Christianity without Paul

I doubt it would go on to become the Roman Imperial religion, at the very least.

Without Paul's evangelism, early Christianity stays restricted to southeast Mediterranean region. If the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple happens as iOTL, then the religion probably dies out. A few early Gnostic sects might survive but they won't resemble Christianity as we know it and they'll be targets when the Roman Empire eventually adopts and defines a monotheistic cult as the state religion.
 

Redhand

Banned
I doubt it would go on to become the Roman Imperial religion, at the very least.

Without Paul's evangelism, early Christianity stays restricted to southeast Mediterranean region. If the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple happens as iOTL, then the religion probably dies out. A few early Gnostic sects might survive but they won't resemble Christianity as we know it and they'll be targets when the Roman Empire eventually adopts and defines a monotheistic cult as the state religion.

Of course, that is assuming that nobody else has Paul's experiences or fills a similar role. It is entirely possible that we get a figure exactly like him who does the same thing.

And as for the Empire's development, I don't think that the forces pushing towards monotheism exist without Christianity, as Judaism was a much more exclusive, aggressively rebellious as opposed to passively rebellious, and less successful at proselytizing faith. Maybe the Imperial Cult or Mithraism somehow takes a role like this, but not with anywhere near the success of Christianity. An established empire-wide religion cannot rely on regional and ethnic roots, so something else is going to need to develop, and Zoroastrianism, even with necessary changes with PODs at least 500 years back, is too tied up with the Parthian/Sassanid polity to take hold.
 
the general opinion is that Christianity would never reach much beyond being a reasonbly sized heretic(?) subtype of Judaism. That being if it wouldn't die of after the Millennialisticbent that early Christianity had was debunked, or the religion wouldn't be shallowed by a competing religion in the neighbouring area (such as Zoroastrianism).

As for the changes this would cause in Rome, hard to say, as it was hardly the only Monotheistic religion making its rounds (Isis, Mithras and Sol Invicus were all contenders, and there were likely a number of minor cults able to make a run for it)
 
Of course, that is assuming that nobody else has Paul's experiences or fills a similar role. It is entirely possible that we get a figure exactly like him who does the same thing.

I think someone would definitely do what Paul did and reconcile early Christian theology with Hellenic thought. Paul had a pretty unique story, though, and it is no given that someone else would have a similar vision/experience.
 

Kingpoleon

Banned
The early disciples and apostles were not lead by Paul. Luke, Bartholomew, and Silas would have been enough to fill Paul's role. The 25,000 Christians in 40 A. D. would not stop. The religion spread, not because of Paul, but because the Roman people needed hope. The Roman religion offered hope only to the best of the best of the best. Paul is famous because his letters are the only ones found so far. Yet the Catholic Church rejected many other manuscripts and ordered them destroyed. How do we know Luke didn't travel as much as Paul? He stayed with Paul in Rome, but we don't know much before that. Peter would definitely spread it in Anatolia.
tl;dr: Paul is not solely responsible for Christianity's spread.
 
The 25,000 Christians in 40 A. D.
Source?
The religion spread, not because of Paul, but because the Roman people needed hope. The Roman religion offered hope only to the best of the best of the best.
In the third century, sure. But there's no reason that had to Christianity. When you say the Roman religion, I assume you mean the Imperial cult? That was doomed, yes, but it could have been filled with any number of religions, including but not limited to: Cult of Sol Invictus (indeed, history could have turned out very differently had Aurelian lived, since he was an active proponent of it), Cult of Antinuous, Mithraism, Isis, Neo-Platonism, etc.
 
The 25,000 Christians in 40 A. D.

unless you have a source this sounds as wishful retrohistorical thinking with no chance of being realistic.

Sure, there were likely quite a few following 'The Way' allready then, but not that many, not that early, and certainly not self-identifying as anything that can consistently be classified as Christianity ... If anything they were proto-Christians, since at this point in time the term Christianity was quite an empty box that you could put quite a few different things into (gnostic thoughts of an immediate endtime)
 
The 25,000 Christians in 40 A. D. would not stop.

This is an absurd overestimate. The only survey-backed numbers we have from the first three centuries AD is that of Bishop Cornelius of Rome in 251 AD, who lists 60 priests and other leaders, 94 other staff, and a bit more than 1500 dependents (beggars and widows) in that city, which when combined with the numbers and capacities of all known Christian meeting places in Rome, has been extrapolated to a total Roman Christian membership of about 15,000 in 251 AD -- over 200 years after 40 AD!

Acts 1:15 says that there were 120 Christians in total, at the time of the Crucifixion. Any realistic growth model suggests no more than 1,000 Christians ten years later, which is perfectly consistent with the written evidence of the time.
 
they'll be targets when the Roman Empire eventually adopts and defines a monotheistic cult as the state religion.
Why would/does monotheism appeal, doesn't polytheism make it easier to bring areas into the Empire?
 
Well, yeah, I guess monotheism isn't a given, but it seemed to be the trajectory the Roman Empire was on starting with the Imperial Cult.
 
If it wasn't Paul, it'll be some other church leader's letters that becopme famous. After all, he was hardly the leader of the early Chrisitian community, by Paul's own writings the likes of James ("brother of the Lord") and Peter were more influential.

I suppose Paul's name is still remembered today is due to his letters preserved among the Western, mainstream Christianity. For a Chrisitianity "without" Paul, it'd have to be some other sect(s) being mainstream, like the Ebionites or Gnostics, who may revere and preserve writings of other leaders instead of Paul.
 

Kingpoleon

Banned
This is an absurd overestimate. The only survey-backed numbers we have from the first three centuries AD is that of Bishop Cornelius of Rome in 251 AD, who lists 60 priests and other leaders, 94 other staff, and a bit more than 1500 dependents (beggars and widows) in that city, which when combined with the numbers and capacities of all known Christian meeting places in Rome, has been extrapolated to a total Roman(only in the city itself) Christian membership of about 15,000 in 251 AD -- over 200 years after 40 AD!

Acts 1:15 says that there were 120 Christians in total, at the time of the Crucifixion. Any realistic growth model suggests no more than 1,000 Christians ten years later, which is perfectly consistent with the written evidence of the time.
My number was definitely quite a bit off, and I apologize to everyone. Thank you to those who pointed this out. However, Acts mentions a Theophilus, who was most likely a believer. The one hundred twenty were the ones converted to Christianity. Jesus feeds 9,000 men with very few fish and bread. I suppose that though He says He is the Messiah, they assume he isn't and don't convert. We learn that Peter converted three thousand people when the Holy Spirit came upon the twelve disciples. I suppose those 12,000 just not doing anything wouldn't rise to 15,000. I would put 15,000 as an absolute minimum, and the 72 who Jesus sent out probably converted a few hundred more in there. At the most, 20,000 does seem likely to me.
 

scholar

Banned
I doubt it would go on to become the Roman Imperial religion, at the very least.

Without Paul's evangelism, early Christianity stays restricted to southeast Mediterranean region. If the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple happens as iOTL, then the religion probably dies out. A few early Gnostic sects might survive but they won't resemble Christianity as we know it and they'll be targets when the Roman Empire eventually adopts and defines a monotheistic cult as the state religion.
I'm not really sure what you are basing this on. First, Paul often wrote letters against his rival evangelizers. Second, his letter to the Romans was an introduction as a future visit to a place he had not established.

Paul's greatest contribution to the faith was the heavy propagation of the idea that men did not need to follow the Old Testament Law, for Jesus fulfilled the Law. In this idea he was not alone, nor was he alone in preaching to the gentiles. There were dozens, if not hundreds, of others like him. It was his letters and that he founded many communities across vast distances that makes him integral to the faith, and through his letters the first canon emerged even before the Gospels were put into Greek (though some speculate one or two of them might have been in Aramaic and predate the currently accepted range for publication).

Depending on what you think of Paul and the highly speculative and barely known period of Christianities early beginnings, his absense may well be a small speedbump for the faith, or may well radically alter the course of the faith making it more closely affiliated with Judaism. The most radical possibility is that Christianity becomes a Judaic Religion that seeks to turn Gentiles into Jews without care of birth or decent, which given that there are more laws to follow than Paul's "Believe in Christ" message could make it less attractive to the wider public.
 
I'm not really sure what you are basing this on. First, Paul often wrote letters against his rival evangelizers. Second, his letter to the Romans was an introduction as a future visit to a place he had not established.

Paul's greatest contribution to the faith was the heavy propagation of the idea that men did not need to follow the Old Testament Law, for Jesus fulfilled the Law. In this idea he was not alone, nor was he alone in preaching to the gentiles. There were dozens, if not hundreds, of others like him. It was his letters and that he founded many communities across vast distances that makes him integral to the faith, and through his letters the first canon emerged even before the Gospels were put into Greek (though some speculate one or two of them might have been in Aramaic and predate the currently accepted range for publication).

Depending on what you think of Paul and the highly speculative and barely known period of Christianities early beginnings, his absense may well be a small speedbump for the faith, or may well radically alter the course of the faith making it more closely affiliated with Judaism. The most radical possibility is that Christianity becomes a Judaic Religion that seeks to turn Gentiles into Jews without care of birth or decent, which given that there are more laws to follow than Paul's "Believe in Christ" message could make it less attractive to the wider public.

I don't disagree with any of that, but I do not understand how it contradicts anything I said, either. Perhaps my statement was too declarative. So there could be persistent communities because of the evangelists other than Paul... I've already said that is a distinct possibility.
 
Top