What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gospel and the Gospels: Christian Proclamation and Early Jesus Books
A robust scholarly defense of the distinctiveness of the canonical Gospels. Do the four New Testament gospels share some essence that distinguishes them from noncanonical early Gospels? The tendency among biblical scholars of late has been to declare the answer to this question no —that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were grouped together by happenstance and are defended as canonical today despite there being no essential commonalities between them. Simon Gathercole challenges this prevailing view and argues that in fact the theological content of the New Testament Gospels distinguishes them substantially from noncanonical Gospels. Gathercole shows how the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John each include four key points that also formed the core of early Christian preaching and Jesus’s identity as messiah, the saving death of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and Scripture’s foretelling of the Christ event. In contrast, most noncanonical Gospels—like the Gospel of Thomas , the Gospel of Truth , and Marcion’s Gospel—only selectively appropriated these central concerns of early Christian proclamation.
600 pages, Hardcover
Published August 11, 2022
10 people are currently reading
94 people want to read
About the author
Simon J. Gathercole
19 books11 followersSimon Gathercole (PhD, University of Durham) is senior lecturer in New Testament studies in the Faculty of Divinity of the University of Cambridge and Fellow and director of studies in theology at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge, England. A leading British New Testament scholar, he has written several groundbreaking books.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
October 28, 2025
In his book, The Gospel and the Gospels, Simon Gathercole presents an argument for the coherence of the four Gospels in light of early Christian proclamation. He applies the framework of 1) the messiahship of Jesus, 2) his vicarious death, 3) his resurrection on the third day, and 4) the prior scriptural attestation. This framework is rooted in the Apostolic Kerygma, as found in 1 Corinthians 15.
Upon looking at the four canonical gospels, we see that all of them meet the necessary requirements of coherence with apostolic tradition. Additionally, there is a connection between the canonical Gospels. He also examines the other texts and compares them to the apocryphal gospels, showing that each falls short of the provided categories.
Upon looking at the four canonical gospels, we see that all of them meet the necessary requirements of coherence with apostolic tradition. Additionally, there is a connection between the canonical Gospels. He also examines the other texts and compares them to the apocryphal gospels, showing that each falls short of the provided categories.
April 8, 2023
An outstanding piece of scholarship. Gathercole spends 500 pages showing in painstaking detail how the canonical gospels reflect the earliest form of the Christian gospel message (Christ dying for our sins and rising from the grave in accordance with the Scriptures) while the non-canonical gospels present a VERY different understanding of the person and work of Christ. My only critique would be that he’s a little too cautious at times; there were moments when I think he could have gone for the jugular but instead softened the blow with a “probably” or “perhaps.” That’s a very minor complaint, though.
May 5, 2023
2023 reads: 14
Rating: 4.5 stars
Rating: 4.5 stars
June 21, 2024
Is there anything internal to the canonical Gospel narratives that sets them apart from most other texts in early Christianity?
Much current scholarship on the Gospels and the history of early Christianity argues that only external factors in subsequent centuries can explain why Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were received as the only authoritative accounts of Jesus’s life and ministry. In this scenario, there were a host of texts that appropriated elements of the Jesus tradition from a wide variety of theological frameworks. Not until much later did the theological positions solidify that were then used to select the nature and number of the church’s Gospel canon.
In this volume, Simon Gathercole makes a careful and detailed case that there was indeed something about the canonical Gospels that allowed readers to differentiate them from other gospel-like texts. His thesis is twofold. He first argues that the four canonical Gospels “share key elements of theological content that mark them out from most of the noncanonical Gospels” (15). He argues further that the reason why these four Gospels “are theologically similar to one another is that they—unlike most others—follow a preexisting apostolic ‘creed’ or preached gospel” (15). Accordingly, the theological coherence of the four New Testament Gospels was not an arbitrary element of their reception history but rather a foundational feature of their initial composition.
