BigT:
Perhaps, but we do have both James, which seem to be arguing the opposite of Paul’s gospel, even if it were not written by the James Paul quarrels with in Acts. Paul is all about being saved by faith and not by works. James goes the other way. While he doesn’t discount Paul’s interpretation, he points out that faith and works go together.
So, without Paul, I suspect the concept of being saved by faith and not by works would not have been taught, and while I don’t see that changing Catholicism or Orthodox beliefs, it’s a huge problem for the Protestant Reformation. While Luther would still be upset about the sale of indulgences, I can’t see him having any real doctrinal problems. Even if he still does split from the Church, Protestantism becomes largely indistinguishable from Catholicism, like the earlier splits.
This, of course, is assuming that nothing changes in the New Testament except the removal of Paul from the Christian narrative. If the Gospels are still accurate, I don’t see any of the other Epistles changing either. We just lose those things that are specific to Paul. The other two things, women being silent and submissive and the only reaffirmation of the Law against homosexuality I don’t think have as big a difference as people think, as those things were just a part of the Jewish culture, and thus would be assumed by a Jewish-derived religion. Only if Paul were replaced by some gay person or woman would I expect that to change.
The only thing I disagree with here is that “Paul was all about being saved by faith and not by works.” That was Luther’s interpretation, but he fundamentally misunderstood what Paul was discussing, which was the much narrower issue of the relationship between Jewish and Gentile converts to Christianity.
There wouldn’t be any Christianity.
This book, The Laughing Jesus , tells all about it.