Why did Paul make so little of the birth of Jesus ?

Why did Paul make so little of the birth of Jesus? The parameters o f the question in the title involve a comparative study o f ‘the birth o f Jesus’, its historicity or function within the synoptic tradition. The results are weighed against Pauline theology, its thrust as well as con­ ceptual range. The pre-existent aspect o f the notion o f Messiah, which constitutes the condition for the possibility o f the infancy narratives, is scrutinized in order to determine the validity or otherwise o f the ‘report’ on ‘the birth o f Jesus’.


INTRODUCTION
The question: 'Why did Paul make so little of the birth of Jesus?' can be divided into two parts, namely: (a) The question of the point of d eparture for Pauline theology, as well as an inquiry into whether or not such point of departure may be responsible for Paul bypassing the story of the birth of Jesus, and (b): ^n inves tigation into th e concept 'the birth of Jesus' in order to determ ine w hether it represents an historical occurrence or a mere theological idea.If the latter were the case, then we will have to determine whether or not such a theological idea has an equivalent in the corpus PaulUium.Incidentally, the account of the birth of Jesus is found only in the gospels of Matthew and Luke.We might as well ask why Mark m ade so httle of the birth of Jesus?We might go still further to ask why, in their reconstruction of Q, commentators make so little of the birth of Jesus?And since the Pauline letters, the Q source and Mark are generally dated quite earlier than M atthew and Luke, has the date variable anything to do with the development of the concept of 'the birth of Jesus'?Did the idea of the birth of Jesus suddenly become fashionable at a certain period of time?These, and many other questions need to be asked, even if only to psychologically prepare ourselves for the progress as well as the outcome of our investigations.For purposes of clarity we will begin with the (b) part of the question, namely an investigation into the concept of 'the birth of Jesus', before moving to the (a) part of the question, namely the Pauline theology.But first, something about the gospels, of which the infancy narratives are a part.
2 TH E FORMATION O F TH E GOSPELS Paradoxically, one may speak of the Gospels as developing backwards in time, inter weaving units of tradition (or interpreted facts?) in their stride.That is not the case with history, when viewed as a systematic recording of public events.The former (i e tradition) may include the latter (i e history), but the latter may not include the former without qualification.
The oldest C hristian preaching about 'Jesus trad itio n ' had as its core the kerygma (or Jesus passion, death and resurrection).Such 'dogma's' which are the cradle of Christian faith can be discerned from stereotypes or formulae in Acts 2:23, 32, Acts 3:14-15, Acts 4:10, Acts 10:39-40 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, among others.For the first preachers of the gospel, not only did these events constitute the clearest instance of G od's conscious intervention in history or rath e r G o d 's saving act through Jesus of Nazareth, on the one hand, but also that it was through the same events that the disciples eventually came to a more adequate understanding of just who this Jesus was (see Acts 2:33; cf Ezk 32:27), on the other (i e, contra prior knowledge presumed by the birth narratives).
With the passage of time, as the Christian communities became more and more conscious of themselves, the preaching was eventually shaped into an account of the passion, which constituted the oldest consecutive narrative about Jesus, so much so that some (e g M artin K ahler) saw in the gospel an extended passion narrative, while others (e g Zim m erm ann, Conzelmann) were m ore cautious by seeing the Gospel not merely as an extended passion, but also as testifying to the words and deeds of Jesus.This m eans that not only kerygma (or proclam ation) b ut also didache (or teaching) were a major factor in the form ation of the Gospel.If our argument is correct then Jesus derives authority to legitimate his teaching from the resurrection {de facto), rather than from some account of extraordinary birth 'report' {de jure).But the relationship betw een proclam ation and teaching seems rem i niscent of D euteronom y 5 where the teaching of the Law is legitim ated by the formula: 'I am Yahweh your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt out of the house of slavery' (Dt 5:6-7).Analogously, it can also be said that Jesus saved us from slavery to sin.