In his overall project, Gathercole emphasizes the point that “there were theological criteria in operation, in the preached apostolic gospel or kerygma, even before the compositions of any Gospels” (14). The preaching of the apostles was shaped by these strands of theological confession from the earliest days of the Christian church. “All written Gospels” therefore, “emerged from a situation in which there were already established, though also developing, norms of what constituted authentic apostolic proclamation” (14).
An implication of this textual and social reality is that “in an important sense, a ‘canon’—in the sense of a widely held standard of teaching—preceded the composition of the Gospels, and the authors of the Gospels, deliberately or unconsciously, reflected this preaching or they did not” (14). For Gathercole, because this theological standard was operative in the first century, it should then directly inform the way the history of early Christianity is understood (cf. 463–502).
Noting the difficulty of comparing every detail of any two works, Gathercole selects the earliest form of the apostolic preaching (the “kerygma”) as the comparator by which he will compare and contrast these texts (34–35). Taking 1 Cor 15:3–4 as a starting point, Gathercole identifies four essential components of the kerygma (36–46). The apostolic preaching 1) identified Jesus as the Christ, 2) affirmed Jesus’s saving vicarious death, 3) explained Jesus’s resurrection on the third day, and 4) viewed each of these elements as a prophetic fulfillment of the Scriptures.
Gathercole also argues that the kerygma is a justifiable comparator for this kind of study because this form of the apostolic preaching likely pre-dates Paul’s letters, resonates with broader New Testament theology, and was widely affirmed among diverse Christian communities (see 47–70). The kerygma is thus uniquely and strategically positioned to serve as a ruler by which to measure the texts of early Christianity.
In the most substantive section of the book, Gathercole systematically evaluates how each Gospel text does or does not address the key features of the kerygma. For Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all the elements of the kerygma are present even with some distinctive features in their presentation (chapters 4–7). In the rest of this section, Gathercole examines seven of the best-preserved and most well-known apocryphal Gospels in early Christianity: the Gospel of Peter, Marcion’s Gospel, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Judas, and the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (chapters 8–14). In these chapters, Gathercole seeks to evaluate each text on its own terms and identify whether or not a given aspect of the kerygma is present or absent. After this lengthy targeted analysis of each text, Gathercole ends his volume with a concise synthesis of what a comparison and contrast of the various Gospels in early Christianity yields (chapters 15–16).
Gathercole’s concluding claim is not that “the canonical Gospels are the only works to include any of the four principal elements of the kerygma” (478). Rather, the New Testament Gospels are the only texts that contain all of the distinct elements that mark apostolic preaching in the earliest churches. For example, some extracanonical Gospels include the death of Jesus but do not ascribe it any saving significance nor do they include an account of his resurrection (e.g., the Gospel of Judas; see 438–43). Other texts include a detailed account of the resurrection but seem to deny that the body is raised in this miraculous event (e.g., the Gospel of Phillip; see 410–25).
In this vein, Gathercole observes that one of the profound differences between canonical and noncanonical texts relates to the way messianic concepts are used alongside of Scriptural intertexts. While they include some of the accounts and varying details of these events, none of the noncanonical Gospels directly identify both the death and resurrection of Jesus as the prophetic fulfillment of Scripture. Accordingly, “this theme constitutes a significant example of the distinctiveness of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John vis-à-vis the others discussed here” (478).
The canonical Gospels also always associate the title “Christ” with Old Testament imagery and discernible messianic themes (e.g., the “son of David” title or the imagery of Psalm 2). In contrast to noncanonical texts, when the New Testament Gospels refer to Jesus as the Christ, they consistently activate a “scripturally rooted discourse or body of messianic tradition” that gives shape and definition to what is meant by “Messiah” (see 36–42; 81–97; 480–88).
Taken as a whole, Gathercole’s work is a rigorous and refreshing treatment of the distinctiveness of the canonical Gospels. Because his central claims are straightforward and meticulously supported, Gathercole has carved out a scholarly space in biblical studies for the assumption that the preaching of the apostles is coherent and intricately connected to the texts of the New Testament. For those who recognize the apocryphal Gospels are significant in some way but are unsure how to approach them, Gathercole provides a set of tools that will inform both the study of the canonical Gospels and the history of early Christianity.
