Why Are The Missing Years Of Jesus Missing?

[Miles]

.


Between the ages of twelve and thirty the life of Jesus is unaccounted for. No written record and no tales told. Of course this hasn't prevented people from concocting stories about him during this period, from wild tales of him traveling to India to study with mystics to those having him appearing in North America, all extra-biblical of course.

So, is there nothing one can glean from the gospels? Well, Mark does imply he was a "blue color" worker, a carpenter; however, the parallel text of Matthew implies he's only a carpenter's son---the implication here being that because of Jesus's exalted position, mention of his father's occupation would have taken second place to the mention of Jesus occupation, unless Jesus was not a carpenter or significantly anything else. So Matthew is not supporting Mark's contention, but rather throws it in doubt.

Because it's said Jesus could read after he had turned thirty---in a synagogue he reads from the scroll of the prophets----it's likely he was at least somewhat formally educated, but aside from all the social and cultural influences and practices that all other males during this time went through, this is all one can definitely say about Jesus's life during the missing years. He learned how to read.

So, why is the bible silent about all these years? Years of the most significant person to ever have walked the earth, so it's been contended. Surmising that he was probably formally taught to read is hardly worth writing home about. So in effect, there is nothing.


What do you make of it? Have the missing years gone missing on purpose perhaps?




.

[JehovahsWitness]

There is no evidence the first century gospel writers ever considered the events between his early childhood and the start of his public ministry important enough to include in their text. One may speculate all one likes but anything beyond this fact is pure conjecture .

The "missing on purpose" is conspiracy theory is based on the supposition that there once existed reliable eyewitness accounts written with living memory of events that were part of the bible canon; there is no evidence this is the case.

[Difflugia]

From what I've seen, they're only 'missing' in the current bible - there are books written about a young, teenage Jesus. But it's not included in canon, as I understood it, because it painted him as a spoiled kid that acted like a brat towards Mary and Joseph (a lot of times). The church didn't like that and elected not to include them - calling these books, in part, heresy and lies.

I don't think there's a teenage Jesus, but the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas" includes several young Jesus stories that aren't in the canonical gospels:

• Jesus made clay sparrows on the Sabbath. When someone yells at him for it, he claps his hands and they fly away. "What sparrows?"
• A kid "fell" off the roof where Jesus just happened to also be and died. When the kid's bereaved parents asked him about it, Jesus raised the dead kid, who then told them Jesus didn't do it.
• Jesus made himself a little pool of water. Another kid splashed the water out of it, so Jesus "withered" him (like he "withered" the fig tree).
• A little kid was running around like a little kid and bumped into Jesus. That angried up Jesus' blood, so he killed the kid. The dead kid's parents got mad for some reason, so Jesus made them blind.
• One of Jesus' teachers smacked him for being a smart-aleck, so Jesus killed him. Joseph said, "Mary, keep that kid in the house or he'll kill all the neighbors!"

The "missing on purpose" is conspiracy theory is based on the supposition that there once existed reliable eyewitness accounts written with living memory of events that were part of the bible canon; there is no evidence this is the case.

That's exactly right. There is no evidence that reliable eyewitness accounts written with living memory of events were ever part of the bible canon.

[Purple Knight]

From what I've seen, they're only 'missing' in the current bible - there are books written about a young, teenage Jesus. But it's not included in canon, as I understood it, because it painted him as a spoiled kid that acted like a brat towards Mary and Joseph (a lot of times). The church didn't like that and elected not to include them - calling these books, in part, heresy and lies.

I would like to read these books and I would do so with an open mind. I would expect a half-God divine child to be very disappointed in its parents. I would very well expect that child to get the nicest parents in the world and be reviled at how evil and sinful they were.

Calling that heresy in my mind is very narrow-minded. It would be like saying that Hercules simply didn't notice that he was physically stronger than his human mother.

I don't think there's a teenage Jesus, but the "Infancy Gospel of Thomas" includes several young Jesus stories that aren't in the canonical gospels:

• Jesus made clay sparrows on the Sabbath. When someone yells at him for it, he claps his hands and they fly away. "What sparrows?"
• A kid "fell" off the roof where Jesus just happened to also be and died. When the kid's bereaved parents asked him about it, Jesus raised the dead kid, who then told them Jesus didn't do it.
• Jesus made himself a little pool of water. Another kid splashed the water out of it, so Jesus "withered" him (like he "withered" the fig tree).
• A little kid was running around like a little kid and bumped into Jesus. That angried up Jesus' blood, so he killed the kid. The dead kid's parents got mad for some reason, so Jesus made them blind.
• One of Jesus' teachers smacked him for being a smart-aleck, so Jesus killed him. Joseph said, "Mary, keep that kid in the house or he'll kill all the neighbors!"

This is pretty much what I would expect. This doesn't change the character of Jesus at all in my mind even if it happens to be a legitimate part of the story. I would bloody expect a divinely good child to act this way. For example, when the other kid bumps into him, that seems worse, precisely because Jesus is perfectly good. I would expect him to be aghast, appalled, and unimaginably offended. Remember, he's perfect. He's literally perfect. Rudely bumping into someone would probably seem to him like murder seems to us. Then imagine that the parents of the murderer try to defend their little demon, oblivious to the sinful nature of the act, oblivious to the fact that their child just committed murder. Do you see how a perfect person might act this way? I certainly do.