The problem of corroborating witness
For R E Brown, what distinguishes the infancy narratives from the rest of the gospel m aterial is most probably tradition, anchored in the reminiscences of those who accompanied Jesus in his ministry, that is, from his baptism up till his death (Ac 1:22) and to whom he appeared after his resurrection (Ac 10:41; 1 Cor 15:3).In other words, if the readers of the gospel were to ask: how do you know that Jesus was baptized, or that he preached in Galilee, or that there was a Last Supper on the night before he died, or even that there was a trial, execution, death, burial and resurrection, they can reply that there was a Tradition passed about such things.Even Paul himself, who was probably not present at many of these events, clearly speaks of a tradition about such things (1 Cor 11:23;15:3).
But do we have similar or common tradition about the birth of Jesus?How do we know what happened at Jesus' birth?Who are the witnesses of such birth?The apostles?Including Paul?Some prefer to regard 'tradition' about Jesus' infancy as coming from Joseph or Mary.Yet Joseph, on the one hand, never appears during the ministry of Jesus and seems almost certainly to have died by that time (Beare 1981:285).Mary, on the other h^nd, does not seem to have been very close to the disciples of Jesus during the ministry cf John 2:4).Indeed the body of the Gospel shows that the people among whom Jesus was reared as a child knew nothing about an extraordinary infancy (Mt 13:53-58; Lk 4:16-30; Mk 6:1-6).
Jesus' repudiation of his natural family ties (Mt 12:46-50) is incompatible with the extraordinary circumstances accorded his birth by the infancy narratives.In fact, the repudiation pericope reflects a tradition that 'the imm ediate family of Jesus, including even his m other, had no sympathy w ith his m ission' which, on the redactional level, purports to derive directly from the extraordinary birth (Beare 1981:285).The tradition is reflected in the M arkan account, to which M atthew returns after the interpolation of Q material ; Lk 6:43-45) and the use of Q material to expand verses 38 to 45 (Schweizer 1978:295).
The tension evident in the material used by Matthew to compile his gospel rai ses serious questions about the genre or the nature of the infancy narratives: Are they on a par with the rest of the gospels?If not, do they enjoy a status of their own?This brings us to the next point in our discussion, namely an investigation into their composition.

^ The composition of infancy narratives
32.1 Points of difference T here are abounding differences between M atthew's and Luke's accounts of the birth of Jesus.The genealogy in Matthew 1:1-17 is very unlike the genealogy that Luke has placed outside the infancy story 3:23-38.Moreover, the whole of Matthew 2:2-22 has no parallel in Luke, just as most of Luke chapter one, (apart from 1:26-35) and most of chapter two of Luke has no parallel in Matthew.In Luke we are confronted with the story of Elizabeth, Zechariah and the birth of John the Baptist, the census which brings Joseph to Bethlehem, the acclamation of the shepherds, the presentation of Jesus in the temple as the parents return to Nazareth, and the loss and finding of the boy Jesus, at the age of twelve.M atthew recounts a different series of happenings of which Luke makes no mention: the star, the Magi, H erod's plot against Jesus, the massacre of the children at Bethlehem and the flight to Egypt.But if originally there was one narrative, how did it ever become fragmented into two different accounts we have now?H as any of events like census and massacre of children been corroborated by secular history?And if not, could the latter, that is, the massacre of children be an allusion to some tradition recorded in the Jewish Haggadah?i

Points of agreement
In the following items indicating agreem ent between Matthew and Luke we shall also try to indicate a possible source on which the evangelist depends.
• The parenthood of Mary and Joseph (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:27, 34).The parenthood of Mary and Joseph is taken for granted in the Synoptic tradition.
• Pregnancy not through normal human intercourse but ascribed to the Holy Spi rit, which can also serve as agency for God (Mt 1:20, 23, 25; Lk 1:34; M t 1:18, 20; Lk 1:35).There is a vague parallel in Genesis 6:1-4, where the sons of God resorted to women and had children by them.
According to W estermann (1987:43-44), Genesis 6:1-4 is a narrative composed of two strands, where in verse 4a the culmination is the 'giants' (nepilim) and in verse 4b the culmination is the heroes (gibborim).The former is an etiological note explidning the origin of giants, and the latter is a mythical narrative.

