WI: Paul's Epistles Not Preserved

[MN.Gruber06]

DISCLAIMER: Please do not incorporate any discussions on inerrancy/inspiration/preservation of the Scriptures in here by any means! This scenario is purely historical - not theological, ontological or philosophical.

So: what are the IMMEDIATE effects of an inability to faithfully preserve Paul's Epistles? All of them are equally significant and have influenced the course of human history far more drastically than probably any other historically ancient document (save the four Gospels themselves) but the one that seems to stand out as the "centerpiece" of Christian theological understanding has always been argued as Romans.

Let's presuppose that Romans is unable to be faithfully preserved. What does Christianity look like?

 

[Herzen's love-child]

I think that Christianity would maintain a greater connection to its Jewish roots in form and practice. It would slow down a movement to make it more "Gentile-friendly" although proselytizing to Jews and non-Jews alike would still happen (just as Judaism had to non-Jews to a limited extant before the advent of Christianity). Possibly a lasting schism would form between those who wanted to reach out more to non-Jews and those who wanted to keep the focus within the Jewish community. I understand this happened to a limited extent historically. I think it might be greater w/o Paul's writings to be around to become a part of Christianity's canon.
I suspect that the role of women in the church might have additional avenues if the preserved writings of Paul weren't such a motivating factor OTL to shut those avenues down. Homosexuality may not be as stigmatized within Christianity, for the same reasons.

 

[MN.Gruber06]

Theologically, what kind of distinction would we be looking at in regards to works-righteousness? Paul draws the distinction pretty early, building in Romans 1 and ending in Romans 8 before going into election/providence in Romans 9. The central theme, nonetheless, is that the benefits of the atonement are to be received "by faith alone apart from works of the law". If 2 Peter and James are all we had, however, then they would arguably be the most exegetical/theologically heavy books left in the NT aside from the Gospels themselves. Is there enough material in the remaining NT to establish a theological tradition that resembles the Christian teaching we have today?

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Theologically, what kind of distinction would we be looking at in regards to works-righteousness? Paul draws the distinction pretty early, building in Romans 1 and ending in Romans 8 before going into election/providence in Romans 9. The central theme, nonetheless, is that the benefits of the atonement are to be received "by faith alone apart from works of the law". If 2 Peter and James are all we had, however, then they would arguably be the most exegetical/theologically heavy books left in the NT aside from the Gospels themselves. Is there enough material in the remaining NT to establish a theological tradition that resembles the Christian teaching we have today?

As to that, you are out of this Jew's theological depth when it comes to the minutiae of Christianity.

 

[MN.Gruber06]

To that, you are out of this Jew's theological depth when it comes to the minutiae of Christianity.

No worries! Grace and peace, friend.

 

[Velasco]

I think that Christianity would maintain a greater connection to its Jewish roots in form and practice. It would slow down a movement to make it more "Gentile-friendly" although proselytizing to Jews and non-Jews alike would still happen (just as Judaism had to non-Jews to a limited extant before the advent of Christianity). Possibly a lasting schism would form between those who wanted to reach out more to non-Jews and those who wanted to keep the focus within the Jewish community. I understand this happened to a limited extent historically. I think it might be greater w/o Paul's writings to be around to become a part of Christianity's canon.
I suspect that the role of women in the church might have additional avenues if the preserved writings of Paul weren't such a motivating factor OTL to shut those avenues down. Homosexuality may not be as stigmatized within Christianity, for the same reasons.

If the Jewish influence were greater, is there any reason to imagine morality aspects (male-female separation, marital and sexual practices) would be less Jewish than they were OTL? The Jews themselves proselytized gentile populations, so there's no problem with the Christians doing the same (and indeed they did), though they required circumcision et al and general Judaizing for conversion to be considered valid.

 

[MN.Gruber06]

If the Jewish influence were greater, is there any reason to imagine morality aspects (male-female separation, marital and sexual practices) would be less Jewish than they were OTL? The Jews themselves proselytized gentile populations, so there's no problem with the Christians doing the same (and indeed they did), though they required circumcision et al and general Judaizing for conversion to be considered valid.

