WI the Christian Bible just the Gospels?

Which ones? There are a lot of Gospels out there besides the four that are canonical in Chalcedonian Christianity.

If you just have the four canonical gospels to rely on, you have very little applicability to anyone beyond Judaism. Christ in the gospels presents himself as the Jewish messiah. It's Paul's epistles which really go on to portray him as universal messiah.

And if you have the canonical gospels, the Jewish Bible is definitely going to be a part of *Christianity since the gospels portray Jesus as the fulfilment of the Law (again it's really Paul who takes the next step to portray Jesus as superseding the Law). The gospels go out of their way to tailor their presentation of Jesus to fulfil Jewish prophecy- even when it doesn't make sense e.g. Matthew's portrayal of Jesus as descended from David through Joseph even though this is inconvenient if you want to see Jesus as the son of God and not of Joseph
 
Last edited:
Could this have happend?

Have you heard of Marcionism? It was a second century heresy which rejected the old testament believing that the Jewish god was a force of evil opposed to Christ. They only accepted a modified version of Luke's gospel as scripture.

So I guess it is very possible. However, as Flocculencio pointed out a very important question is which gospels would be accepted. As mentioned Marcion used a different one than any of the four found in our canon, and there were many more - you can read a partial list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels#Apocrypha_and_pseudepigrapha

If so how different would Christianity be?

Very, just think of the influence the psalms have on christian music and songs, or how Genesis shaped the christian worldview
 
I think it's also stated that Jesus decended from David through Mary?

That's not clearly the line of descent in the Gospels, though. Both geneaologies of Jesus deal with it in a pretty clunky way.

Matthew does the descent from Abraham, through David and then ends off with Joseph who was the husband of Mary "of whom was born Jesus".

Luke again awkwardly goes Jesus "as was supposed at the time, son of Joseph," and goes on with the geneaology, which is distinctly different than Matthew's. The usual explanation for this difference is that supposedly it traces Mary's line but this is an ex post facto explanation. The Greek original is apparently pretty vague.

In either case, though, my point still stands- the Gospels (at least the Synoptic gospels) consciously relate Jesus distinctly to earier Jewish prophecy. Arguably the Gospels make little sense without directly relating them to the Hebrew scriptures. This is in contrast to Paul's epistles which is where the real work is done of making Christianity a universalist religion as opposed to a reformed judaic sect. The Marcionites whom Kalan mentions accepted Luke but also Paul's epistles- you could see the movement as an extreme form of Pauline Christianity.
 
Top