Context
The context seems thematic: The Yahwistic narrator (J) in chapters 1-11 of Genesis, brought together in the narratives of crime and punishment, two offen ses by individuals (Gn 3-4) and two collective offenses ( Gn 6:1-4; 11:1-9).Both the latter have to do with transgression of human limits.The offense in Genesis 11:1-9 is technological in origin, involving the building of a structure that reaches to the heavens, and in Genesis 6:1-4 it is the elevation of the genus humanum to a superhuman group as a result of a liaison between the 'sons of the gods' and women.Note that in the N ear Eastern myth, probably of Canaanite origin, 'sons of the gods' (benêha elohim) refers not to angels but to divine beings.This act of transgression demanding God's intervention is presupposed in Genesis 6:3.Surprisingly, the imposition of limits is not passed against the 'sons of the gods' but against the human race.Why?This is so perhaps because re ference to humans as mere 'Flesh' does not equate the latter with sin, but rather sin as taking advantage of the helplessness of humans as 'Flesh'.The Leitmotif is therefore salvation as the goal of creation.

Conclusion
If our analysis is correct, then the idea of pregnancy through the agency of the Holy Spirit in the infancy narratives alludes to the process of salvation as consisting in the restorative elevation of the hum an race to divine status, conversely the elimination of human limitations.This can be achieved through the advent of a divine, if heavenly, pre-existent Messiah who is re-born on earth constituting Immaneul (Is 7:14), or God-with-us (Mt 1:23).
Intertextuality in this instance means simply that the human child in the text of Isaiah has a sign-value of 'divine presence' contem plated by the mythical child-figure in Matthew.But the latter has origins comparable to that of heroes in Genesis 6:1-4.Myth has a tendency of integrating all realms of reality, both mundane and extra-mundane (cf the role of Prometheus in G reek mythology).
• The naming of the child by the angel's directive (M t 1:21; Lk 2:11).For the angelic announcement see third asterisk above.But Matthew 1:23 seems a mo dification of Isaiah 7:14 where the naming is also linked to the vocation of the person so named, namely Inmianuel.
• The angel states that Jesus is to be Saviour (Mt 1:21; Lk 2:11).See our own comment above.
• The birth is chronologically related to the reign of Herod the G reat (Mt 2:1; Lk 1:5).
• The child is reared at Nazareth (Mt 2:23; Lk 2:39).The latter information is taken for granted in the synoptic tradition.
It is striking that all but the last of the items m entioned above are found in one section of the M atthean narrative (Mt 1:18-2:1).Is Luke dependent on Matthew?
3 3 The role of the infancy narratives 3 J .l The interpretation of the infancy narratives T here are key points to be taken into account w hen in terp retin g the infancy narratives: Our focus is on M atthew 1:18-25.The form of the text of verses 20f assumes the schema of 'birth announcement' already shaped in the Old Testament (cf G n 16:7-12; 17:19; Jd 13:3-5; Is 7:14).Luke is also familiar with it.It is quite probable that not only the introductory phrase of verse 22, but also the quotation itself about the naming of Jesus as Immanuel (cf Isaiah 7:14) may be due to M at thew himself who generally quotes the Old Testament to the LXX text if he is not following sources (Luz 1985:116).Further, there could be a close parallel between Matthew 1:18-25 and 21:1-7 with regard to their being determined by the fulfillment formula (Pesch 1967:79).