I am grateful for this work and hope that it helps convince a new generation of students and scholars to value and defend the theological distinctiveness of these four Gospel narratives that have changed the world.
Much current scholarship on the Gospels and the history of early Christianity argues that only external factors in subsequent centuries can explain why Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were received as the only authoritative accounts of Jesus’s life and ministry. In this scenario, there were a host of texts that appropriated elements of the Jesus tradition from a wide variety of theological frameworks. Not until much later did the theological positions solidify that were then used to select the nature and number of the church’s Gospel canon.
In this volume, Simon Gathercole makes a careful and detailed case that there was indeed something about the canonical Gospels that allowed readers to differentiate them from other gospel-like texts. His thesis is twofold. He first argues that the four canonical Gospels “share key elements of theological content that mark them out from most of the noncanonical Gospels” (15). He argues further that the reason why these four Gospels “are theologically similar to one another is that they—unlike most others—follow a preexisting apostolic ‘creed’ or preached gospel” (15). Accordingly, the theological coherence of the four New Testament Gospels was not an arbitrary element of their reception history but rather a foundational feature of their initial composition.
In his overall project, Gathercole emphasizes the point that “there were theological criteria in operation, in the preached apostolic gospel or kerygma, even before the compositions of any Gospels” (14). The preaching of the apostles was shaped by these strands of theological confession from the earliest days of the Christian church. “All written Gospels” therefore, “emerged from a situation in which there were already established, though also developing, norms of what constituted authentic apostolic proclamation” (14).
An implication of this textual and social reality is that “in an important sense, a ‘canon’—in the sense of a widely held standard of teaching—preceded the composition of the Gospels, and the authors of the Gospels, deliberately or unconsciously, reflected this preaching or they did not” (14). For Gathercole, because this theological standard was operative in the first century, it should then directly inform the way the history of early Christianity is understood (cf. 463–502).
Noting the difficulty of comparing every detail of any two works, Gathercole selects the earliest form of the apostolic preaching (the “kerygma”) as the comparator by which he will compare and contrast these texts (34–35). Taking 1 Cor 15:3–4 as a starting point, Gathercole identifies four essential components of the kerygma (36–46). The apostolic preaching 1) identified Jesus as the Christ, 2) affirmed Jesus’s saving vicarious death, 3) explained Jesus’s resurrection on the third day, and 4) viewed each of these elements as a prophetic fulfillment of the Scriptures.
Gathercole also argues that the kerygma is a justifiable comparator for this kind of study because this form of the apostolic preaching likely pre-dates Paul’s letters, resonates with broader New Testament theology, and was widely affirmed among diverse Christian communities (see 47–70). The kerygma is thus uniquely and strategically positioned to serve as a ruler by which to measure the texts of early Christianity.
In the most substantive section of the book, Gathercole systematically evaluates how each Gospel text does or does not address the key features of the kerygma. For Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all the elements of the kerygma are present even with some distinctive features in their presentation (chapters 4–7). In the rest of this section, Gathercole examines seven of the best-preserved and most well-known apocryphal Gospels in early Christianity: the Gospel of Peter, Marcion’s Gospel, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Judas, and the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (chapters 8–14). In these chapters, Gathercole seeks to evaluate each text on its own terms and identify whether or not a given aspect of the kerygma is present or absent. After this lengthy targeted analysis of each text, Gathercole ends his volume with a concise synthesis of what a comparison and contrast of the various Gospels in early Christianity yields (chapters 15–16).
Gathercole’s concluding claim is not that “the canonical Gospels are the only works to include any of the four principal elements of the kerygma” (478). Rather, the New Testament Gospels are the only texts that contain all of the distinct elements that mark apostolic preaching in the earliest churches. For example, some extracanonical Gospels include the death of Jesus but do not ascribe it any saving significance nor do they include an account of his resurrection (e.g., the Gospel of Judas; see 438–43). Other texts include a detailed account of the resurrection but seem to deny that the body is raised in this miraculous event (e.g., the Gospel of Phillip; see 410–25).
