper was to a large extent a condensed summery of a commissioned new monograph which he has already submitted for publication (due sometime next year). The full title is: "Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity, and the making of the New Testament." He claims that it is the first monograph on the resurrection of Jesus by a Patristics scholar.
Vincent started off by saying that he, as a church historian, is not interested in the resurrection of Jesus as an historical event. Neither in the kind of resurrection body Jesus allegedly had. Rather, his focus is on WHEN, for WHO, WHERE, and WHY Jesus was regarded as the risen Christ. And also HOW this belief impacted on Christianity. In order to address all these questions, Vincent analysed "all" of the available evidence of the first two centuries.
I list some of the interesting and challenging statements he made:
• Although Christ's resurrection was important to Paul, it was not important after his death. It took some 100 years for Irenaeus and Tertullian to take it up again. Our view of the second century (as it relates to the resurrection) is distorted by the apologetic literature. They i) knew each other; ii) each wanted to be the best; iii) they borrowed from each other; iv) they developed their positions building on each other.
• Had Marcion not taken up Paul's letters and one gospel, the resurrection of Christ would never have been taken up by the Christian Church.
• "Even if the Lord himself wrote the gospels, Marcion was the first to use them."
• Mark, Matthew and John (MMJ) might have been composed in the same city and in reaction to Marcion's Lukan gospel. The resurrection narratives in MMJ in particular might have been an orthodox reaction (thus creation) against Marcion's rejection of bodily resurrection.
• The first commentary on John is by a Valentinian. It is only later that Origen was commissioned to write a more orthodox commentary. Thus, it is likely that the gospel of John has a Valentinian origin.
• Maybe Marcion received a pre-version of Luke and others changed it
• Prior to Marcion there is not a single reference to the gospels. Before Irenaeus, no one (including Ignatius) claimed that Marcion changed the gospel.
• With Marcion comes the first discussion about the resurrection. Luke 24:36-42 in particular is significant. Here the idea of a phantom is not altogether impossible. Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Justin try to take on Marcion on this point.
• The women as first witnesses of Jesus' empty tomb is not significant and unique, as the testimony of women were taken seriously in other contexts. The prophetess traditions within Judaism and the other roles they sometimes played in the New Testament confirms this.
• The earliest baptismal creeds/formulae referred to the incarnation and death of Jesus but not his resurrection
• The apostolic creed's reference to the resurrection is late
• In the Didache, the reference to worship on a Sunday (the first day of week) is linked to Jesus' death, and not his resurrection. It was only Justin who later used it in First Apology
• Easter is first used by Melito to argue against Marcion's interpretation of the resurrection
• Up until 177 (Irenaeus) only Paul is used in defence of the resurrection. The gospels are not used in defence of the resurrection. This "embarrassed" even Kurt Aland, Vinzent claims.
• The Bar Kogba revolt in 136 CE is highly significant. "Only slowly does the resurrection make its way into the Christian narrative."
• The first theologian of the resurrection is Apollinarius of Laodicea in Constantine's time.
There was unfortunately not enough time afterwards to discuss all these claims. We will have to wait until the monograph is published. I few issues were raised however. I mention a some:
• There is a reference to the resurrection in Ignatius (+-110 CE).
• Polycarp and other martyrs died for their faith in the risen Jesus
• Had the gospel writers wanted to create the perfect resurrection narrative, they would certainly not have picked the women as the first witnesses.
Vinzent did critique the above, though most who attended were not convinced by all his explanations. But let's wait for the monograph so that we can follow his arguments carefully.
http://resurrectionhope.blogspot.com/2010/11/controversial-new-hypothesis-about.html