2 Conclusion
What then can we conclude from the analysis above, concerning the role the infancy narratives had for the early Christian understanding of Jesus?For Brown (1976:8) 'God has made Himself present to us in the life of His Messiah who walked on this earth, so truly present that the birth of the Messiah was the birth of God's son '. For Luz (1989:118), 'it is part of the attempt of Jewish-Christian communities to witness to the faith in Jesus, who was appointed as son by G od according to his Spirit (R m 1:4) in analogy to o th e r ancient narratives in th e form of infancy nartatives.The virgin birth then belongs to the means for witnessing to the faith and has no direct historical background'.A form of kerymatic narrative?

WHY D ID PAUL MAKE SO LITTLE O F T H E BIRTH O F JESUS?
4.1 Introduction Regarding the question: 'Why did Paul make so little of the birth of Jesus?' we refer the reader to our introduction, where we suggested that the answer will depend on whether the concept: 'birth of Jesus' refers to an historical occurrence or a theo WASebodioma logical idea.From our analysis of the concept, it would ap p e ar th a t if the evangelists had intended the birth narratives to be understood as history, they would not have included a double genealogy which is incompatible with the virgin con ception.Apologetic arguments have failed to win support.This leaves us with the second alternative, namely that of regarding the infancy narratives as a means of transmitting a theological idea.From the conclusions of both Brown and Luz, the message of such an idea could be the 'Sonship of Jesus' or his divinity.We have also seen how the evangelists arrived at this truth of the divinity of Jesus, namely by working backwards from the resurrection, as part of the general formation of the gospels.The statem ent of question at this juncture is whether Paul defended the Sonship of Jesus as did the infancy narratives.If he did, then we shall be forced to conclude th a t Paul m ade so little of the birth of Jesus, precisely because he defended the same message via a different route.Which route?4.2 The point of departure for Pauline theology 4.2.1 Paul's faithfulness to tradition W hat Paul proclaim ed was in all essentials the apostolic kerygma (Acts 2:22), namely that Christ had been crucified and had risen from the dead in accordance with what the scriptures foretold (1 Cor 2:2; 15:3-4; Gal 3:1).What Paul calls 'his' Good News (Rm 2:16; 16:25) was indeed identical with the faith that was commonly held (Gal 1:16; 2:7-9).H e not only accepted (1 Cor 11:23) but at times appealed to apostolic authority (1 Cor 15:3-7).4.2.2Paul's innovative originality as proclaimer of the gospel Paul's originality as proclaimer of the Good News appears to have developed from his apologia, his presentation of his mission which eventually becam e a panoramic view of how his gentile mission fits into G od's total plan for salvation (Stendahl 1977:4).The centrifugal force of his famous dictum of justification through faith has, as its Sitz im Leben, the relation between the Jews and Gentiles from which it should never be separated, under pain of distortion.An example of such distortion is the unfortunate polarization of grace and law, out of context, and projected as though grace were corollary to justification through faith alone, that is apart from "works' of the law.And yet the actual polarization was between the Levitical philosophy of Law (Rm 10:5) engendering an act-centered morality based on the merits of perso nal effort (Lv 8:5ff) on the one hand, over against the Deuteronom istic interpre tation of Law (Rm 10:6), based on the precept of love (cf D t 30:6, 16, 20) or the circumcision of the heart, engendering a value centered morality, on the other.The la tte r perspective is one in which grace and law are given together under one package, as it were.The same view is delineated eloquently by James' reference to 'living' faith (Jm 2:14-26).
The point we are trying to demonstrate is that the whole of Paul's ministry was preoccupied with practical, pastoral work, and as such was a far cry from arm chair theological tractates, or devotional reflections about 'the birth of Jesus'.Not that Paul was unconcerned about Jesus as a person, no!He preached Jesus; nay, Jesus crucified -where the crucifixion and resurrection were two sides of the same salvific coin, offered in purchase of the kingdom of God.The Pauline christology is uniquely em bedded in ecclesiology: Thus the 'body of C hrist' theology presents dogma (or Indikativ) and ethics (or Imperativ) in one indivisible mould which can deal effectively (or so he thought) with pastoral issues and practical problems of the nascent Christianity.Yet we have to concede that the imaginative narratology concerning the birth of Christ also represents an answer to pastoral needs arising no less than a generation later: Legends and myths tend to embellish memories of heroes gone by, heroes who are raised as examples of cultu ral values in any community.The same thing happened with Moses; why should Jesus of Nazareth be an exception?Memories can thus be said to re-write history.
Paul's reference to 'the truth of the gospel' (G1 2:5) implies that truth entails existential reception so that one can speak of the perform ative aspect of truth (Husinger 1993:41).This means that 'truth' describes that relationship whereby the form of life corresponds to 'reality' in a sense that 'n eith er the mind nor the sentence can correspond to reality in a some independent or non-m ediated way' (H usinger 1993:43).B ultm ann's original thesis on the Pauline ethics (cf Das Problem der E thik bei Paulus: [1924] 1967 in Bultmann, R Exegetica: hrsg von E Dinkier) was recently defended by Grábe (1990:54-66).
Lastly, the starting point for Paul's theologizing was the Damascus experience (Ac 9:3-5) in which he encountered the risen Lord.The resurrection, therefore, (as opposed to 'the birth of Jesus') constituted the startin g point for specifically Christian faith (1 Cor 15:13,14).