In this vein, Gathercole observes that one of the profound differences between canonical and noncanonical texts relates to the way messianic concepts are used alongside of Scriptural intertexts. While they include some of the accounts and varying details of these events, none of the noncanonical Gospels directly identify both the death and resurrection of Jesus as the prophetic fulfillment of Scripture. Accordingly, “this theme constitutes a significant example of the distinctiveness of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John vis-à-vis the others discussed here” (478).
The canonical Gospels also always associate the title “Christ” with Old Testament imagery and discernible messianic themes (e.g., the “son of David” title or the imagery of Psalm 2). In contrast to noncanonical texts, when the New Testament Gospels refer to Jesus as the Christ, they consistently activate a “scripturally rooted discourse or body of messianic tradition” that gives shape and definition to what is meant by “Messiah” (see 36–42; 81–97; 480–88).
Taken as a whole, Gathercole’s work is a rigorous and refreshing treatment of the distinctiveness of the canonical Gospels. Because his central claims are straightforward and meticulously supported, Gathercole has carved out a scholarly space in biblical studies for the assumption that the preaching of the apostles is coherent and intricately connected to the texts of the New Testament. For those who recognize the apocryphal Gospels are significant in some way but are unsure how to approach them, Gathercole provides a set of tools that will inform both the study of the canonical Gospels and the history of early Christianity.
I am grateful for this work and hope that it helps convince a new generation of students and scholars to value and defend the theological distinctiveness of these four Gospel narratives that have changed the world.
January 10, 2025
When I arrived some years ago to study the Bible at the University of Edinburgh, I sat in on a guest lecture by Francis Watson, who argued that, to do good historical work, we needed to open the boundaries of the "canon," and work with all texts as equal pieces of evidence regarding early Christianity. This argument is reflective of a wider trend in scholarship to see the development of the canon as a "sociological" enterprise - one in which the powerful and influential got their way and the canon is based merely on the proclivities of the victors.
In this book, Gathercole critiques this perspective, demonstrating that the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did actually reflect the earliest developments and forms of Christian teaching in ways that all other early Gospels did not. So, rather than simply being chosen by the victors in the fourth century, the four canonical Gospels became authoritative in the early Church because their content exhibits a shared outlook that is not shared by later Gospel texts. Gathercole develops a methodology for demonstrating the consistency between the canonical Gospels and the earliest Christian teachings, and a methodology for demonstrating that the early Gospels that are now non-canonical did not reflect those teachings. In other words, the four Gospels did not get chosen first, which then led to "orthodoxy," but rather, orthodoxy was already developing, which was later reflected in the content of the four canonical Gospels.
I think Gathercole's book is well researched, well argued, and largely convincing. I do have two strong critiques, but not strong enough to keep me from enthusiastically recommending this book. These critiques are, quickly:
First, Gathercole uses 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 to outline the parameters of the earliest Christian gospel, and he then uses this as the comparanda for all of the Gospel texts. This is because 1) this is the clearest place that Paul outlines his own view of "the gospel," and because 2) Paul tells us that he didn't fashion this gospel, but that he "received" it from previous teachings and traditions about Jesus. The passage is a pre-Pauline formula outlining the content of the Christian gospel from the earliest developments of the Church. The main features are that Jesus is the messiah, that he died for sins, that he was raised from the dead, and that all of this was in accordance with the Jewish Scriptures. This is all well and good, but Gathercole restricts his evidence, maybe, one step too soon. There is another formula later in 1 Cor 15, that "flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God," which is also a pre-Pauline Formula, and which also, in the form of the kingdom, matches with Jesus' own gospel as found in the Gospels, and Gathercole leaves this out of the discussion. Yes, 1 Cor 15:50 is removed somewhat from 15:3-4, but there is no doubt that the "kingdom" was a vital piece of the depiction in the canonical Gospels of Jesus' own gospel. To have Paul also discuss it in 1 Cor 15 is no accident, so I wanted to see "kingdom" added as Gathercole's "fifth element." It'd be interesting to see if the non-canonical Gospels discussed in the book had kingdom features similar to the four canonical Gospels.
