Simon J. Gathercole – författare

What are the key differences between the canonical Gospels and the apocryphal gospels?   In this concise and engaging book, New Testament scholar Simon Gathercole shows that crucial theological features link Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John together—and also set them apart from other ancient accounts of Christ’s life.   Writing in a clear and highly accessible style, Gathercole analyzes the New Testament Gospels alongside some of the earliest and most controversial apocryphal gospels. He shows that the canonical Gospels share key elements of theological content—content that consistently aligns with what the apostles taught about Jesus. Specifically, what distinguishes Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is that they faithfully represent Jesus’s messiahship, his saving death and resurrection, and his fulfilment of Scripture. This stands in sharp contrast to the apocryphal Gospels, which either represent such teaching incompletely, ignore it, or actively reject it.   In short, what separates the canonical Gospels from their noncanonical counterparts covered in this book is that the former are faithful portraits of Christ the savior; the latter are less-than-authentic representations. The Genuine Jesus and the Counterfeit Christs will appeal to everyday readers who want to know more about apocryphal gospels, and to students in biblical studies who are interested in questions of authority and canonicity.

Since the work of E.P. Sanders, most modern approaches to this topic have been focused on social or sociological aspects of the issue (particularly in relation to Paul's mission to the Gentiles), but the last few years have seen an increasing willingness to open up questions seemingly 'settled' in the New Perspective, and a renewed desire to examine the structures of theology concerning grace and human action both in Paul and in his contemporary Judaism. It seems now worthwhile to examine to what extent there was an internal debate within Judaism about divine grace and its relation to human agency, and whether this debate could or did spawn various more or less radical solutions. The aim of this volume is to re-examine Paul within contemporary Jewish debate on this topic, attuned to the significant theological issues he raises without imposing upon him the frameworks developed in later Christian thought.

In this challenging book, rising New Testament scholar Simon Gathercole contradicts a commonly held view among biblical scholars -- that the Gospel of John is the only Gospel to give evidence for Jesus' heavenly identity and preexistence. The Preexistent Son demonstrates that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were also well aware that the Son of God existed with the Father prior to his earthly ministry. Gathercole supports his argument by considering the "I have come" sayings of Jesus and strikingly similar angelic sayings discovered in Second Temple and Rabbinic literature. Further, he considers related topics such as Wisdom Christology and the titles applied to Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.Gathercole's carefully researched work should spark debate among Synoptic scholars and extend the understanding of anyone interested in this New Testament question.

This important work challenges the validity of the "New Perspective" on Paul and Judaism. Working with new data fom Jewish literature and a fresh reading of Romans 1-5, Simon Gathercole produces a far-reaching criticism of the current approach to Paul and points a new way forward. Building on a detailed examination of the past generation of scholarship on Paul and early Judaism, Gathercole's work follows two paths. First, he shows that while early Judaism was not truly oriented around legalistic works-righteousness, it did consider obedience to the Law to be an important criterion at the final judgment. On the basis of this reconstruction of Jewish thought and a rereading of Romans 1–5, Gathercole advances his main argument - that Paul did indeed combat a Jewish perspective that saw obedience to the Law both as possible and as a criterion for vindication at the final judgment. Paul's reply is that obedience to the Law is not a criterion for the final judgment because human nature makes obedience to the Law impossible. His doctrine of justification can therefore be properly viewed in its Jewish context, yet anthropological issues also take center stage.