If Jesus was so important a person why doesn't the Bible mention more of His life between His birth and the start of His ministry?

Answer 1

While the scriptures make clear that Jesus was to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), he was also to be a Nazarene in view of the place where he would grow up. This particular misunderstanding proved to be a genuine stumbling point for some, especially the Jewish scribes of the time: "Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?" (John 7:41-42.) We also know that some things are omitted from scripture as a function of sheer voluminosity: Other omissions occur for other causes. The Lord may have withheld certain specifics from certain people as an act of mercy, so far as their accountability is concerned. Could there also have been a deliberate, divine withholding in this matter of the mortal name of the Messiah? Purposeful withholding has occurred before. Whatever the cause for the Old Testament's silence regarding Christ's name we should know they did know it...... Reference is made in both the Old and New Testaments to books and epistles which are not now available. These include: Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:4, 7); Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14); Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18); A Book of Statutes (1 Sam. 10:25); Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41); Books of Nathan and Gad (1 Chron. 29:29; 2 Chron. 9:29); Prophecy of Ahijah and Visions of Iddo (2 Chron. 9:29; 12:15; 13:22); Book of Shemaiah (2 Chron. 12:15); Book of Jehu (2 Chron. 20:34); Acts of Uzziah, written by Isaiah (2 Chron. 26:22); Sayings of the Seers (2 Chron. 33:19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians 1 Cor. 5:9); an epistle of Paul to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3); an epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16); Epistle of Jude (Jude 3); and the Prophecies of Enoch (Jude 14). The prophecy that Christ should be a Nazarene (Matt. 2:23) and the prediction, known to the scribes in our Lord's day, that Elias must restore all things before the coming of Christ (Matt. 17:10), are illustrations of lost scripture. And there are many apocryphal books now in existence which in their original state were inspired scripture. So why don't we use what we do know better? The Bible is more than Christ's Life The apostle John addressed this in John 21:25 where it says "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen." Also, the bible is not "The Life and Times of Jesus Christ", it is what God has to say to man about the history, current state and future of our relationship with him. Genesis through Jude covers the history of mankind's relationship with God and Matthew through Revelations covers the future. This history includes how we came to need Christ, waiting for Christ to appear, Christ's ministry (miracles, setting up the church, death, burial, resurrection, ascension) and starting the church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is much more to the bible than "What did Christ have for breakfast on his 15th birthday." It is enough to know how Christ fulfilled all the prophesies about the messiah and that he lived a sinless life. Another reason concerns our imitation of people. Did God want us to worship Christ's daily schedule, habits and manner of dress? Or did God want us to focus on the key events in Christ's life so that we didn't argue over what was the best time to wake up in the morning and how long to work during the day. (Although we do read about Christ waking up early in order to pray alone). Not everything he did could be written down. It says this in John 21:25 (NIV): Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Answer 2

Remember that all the New Testament gospels were originally anonymous and only later in the second century were they attributed to the persons whose names they now bear. We do not know who the real authors were, but New Testament scholars say that none of the gospels could have been written by an eyewitness to the events portrayed. Mark's Gospel is now accepted as the first New Testament to be written and is dated to approximately 70 CE, with the other gospels following over a period of several decades. On this information, it ought to be surprising that anything at all was known to the gospel writers about the birth or early life of Jesus.

Nearly all New Testament scholars say that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were largely based on Mark's Gospel, with further sayings material taken from the hypothetical 'Q' document. Thus we can say with some certainty that the authors of Matthew and Luke knew nothing about the life and mission of Jesus apart from what they found in these sources. Nevertheless, Matthew's Gospel and Luke's Gospel tell us quite detailed accounts about the events surrounding Jesus' birth, and even the very thoughts, visions and dreams of his parents.

There certainly are apocryphal gospels that describe the childhood of Jesus, but these were long ago rejected by the Churches as not historical. A question that began to be asked in the last two centuries is whether even the nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke were historically true. The answer from modern New Testament scholars is a resounding "no". The two nativity accounts may make good stories to teach young children, but nothing more. We should feel glad that we even have a story of Jesus' later life and crucifixion.