D id Paul explicitly defend the Sonship or divinity of Jesus as did the infancy narratives?
The focus of our study will be Rom ans 1:3, 4, where Paul speaks of 'the gospel concerning his (God's) Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in pow er according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection'.

The Status Quaestioms
The statement of question is: What is the role of the resurrection in the life of Jesus of N azareth?In other words, what is the status of Jesus before the resurrection, and, what is the status of Jesus after the resurrection?4 3 2 The remote context of Romans 1:3, 4 43.2.1 T he inter-textuality of the post resurrection language as a strategy for Messianic pre-existence We have already noted that in his preaching Paul was faithful to the tradition handed down to him (1 Cor 15:1, 3), the content of which was the death and resurrection of Jesus (verse 4f).
O ur thesis at this juncture is that the notion of Messiah appears to have con notations of pre-existence.P eter's speech at Pentecost (Ac 2:14-36), in which he pleads that Jesus be recognized for what he is, namely the Messiah, concludes the argum ent from scripture thus: It is by his resurrectio n th at Jesus has been constituted 'Lord' of whom David in Psalm 110 said: The Lord (Yahweh) declared to my Lord (Messiah) take your seat at my right hand till I have made your enemies Your footstool.
Psalm 16, also quoted by Peter in the same speech (Ac 2:25-28) puts the whole picture of the Messiah within the context of a yearning for union with God that defies even death; a vague dream of the resurrection?It should be born in mind that the psalms were attributed to David (9-8th century BC).This means that David, through the psalms, spoke of the Messiah in the past tense.Luke in 3:22 is probably quoting Psalm 2:7: 'You are my Son; today I have fathered you'.It is a messianic enthronement psalm which appears to equate enthronement with 'beget ting' by God.In other words, the act of God in fathering the Messiah, is at the same time enthronement.This is the intertextuality from which Romans 1:3-4 should be understood, where Paul speaks of Jesus as designated Son of God in power.In both Luke and Paul the Spirit of holiness or Holy Spirit is G od's agency for begetting.The occasion, however differs: In Paul it is the resurrection and in Luke it is the baptism.The point we are trying to make is that the resurrection must be under stood in terms of enthronement and/or begetting.But the latter, that is, enthrone m ent and begetting, also imply pre-existence associated with divinity.So for example, Paul elsewhere speaks of Christ as the power and the wisdom of G od (1 Cor 1:24).The context of Paul's allegation is his distinction between true wisdom and false wisdom.John, however, will make an association between Jesus and wis dom in John 6:35 where Christ's gift of himself as the bread of life is reminiscent of Wisdom inviting all people to her table (Pr 9:1-6).But Jesus as the bread of life is to be contrasted with manna given during Israel's sojourn in the desert.Proverbs 8:22-3 speaks of Wisdom as saying: 'Yahweh created me, first-fruits of his fashio ning, before the oldest of his works.From everlasting I was firmly set...I was beside the master craftsman'.In other words, Wisdom was co-creator with God in terms reminiscent of the Word of John 1:1-3.
In conclusion, we may safely assume that Paul's idea of M essiah was firmly grounded in the contemporary messianism of pre-Christian Judaism centered in the offices of king, priest and prophet.For Schiirer ([1885-1924]; 1979:518-519), Jewish messianic expectations can be conclusively docum ented as having 'regarded the Messiah as a fully human individual, a royal figure descended from the house of David'.The promise of a king from the house of David (clg tóv al£3uo -'for ever') means simply that the dynasty is not to die out.Similarly, Simon Maccabaeus was chosen by the people as Prince and High Priest 'for ever' (1 Mac 14:41), where these titles are effectively declared hereditary in his family.
O f significance however, is th e concretization of biblical theology in the traditions of the Q um ran sect.Messianism appears to be approached from two models: (a) as a human figure that is raised to the supernatural level, or (b) as a supernatural figure that descends to the level of mere humans.
Both models have messianic pre-existence as a common denominator.(Note that pre-existence in the realm of eternity is not equivalent to 'endless time', but rather outside of 'tim e and space' that characterized the first m om ent of creation in G enesis.) W hat compounds the problem of messianism further, is the fact that despite the singular form of this title, the Damascus D ocum ent testified to the doctrine of two Messiahs; one inspired by secular views and the other by religious prerogatives (Schiirer 1979:552).Did the sacerdotal messianism coalesce with the traditional Davidic promise around the Hasmonean period as Schiirer alleges?Model a; According to Model a the Messiah was generally thought of as an earthly king and ruler, but one also endowed by God with special gifts and powers.In the Psalms of Solomon he appears as entirely human king (Ps 17:23, 47) righteous and learned (Ps 17:35) free from sin and holy (Ps 17:41,46) and endowed by the holy spirit with power, wisdom and righteousness (Ps 17:42;Schurer 1979:519).
From this picture, the only way for the Messiah to acquire supernatural powers proper to his office is through an extraordinary event like the resurrection, through which he will then automatically become pre-existent.