I think a lot of this discussion is contingent on whether or not you believe the early Church held to Sola Scriptura. If it didn't, you're gonna have a harder time justifying whether or not the Church should continue in regards to what it was teaching about ethics by the 16th century (Reformation) - but the same argument isn't going to apply to the period classified as its early formation (1st - 5th century). There's going to be enough oral tradition around to keep rival teachings about morality and ethics in check if all you're doing is importing teaching from the Jewish Scriptures.

You're only gonna be able to butterfly away so much in regards to Christian teachings on morality if you take away Paul's Epistles because the Epistles reference so much previously written Biblical text as "proofs" of Paul's own theology (Exodus, the Psalms, etc).

 

[Velasco]

I think a lot of this discussion is contingent on whether or not you believe the early Church held to Sola Scriptura. If it didn't, you're gonna have a harder time justifying whether or not the Church should continue in regards to what it was teaching about ethics by the 16th century (Reformation) - but the same argument isn't going to apply to the period classified as its early formation (1st - 5th century). There's going to be enough oral tradition around to keep rival teachings about morality and ethics in check if all you're doing is importing teaching from the Jewish Scriptures.

You're only gonna be able to butterfly away so much in regards to Christian teachings on morality if you take away Paul's Epistles because the Epistles reference so much previously written Biblical text as "proofs" of Paul's own theology (Exodus, the Psalms, etc).

Jesus' whole "I came to fulfill the Law, not remove it" and "if you so much as look upon a woman with lustful thoughts, you've sinned" don't give much margin for pre-marital or homosexual intercourse, I don't think.

 

[MN.Gruber06]

Jesus' whole "I came to fulfill the Law, not remove it" and "if you so much as look upon a woman with lustful thoughts, you've sinned" don't give much margin for pre-marital or homosexual intercourse, I don't think.

Right. Paul's texts are the ones that reference homosexuality the most. But if you're all doing is importing ethics from Judaism to supplement the missing moral instructions of Paul in Corinthians, then Paul's subsequent removal from the canon doesn't necessarily mean that Christianity is now a "no-holds-barred" religion where homosexuality is going to be swiftly endorsed. Early Christians saying "Jesus fulfilled the law for us, let's party!" isn't going to fit with what the Gospels say. Early Church Fathers didn't view the moral law as something that was possible of being fulfilled and I don't think that philosophy requires Pauline preservation.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

If the Jewish influence were greater, is there any reason to imagine morality aspects (male-female separation, marital and sexual practices) would be less Jewish than they were OTL? The Jews themselves proselytized gentile populations, so there's no problem with the Christians doing the same (and indeed they did), though they required circumcision et al and general Judaizing for conversion to be considered valid.

Depends on one's interpretation of the interpreters and practitioners of early rabbinical Judaism (as opposed to Temple Judaism) and how that was actually manifested in actual everyday life at the time. Judaism as is practiced today (all variants) rests on the bedrock of both, but also evolved over the course of 2 millennia, as have its practitioners.


Circumcision was a dealkiller for many would-be aspirants to conversion to Judaism.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Jesus' whole "I came to fulfill the Law, not remove it" and "if you so much as look upon a woman with lustful thoughts, you've sinned" don't give much margin for pre-marital or homosexual intercourse, I don't think.

However, Yeshua (Jesus) didn't (apparently) make a point of homosexuality, unlike Paul.
and so far as Jewish practices in regards to the injunctions of Leviticus proscribing homosexual acts:

Like many similar commandments, the stated punishment for willful violation is the death penalty. However, even in Biblical times, it was very difficult to get a conviction that would lead to this prescribed punishment. The Jewish Oral Law states that capital punishment would only be applicable if two men were caught in the act of anal sex, if there were two witnesses to the act, if the two witnesses warned the men involved that they committed a capital offense, and the two men — or the willing party, in case of rape — subsequently acknowledged the warning but continued to engage in the prohibited act anyway. In fact, there is no account of capital punishment, in regards to this law, in Jewish history.