Second, Gathercole discusses quite a bit of Second Temple material, but never in sufficient detail. One is required to either trust his judgments, or open all of those texts to evaluate them. Yes, the book is over 500 pages, and there wasn't space - but Gathercole merely states that to which he thinks those texts refer, he never takes the time to analyze those passages to demonstrate his perspective. There are certainly scholars of those texts - from Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls - that will take exception to some of his statements regarding meaning and content.
On the whole, with these caveats aside, this book, at the least, contributes substantially to what is an important ongoing discussion. It's one that will be a major factor in these discussions moving forward for a long time.
In this book, Gathercole critiques this perspective, demonstrating that the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did actually reflect the earliest developments and forms of Christian teaching in ways that all other early Gospels did not. So, rather than simply being chosen by the victors in the fourth century, the four canonical Gospels became authoritative in the early Church because their content exhibits a shared outlook that is not shared by later Gospel texts. Gathercole develops a methodology for demonstrating the consistency between the canonical Gospels and the earliest Christian teachings, and a methodology for demonstrating that the early Gospels that are now non-canonical did not reflect those teachings. In other words, the four Gospels did not get chosen first, which then led to "orthodoxy," but rather, orthodoxy was already developing, which was later reflected in the content of the four canonical Gospels.
I think Gathercole's book is well researched, well argued, and largely convincing. I do have two strong critiques, but not strong enough to keep me from enthusiastically recommending this book. These critiques are, quickly:
First, Gathercole uses 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 to outline the parameters of the earliest Christian gospel, and he then uses this as the comparanda for all of the Gospel texts. This is because 1) this is the clearest place that Paul outlines his own view of "the gospel," and because 2) Paul tells us that he didn't fashion this gospel, but that he "received" it from previous teachings and traditions about Jesus. The passage is a pre-Pauline formula outlining the content of the Christian gospel from the earliest developments of the Church. The main features are that Jesus is the messiah, that he died for sins, that he was raised from the dead, and that all of this was in accordance with the Jewish Scriptures. This is all well and good, but Gathercole restricts his evidence, maybe, one step too soon. There is another formula later in 1 Cor 15, that "flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom of God," which is also a pre-Pauline Formula, and which also, in the form of the kingdom, matches with Jesus' own gospel as found in the Gospels, and Gathercole leaves this out of the discussion. Yes, 1 Cor 15:50 is removed somewhat from 15:3-4, but there is no doubt that the "kingdom" was a vital piece of the depiction in the canonical Gospels of Jesus' own gospel. To have Paul also discuss it in 1 Cor 15 is no accident, so I wanted to see "kingdom" added as Gathercole's "fifth element." It'd be interesting to see if the non-canonical Gospels discussed in the book had kingdom features similar to the four canonical Gospels.
Second, Gathercole discusses quite a bit of Second Temple material, but never in sufficient detail. One is required to either trust his judgments, or open all of those texts to evaluate them. Yes, the book is over 500 pages, and there wasn't space - but Gathercole merely states that to which he thinks those texts refer, he never takes the time to analyze those passages to demonstrate his perspective. There are certainly scholars of those texts - from Pseudepigrapha and the Dead Sea Scrolls - that will take exception to some of his statements regarding meaning and content.
On the whole, with these caveats aside, this book, at the least, contributes substantially to what is an important ongoing discussion. It's one that will be a major factor in these discussions moving forward for a long time.
December 30, 2023
This is a remarkable book. Simon Gathercole uses Paul’s Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 (and explains why he uses this as a benchmark of early Christian understanding of the Gospel) he then compares each of the canonical Gospels, and a number of other Gospel accounts with this benchmark. It is a piece of scholarship that is notable in its breadth and depth, and is a powerful rebuttal of the writings of people like Bart Ehrman. I also found it an extremely enriching read that would have been worth the effort even just for the insights on the canonical gospels.
September 15, 2024
A very helpful study comparing canonical and non-canonical Gospels against how the compare to the apostolic preaching. A good corrective against the diversity school which wants to paint all early Christian writings as equally valid.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews