WI: Paul of Tarsus dies on the road to Damascus

[danteheadman]

Instead of having a vision of God, Paul has a seizure on the road and dies. What are the long-term consequences?

The most immediate consequence is that Paul never preaches across the Roman Empire and becomes an author of Christian New Testament (CNT) texts. So the seven Pauline epistles that historians agree were written by Paul (First Thessalonians, Galatians, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, and Romans) are never written; the pseudepigraphic Pauline epistles (Colossians, Second Thessalonians, Ephesians, First and Second Timothy, and Titus) may or may not be written, and if ever written they'll certainly be attributed to another person. This restricts the CNT to the following texts: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; Acts of the Apostles; the Epistle to the Hebrews; the Epistle of James; the First and Second Epistles of Peter; the First, Second, and Third Epistles of John; the Epistle of Jude; and Revelations.

Another immediate consequence is to the Council of Jerusalem. Absent Paul's advocacy, the Council might conclude that Greek converts to Christianity must follow Mosaic law; this was the majority opinion in Jerusalem at the time. Barnabas, who does not even have his own epistle, might not have the oratory chops to sway the Council as Paul OTL did. Peter would then not be inclined to propose a compromise position (which was adopted as the Apostolic Decree).

How would this impact the spread of Christianity? How does the reduced biblical canon otherwise impact Christian theology?

 

[Kerney]

Paul's main contribution was the universalizing of the Christian message i.e. making it palatable to non Jews.

Without it the Jesus movement remains small and Jewish and probably reabsorbed within a century or two.

 

[Mongo]

Without Paul's writings, I expect that one of the other strands of early Christianity would become dominant, and perhaps become the 'official' version of Christianity, as the Pauline version did in OTL. (Assuming that Christianity would still grow to the point where it eventually becomes the official Roman state religion, which would probably be a slower process than in OTL.)

One of the top two candidate strands would be Jewish-Christianity, which retained many Jewish attributes and was the version followed by the 'Pillars of Jerusalem', led by James the brother of Jesus, and which was probably the closest to what Jesus actually taught.

The other top candidate would be the early form of Christianity represented by the Gospel of Thomas and later the Gospel of Mary, which (among other differences from Pauline Christianity) apparently proclaimed the full equality of men and women, and had many female church leaders. The first century or so of Christianity included many female leaders, before the practice was suppressed by the emerging orthodox church, so I suspect that what became orthodox 'official' Christianity was in the minority among all Christians until possibly as late as the Council of Nicea.

I expect that the reason it became the officially sanctioned version was due mainly to its emphasis on hierarchy and obeying your church leaders, which suited quite well the men who decided what was to be included in the canon. Other versions of Christianity placed more emphasis on salvation by personal effort, including meditation leading to enlightenment, and less emphasis on church hierarchy.

 

[Madeleine Birchfield]

Another immediate consequence is to the Council of Jerusalem. Absent Paul's advocacy, the Council might conclude that Greek converts to Christianity must follow Mosaic law; this was the majority opinion in Jerusalem at the time. Barnabas, who does not even have his own epistle, might not have the oratory chops to sway the Council as Paul OTL did. Peter would then not be inclined to propose a compromise position (which was adopted as the Apostolic Decree).

Paul's main contribution was the universalizing of the Christian message i.e. making it palatable to non Jews.

Without it the Jesus movement remains small and Jewish and probably reabsorbed within a century or two.

Paul started to accompany Barnabas in converting gentiles because Barnabas needed a companion to take some of the work off his shoulders. If it wasn't Paul, he would have found somebody else to accompany them (such as John Mark) and that alternate person would have most likely been also in favour of ending Mosaic Law for the sake of the gentile converts. Furthermore, Peter was OTL also in favour of Paul's and Barnabas's position.

 

[Madeleine Birchfield]

The most immediate consequence is that Paul never preaches across the Roman Empire and becomes an author of Christian New Testament (CNT) texts. So the seven Pauline epistles that historians agree were written by Paul (First Thessalonians, Galatians, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Philippians, Philemon, and Romans) are never written; the pseudepigraphic Pauline epistles (Colossians, Second Thessalonians, Ephesians, First and Second Timothy, and Titus) may or may not be written, and if ever written they'll certainly be attributed to another person. This restricts the CNT to the following texts: the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; Acts of the Apostles; the Epistle to the Hebrews; the Epistle of James; the First and Second Epistles of Peter; the First, Second, and Third Epistles of John; the Epistle of Jude; and Revelations.

The other top candidate would be the early form of Christianity represented by the Gospel of Thomas and later the Gospel of Mary, which (among other differences from Pauline Christianity) apparently proclaimed the full equality of men and women, and had many female church leaders. The first century or so of Christianity included many female leaders, before the practice was suppressed by the emerging orthodox church, so I suspect that what became orthodox 'official' Christianity was in the minority among all Christians until possibly as late as the Council of Nicea.

I expect that the reason it became the officially sanctioned version was due mainly to its emphasis on hierarchy and obeying your church leaders, which suited quite well the men who decided what was to be included in the canon. Other versions of Christianity placed more emphasis on salvation by personal effort, including meditation leading to enlightenment, and less emphasis on church hierarchy.

The New Testament canon was canonised at the Council of Laodicea in 367. If Paul's writings weren't around, the council would have simply found other writings that expressed the same themes to put into the Bible.

 

[Philip]

One of the top two candidate strands would be Jewish-Christianity, which retained many Jewish attributes and was the version followed by the 'Pillars of Jerusalem', led by James the brother of Jesus, and which was probably the closest to what Jesus actually taught

In fact we know little of what James taught. One of the few records of him describe him as agreeing with Paul's mission.

The first century or so of Christianity included many female leaders, before the practice was suppressed by the emerging orthodox church, so I suspect that what became orthodox 'official' Christianity was in the minority among all Christians until possibly as late as the Council of Nicea

Starting to sound rather Dan-Brown-y.

 

[Kerney]

The New Testament canon was canonised at the Council of Laodicea in 367. If Paul's writings weren't around, the council would have simply found other writings that expressed the same themes to put into the Bible.

But the odds of it being the same Christianity, perhaps without the same themes and empathis. There being a Council of Laodicea is total butterfly bait as is Constantine and Christian dominance entirely and probably more unlikely than likely.

Three centuries of divergence is just too much for similar circumstances to arise, barring a miracle. I do think the rise of Christianity is one of those low probability things that happened because there is a high probability of some low probability things happening. So if you believe a miracle might be the right word.

But Paul's death is a huge butterfly.

 

[Mongo]

Starting to sound rather Dan-Brown-y.

I think that the early prominence of women in Christianity, and their later suppression from leadership roles, is fairly well accepted by scholars.

 

[Madeleine Birchfield]

But the odds of it being the same Christianity, perhaps without the same themes and empathis. There being a Council of Laodicea is total butterfly bait as is Constantine and Christian dominance entirely and probably more unlikely than likely.

Three centuries of divergence is just too much for similar circumstances to arise, barring a miracle. I do think the rise of Christianity is one of those low probability things that happened because there is a high probability of some low probability things happening. So if you believe a miracle might be the right word.

It was the OP who brought up the Christian New Testament canon, which wasn't formulated after Constantine made Christianity the official language and after the Council of Laodicea. The entire Christian New Testament is probably butterflied away if butterflies are taken seriously. At least the entirety of the Acts of the Apostles would be completely unrecognisable from OTL without Paul.

 

[Kerney]

It was the OP who brought up the Christian New Testament canon, which wasn't formulated after Constantine made Christianity the official language and after the Council of Laodicea. The entire Christian New Testament is probably butterflied away if butterflies are taken seriously. At least the entirety of the Acts of the Apostles would be completely unrecognisable from OTL without Paul.

There has been a tendency in some other conversations for some posters to treat Christization as inevitable in some conversations. It's what the OP looked like they were doing in IMHO. So I answered it with the literal answer as I saw it.

Thanks for explaining.

 

[danteheadman]

There has been a tendency in some other conversations for some posters to treat Christization as inevitable in some conversations. It's what the OP looked like they were doing in IMHO. So I answered it with the literal answer as I saw it.

Thanks for explaining.

A Christianity of some form is inevitable; it already existed before Paul died. How it looks and whether the Roman Empire adopts it is the discussion.