Model b:
In 4 Ezra and the Parable of Enoch, the Messiah appears already in his supernatural realm of pre-existence and the powers, as well as prerogatives that go with such a status (Schurer 1979:519).
Yet the Qumran sect knew of another High Priest, but in this case one who was also angelic deliverer, namely the heavenly Melkizedek.According to Schurer (1979:553), this is 'a figure which may have contributed substantially to New Testament christological ideas'.The document in question is a midrashic fragment, and is eschatological in content.
If Schiirer's allegations are anything to go by, then the infancy narratives m Matthew and Luke, as well as the incarnation in the prologue of John all proceed from Model fc as a point of departure for theologizing.
But why the contrasting models of the Messiah?An 'either-or' opposition between the biblical account of creation (which by definition also implies salvation) on the one hand, and a scientific explanation of the world (where history implies a scientific, logical explanation) on the other, is unnecessary.Why?
For W esterm ann (1987:12-13) the relationship of Genesis 1 to the Bible as a whole, that is, the history of the people of God, which begins with the patriarchs (Gn 12-50) and Exodus, (or the trek from Egypt) and extends through the history of the Israelites to Christ and his apostles, finds in Genesis a framework that links this history to the beginnings of time, the world and the human race.Thus everything in it is based on this beginning.But as G enesis 1 already anticipates a goal for humankind, so the Bible, both Old-en New Testaments, tells of the final event that includes the whole of humanity as well as the rest of creation, and brings them to the goal destined by the Creator.
Hebrew thought that underlies biblical language can speak in paradoxes and contrasts.It is perhaps a measure of unfathomability of the mystery of God, that creation, which proceeds from him, can be spoken of only in the harmony of many including contrasting) voices of generations stretching through history.
Model b then lends itself to the only language that can handle the ineffable (or the unfathomable), that is, poetry and myth.The same is true, as we have seen, with the parallel in G enesis 6:1-4.And although according to our analysis Pauline theology was grounded on the presuppositions of M odel a, th at is the hum an T h c B iitlio f J c s is Messiah, Paul nevertheless did not shy away from accommodating Model b (e g, the pre-Pauline hymn in Phi 2:6-11) in his theology.This hymn could possibly have represented an early kerygmatic confession (Fitzmyer 1968:250).The impact of the resurrection might have been so overwhelming, that history was contextualised and re-written into new kerymatic narratives like the gospels, for purposes of preaching.4 3 3 The immediate context of Romans 1:3,4 Now that we are familiar with pre-existent connotations in the concept of Messiah, we re-capitulate the statem ent of question, namely the role of the resurrection in Jesus' life.In the immediate context of our passage, Paul is called, or 'set apart for God's gospel' which was foretold in the scriptures.4 3 3 .1The status of Jesus before the resurrection Jesus was 'descended from David, according to the flesh'.This means that Jesus was physically or biologically of 'Davidic descent'.This gave him a right to the sacral anointing of a Davidic heir.Jesus could be called 'son of David'.And since David could be called son of God, Jesus could also be called son of God. 4 3 3 ^ The status of Jesus after the resurrection The phrase 'concerning his Son' refers to G od's gospel and the promises made by him in the Old Testament refer to Jesus, who stands in a unique relation to God as 'his Son' (Rm 8:3,32; G14:4).
The phrase 'according to a Spirit of holiness' must be understood in contrast to 'according to the flesh' in 4.3.3.1 above, to underscore the role of the resurrection.Jesus was designated, made manifest, or displayed (ópior0éi/xoq) 'Son of God in power' (Manson 1962:941).Jesus is equated with a Spirit of holiness.This same Spirit empowers Jesus for salvific work.In other words the Spirit characterizes the resurrection.It is the Spirit of total life, beyond death.It is a life-giving Spirit unto salvation.Jesus becom es the co n ten t of G o d 's gospel fo reto ld in the Old Testament.
* Since the pre-existence of Christ is retrospective by virtue of the resurrection of Jesus, the greatness of the incarnate Son of God (cf Heb 1:1-5) which is alluded to also by the virgin birth or the extraordinary circumstances ascribed to it, came to be incorporated in the Apostolic Creed.