Now, Jesus of course devoted his adult life to teaching people; to helping them (hopefully) be as good as he was, even if he knew they couldn't, then eventually sacrificing himself for them. I would love to see that transition. That's called character development, and it's the heart of literature precisely because this is what individuals go through. If it actually happened it's all the more important to lay that out.

[Tcg]

I still stand by my basic assertion that it would have been very, very difficult for a 13-year-old to do anything Jesus did, such as gain followers, persuade people to give up their lives to follow him around, be a successful heretic - in other words, actually shift dogma, and at last be crucified. Did they even crucify children?

This ignores what I have already pointed out. There are quite a few years between the ages of 13 and 29. The OP question after all is, "Why Are The Missing Years Of Jesus Missing?" not "Why is that One Year Missing?"

Additionally, I don't see anything in the OP that suggests Jesus should have accomplished all his reported feats, including getting crucified, at age 13.


Tcg

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]

Two simple reasons come to mind.

First, no one was there to write down the events. Jesus’ disciples were likely the source, directly or indirectly, for the Gospels. They were not with Jesus prior to him turning 30. The few stories we do have likely came from his mother, and (especially in Matthew) have sparser details. The disciples wrote what they knew, and most of their knowledge came from the three years they were actually with Jesus.

Second, those event were less important. The Gospels are telling a clear and pointed story. The accounts the Evangelists chose to record were not arbitrary. They did not waste space and they did not include information that the readers did not need. What Jesus did prior to his public ministry was less important than the events of the public ministry itself.

While I don't necessarily disagree with the above, I would just simply say, "Because although the Holy Spirit could have inspired someone to write about the events of Jesus's life during those years (if it were the will of the Father), He did not (because it was not the will of the Father)." It may not be a very satisfying answer, but God, via His Spirit, has told us what we need to know... given us everything need (and more) that we might repent and believe. In the words of that great hymn (definitely one of my favorites):

What more can He say than to you He has said,
To you who for refuge to Jesus have fled?
-- How Firm a Foundation

[Difflugia]

I would like to read these books and I would do so with an open mind.

There are several sets of translations in the public domain:

• Apocryphal Gospels, Acts, and Revelations, a volume of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library with translations by Alexander Walker.
• The Apocryphal Gospels and Other Documents Relating to the History of Christ by Harris Cowper.
• The Apocryphal New Testament, translations by Jeremiah Jones and Archbishop William Wake. For whatever reason, this particular set has been being reprinted by various small publishers for over a hundred years. This is the first collection of these I read as a teenager in a cheap paperback retitled The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden.
• If you want a modern translation and are willing to pay for it, Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make it into the New Testament by Bart Ehrman includes all of the books above as well as several of the Gnostic gospels (discovered in the 1940s, no translations have entered the US public domain).

[Purple Knight]

There are several sets of translations in the public domain:

I found a good one. Thanks. I read the childhood ones, and yes, this is exactly how I would expect a divine child to behave. He's more good - literally perfect - so the things normal people regularly do seem more evil. Crashing into someone's shoulder (it says tore into in the one I read) or draining your little water pool or smashing your sand castle are things that, to us, seem like not such big deals. But to someone perfect it probably seems like murder.

People complain all the time about society getting more easily offended. I don't see it as something to complain about; I see it as something to celebrate. People are becoming less tolerant of even formerly minor evils and more apt to crusade against that evil at all costs because they are becoming more good. What was like splashing water out of a little pool yesterday is considered heinous today, and that's a good thing.

This ignores what I have already pointed out. There are quite a few years between the ages of 13 and 29. The OP question after all is, "Why Are The Missing Years Of Jesus Missing?" not "Why is that One Year Missing?"

Additionally, I don't see anything in the OP that suggests Jesus should have accomplished all his reported feats, including getting crucified, at age 13.

What I meant is that it's natural for these years to be missing because it would be hard (whether the story is true or not) for all those in-between years to have been relevant, because it would have been difficult for Jesus to be preaching, changing dogma, and gaining followers until he was a more respectable age.

He was doing something during that time but it would have been odd to include it, if it wasn't relevant.

One Christian I used to know thinks he may have gone to China.

[Revelations won]

To all,

In my post #5 on this topic I suggested a few reasons why perhaps we do not currently have an available record of his early life.

Kind regards,
RW

[bjs1]

Second, those event were less important.

I take this as pure conjecture, unless, that is, you have evidence this is the case.

Perhaps it would be best to explain it in literary terms.

The four Gospels are not biographies; they are gospels. They are not telling the life of Jesus. They are telling the good news which comes from the life of Jesus.

[Miles]

Second, those event were less important.

I take this as pure conjecture, unless, that is, you have evidence this is the case.

Perhaps it would be best to explain it in literary terms.

The four Gospels are not biographies; they are gospels. They are not telling the life of Jesus. They are telling the good news which comes from the life of Jesus.

So what?
Jesus never did anything notable during these 17 years? God in the form of his Son was just, what, contemplating his navel?

And what logic leads you to conclude that all the events in the missing years were less important than any reported prior to or later than the 17? And please don't say, "because they're missing."



.