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

W A Sebothoma

doi:10.4102/hts.v50i3.2577

Abstract

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

Highlights

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 departure 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, we will have to determine whether or not such a theological idea has an equivalent in the corpus PaulUium
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 Matthew 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

Summary

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 departure 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. 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 Kahler) saw in the gospel an extended passion narrative, while others (e g Zimmermann, Conzelmann) were more cautious by seeing the Gospel not merely as an extended passion, and as testifying to the words and deeds of Jesus This means that kerygma (or proclam ation) and didache (or teaching) were a major factor in the formation of the Gospel. It can be said that Jesus saved us from slavery to sin