3 5 Conclusion
What is peculiar about the infancy narratives is not that Jesus was born in history, but the non-historicality of the extraordinary circumstances attributed to that birth.Paul was educated in the tradition that, among oth er things, regarded the Messiah as pre-existent.But by believing that Jesus was raised from the dead by God -so that he, by that fact was the Christ, Paul automatically accepted, along with Christian tradition Jesus' Sonship, or his unique relationship to God as Father.The latter 'unique relationship' was a status otherwise attested to through the extra ordinary circumstances of the birth, described in the infancy narratives.
Once we understand the role of the infancy narratives, namely their witnessing to Jesus as Immanuel or God-with-us, in and through his only Son, then it becomes clear: * th at the infancy narratives are a m eans to an end (the transm ission of a theological idea concerning the incarnate Son of God); * that the end in question can be reached by other means (the proclamation of kerygma); * that Paul made so little of the birth of Christ because he achieved the same goal through other means.
It is not surprising then, that the infancy narratives have been regarded as 'miniature gospels' in their own right, so that Mark is still a complete gospel without them.
END NOTES 1.The Jewish Haggadah mentions that the ancestors of Abraham lived in the time of Nimrod (cf Gn 10:8-9), representing prototype evil and rebellion against God.Nimrod, it is said, built the Tower of Babel.When he heard of the birth of A braham , he ordered that all children be killed (cf Flavius Josephus, Antiquitates ludiaca 154 and the Koran, Soura lljSl).