Why is the visit of the Three Kings to the infant Jesus mentioned only in Matthew and not in other Gospels?

Answer 1

Only the Gospels According to Matthew and Luke contain stories of the nativity of Jesus. The author of Mark's Gospel either knew nothing of the nativity or did not feel that it had a place in his Gospel, while the author of John's Gospel seems to have believed that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem.

Both Matthew and Luke say that people came to worship the baby Jesus. There were no kings, but Matthewsaid that magi came from the east. The magi were Zoroastrian priests, although most modern English language bibles translate this as "wise men", and many modern traditions and nativity plays prefer to regard them as kings. Luke said that poor shepherds came to worship him.

There are quite a few other differences in the two accounts of the birth of Jesus, an understanding of which would help explain why Luke did not mention the magi.

Both accounts had Jesus born in the royal city of Bethlehem, and in both cases an angel announced the divine conception of Jesus. But one gospel says the angel spoke to Mary, the other says the angel spoke to Joseph. Neither gospel author knew about account in the other gospel and the stories would not make sense if both were true.

In Matthew, Bethlehem appears to be the home town of Jesus' parents, Joseph and Mary. In Luke, Nazareth was the home town of Joseph and Mary, and Luke said that they were required to travel to Bethlehem to participate in a census - although scholars can find no record of a census during the time of Herod nor understand the context for it.

Matthew and Luke were satisfying an apparent need to know more about Jesus, but had little information to go on.

Answer 2

A:Important background information on this is that scholars now realise that the earliest New Testament gospel was that now known as Mark's Gospel, written around 70 CE, and that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were substantially based on that original New Testament gospel. All the gospels were originally anonymous until attributed in the second century to the apostles whose names they now bear, but modern scholars say there is no good reason to accept those attributions.

Put simply, it seems that the stories of the infancy of Jesus had not yet been developed at the time Mark was written. The author of this gospel therefore had no knowledge about the birth of Jesus.

If we look carefully at the two infancy narratives, in Matthew and Luke, we soon realise there are irreconcilable differences in the two accounts. In Matthew, Bethlehem was the home town of Mary and Joseph; they fled from Bethlehem to Egypt for fear of King Herod, who wished to kill the baby Jesus; after Herod died they began the return journey to their home in Bethlehem but being warned in a dream turned aside and travelled to Galilee, where they settled in a city called Nazareth. In Luke, Nazareth was already the home town of Mary and Joseph but they travelled to Bethlehem for a census under Quirinius, then just a few weeks later returned peacefully via Jerusalem to their home in Nazareth. What has happened here is that two authors wrote nativity accounts each not knowing what the other author wrote. John Shelby Spong (Born of a Woman: A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus) explains that neither of the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke contains any historical truth. This, of course, is why the author of Markknew nothing of either account.

John's Gospel is loosely based on Luke, so the author would have known of this nativity account and could have used it in his own gospel. However, John portrays Jesus as divine and pre-existing, so the author did not wish to dwell on the human birth of Jesus.