Why do only Mathew and Luke know of the virgin birth of Jesus?

Question

Of all the writers of the New Testament, only Matthew and Luke mention the virgin birth. Had something as miraculous as the virgin birth actually occurred, one would expect that Mark and John would have at least mentioned it in their efforts to convince the world that Jesus was who they were claiming him to be.

The apostle Paul never mentions the virgin birth, even though it would have strengthened his arguments in several places. Instead, where Paul does refer to Jesus' birth, he says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3) and was "born of a woman," not a virgin (Galatians 4:4).

Is it possible that the story of the Virgin birth was added 300 years later by someone who wanted to make Jesus seem more divine? Possibly someone like Constantine?

If Christianity can't stand up to these questions then I don't want to devote my life to a lie.

Answer 1

Each book of the bible was written with a purpose. Matthew and Luke were specifically interested in establishing the parentage and lineage of Jesus. Mark, John and Paul were interested in other things. John even addresses this at the end of the gospel when he writes that all the books in the world would not be enough to contain all that he wanted to say. In other words, his book contained what it needed to fulfill its purpose.

For example, I have several cookbooks that do not talk about ovens, how they work, and how to repair them even though you need an oven to bake. Why? The authors know that this is covered in other books. The same is true with books of the Bible.

Answer 2

The evangelists (gospel writers) each wrote with distinctive audience and purpose. While Matthew and Luke begin with the birth of John and Jesus, Mark begins his narrative with an adult Jesus beginning his ministry among the people and John begins with creation itself and zooms from there to Jesus' ministry in just a few lines of text.
There are many points of commonality and difference that give us glimpses at why each was written and the audience for which it was intended. John's purpose wasn't to tell the whole story.

Jn 20:30 Jesus did many other miraculous signs in front of his disciples. They are not written down in this book.
Jn 20:31 But these are written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. If you believe this, you will have life because you belong to him.
Jn 21:25 Jesus also did many other things. What 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 3

In theological studies your point is what they call "an argument from silence." It is a very very weak argument because you have no idea what the reason was that they left it out and so you are just speculating. The Bible teaches that every truth needs to be confirmed by two or three witnesses. There are two witnesses under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that is enough.

Answer 4

300 years?

No.

The authors used the Septuagint LXX version of Isaiah 7:14. In the Greek it was innaccurately rendered virgin, but in the older Hebrew it is "almah", meaning a young unmarried woman.

So it is a mistranslation, not an invention.

Answer 5

the bible says that if everything about Jesus was written down, the world could not contain all the books it would take to record it!
not everyone is going to record the same events in history particularly when there was so much to be chosen from, and the Lord knew what he wanted recorded and by whom!
there was plenty for everybody to write about without everyone writing about the exact same thing! what would be the point of that, when so much was to be reported?

Answer 6

Your question is based on false premise--Matthew and Luke were not the only ones--you speak THAT as if it were gospel--it is wrong---may have been the ones to write of it as they were the primary historians of the crew--but not the only ones that knew---OF MUCH MORE INTEREST TO ME IS THE QUESTION OF WHY SOMEONE WHO HAS CHOSEN NOT TO BELIEVE SPENDS SO MUCH HEAVY EFFORT IN TRYING TO REFUTE THINGS THAT SHOULD HAVE NONE OF YOUR CONCERN???AND HOW COULD YOU HAVE AN ID LIKE "ATHEIST" AND END YOUR QUESTIONS SUPPORT STATEMENT AS IF YOU WERE SIMPLY SOMEONE SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH ?? I'LL END HERE WITH A STATEMENT---Satan is the author of confusion and the father of lies

Answer 7

Not to mention the fact that in those days "virgin" was more commonly used to mean "unmarried" than "one who hasn't had sex". There are a lot of problems in continuity and translation in the bible that lead me to discount any literal validity it may possess.

Christianity really only makes sense to me when it uses the bible in the context of stories told as examples, as opposed to using it in a literal sense.

Answer 8

These writers wrote what they saw or what was told to them by facts. It's not possible that the virgin mary was added or by someone like constantine.Paul's doesn't have to prove anything but his factual experience with Christ.

Answer 9

The bible is a book of mythologically, including the Jesus stories.

If the bible made sense and was historically accurate, there would be no debate or discussion about its authenticity.

The bible must be taken on faith because it is not factual.

Answer 10

Well while His birth is important, His death is far more important. All the writers wrote about that because that's what people really need to know about.