Rabbinic tradition understands the Torah's system of capital punishment to not be in effect for the past approximately 2,000 years, in the absence of a Sanhedrin and Temple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_and_Judaism (just because it's convenient to quote and mostly on point)

Of course, the Abrahamic religions were all a little uptight on the subject of pre-marital sex, but so were most of the organized religions and societies of classical times.

 

[MN.Gruber06]

and so far as Jewish practices in regards to the injunctions of Leviticus proscribing homosexual acts:

Lack of official punitive capacity doesn't mean there's a lack of ethical understanding regarding what is "Godly" within the Jewish foundations of morality. Even if Paul's Epistles disappear, you're going to have a hard time justifying Christian teaching as being in-line with the way God has always operated via covenant if you're teaching doctrine completely foreign to established Torah interpretation. That's a huge continuity error and is largely going to diminish your claims to legitimacy that Jesus was the prophesied Anointed King.

 

[Mongo]

Another question would be if in the absence of the Pauline epistles, other documents would make it into the Biblical canon instead. I can think of a number that just missed making it OTL, that could make it TTL: 1 and 2 Clement are certainly worthy of inclusion, as are Philippi and Diognetus, all being the type of text called Catholic Epistles. The Odes of Solomon is a Jewish-Christian text that would complement James and Hebrews, which did make it in. Several "wisdom teachings" that are strong candidates are The Sentences of Sextus, and The Teachings of Sylvanus. Gnostic texts I would include (were it up to me) are The Gospel of Thomas, The Acts of Thomas, The Apocryphon of James and The Gospel of Truth. Other texts I would include are the allegorical stories The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles and The Shepherd of Hermas, as well as The Questions of Bartholomew and the Didach, a very old early Christian document.

I admit that if all of these texts were included, the resulting Bible would be much more diverse than it is at present, but it would allow a glimpse of just how diverse early Christian practice actually was.

 

[MN.Gruber06]

Another question would be if in the absence of the Pauline epistles, other documents would make it into the Biblical canon instead. I can think of a number that just missed making it OTL, that could make it TTL: 1 and 2 Clement are certainly worthy of inclusion, as are Philippi and Diognetus, all being the type of text called Catholic Epistles. The Odes of Solomon is a Jewish-Christian text that would complement James and Hebrews, which did make it in. Several "wisdom teachings" that are strong candidates are The Sentences of Sextus, and The Teachings of Sylvanus. Gnostic texts I would include (were it up to me) are The Gospel of Thomas, The Acts of Thomas, The Apocryphon of James and The Gospel of Truth. Other texts I would include are the allegorical stories The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles and The Shepherd of Hermas, as well as The Questions of Bartholomew and the Didach, a very old early Christian document.

I admit that if all of these texts were included, the resulting Bible would be much more diverse than it is at present, but it would allow a glimpse of just how diverse early Christian practice actually was.

That's a really good point. Ultimately, any NT canon that erases Pauline texts is going to (by consequence) include texts that otherwise didn't make it in. This is because they would've no longer been inconsistent with what the apostles already considered canonical. Since we know that Paul's letters were considered Scripture (see 2 Peter 3:16) by as early as 60 A.D., then it's pretty reasonable to assume that the lack of their existence (or the lack of their preservation by early Christians) would definitely move the benchmark of what was considered "God-breathed" and what wasn't pretty far into the realm of conjecture, since Paul's writings (in Romans especially) were definitely used far more than any other non-Gospel NT document as a benchmark of theological thought.

In an ATL where Paul or his letters are gone, then the diversity of early Christian practice definitely would've been even more pronounced. Judging just by what we know of the early church from Paul's own letters, we know that he seems to have spent a great amount of time, work and anxiety in instructing churches in what "true" practice was and wasn't. Paul's letters themselves show the historical disparity. I can only imagine that his non-inclusion would emphasize the variety even moreso.

 

[DanMcCollum]

Well, its important to remember that the reason Paul's letters survived is because they were considered so important by the communities he helped found. If they don't survive, its likely because his missionary work is less successful, meaning that the Jerusalem Church retains a great deal more authority than it did in OTL. As others have stated, this does likely lead to a more Judiac christianity and, possibly, a less expansive one as well, since Paul was the one who was so interested in preaching to the gentiles.