Why doesn't the bible record Jesus' early life in detail?

>1 NothingOutThereForMe:: the only story recalling his very earliest years was in Luke 2.. This may be so in the canonical gospels but were there no stories about his early life in apocryphal texts? As for being as you say "son of God" I'm not sure that people thought like this when he was still a child. I think later chroniclers "filled in the gaps" to suit their own pre-conceptions.

The apocryphal infancy gospels are quite late, and seem to have been written because of people 'thinking if this is the son of God, wouldn't it be important to include his entire life?' Not only do those stories show no signs that they are based in fact, but they are actually quire horrible.

Well there has always been dispute about whether he was even a real person, let alone the son of God. But lets assume that he was a real person...

The first 15-20 years of his life likely didn't have anything particularly miraculous happen. Unless he was performing miracles etc at age 10 or 12 there isn't much to say. He wouldn't have had any wisdom to speak of (he would have been like most children his age) nor the nuance to be articulate in expressing his beliefs/views.

My suspicion is that around 20 or so he had a psychotic breakdown, started hearing voices and expressed this to others. They took this as some sort of divine message from god and the rest is history. It makes sense because if you lack the scientific knowledge we have today, you have to attribute happenings to higher beings or just assume it is all random. Most people (even now) don't want to accept that much of what happens is no better than chance and so people need something to believe in.

>4 MichaelH85:

Surely our sicknesses he hath borne, And our pains -- he hath carried them, And we -- we have esteemed him plagued, Smitten of God, and afflicted. (Isaiah 53:4, Young's Literal Translation)

I agree with you.

Among the preachers of the "good tidings" there was a special group who apparently were entrusted in a particular manner with transmitting the narrative and testimony regarding the things of Jesus; hence these special preachers were called the "bringers of good tidings" or the evangelists" (Eph4:11;2Tim4:5;Acts2:8) as early as the 6th decade of the 1st century there was a storehouse from which "many" writers took their materials exclusively by word of mouth. This method was after all used by Jesus himself who preached only. The early Christians called this method "catechesis" that is "re-echoing". On the other hand the early Christians did not take an indiscriminate interest in the "many" writings but concerned themselves with only four of them. The Church has never lost sight of the one single origin of her four Gospels. The other "many" writings have mainly been lost or called Apocrypha. As far as MichaelH85 says in post #4 "He wouldn't have had any wisdom to speak of nor the nuance to be articulate in expressing his beliefs/views". (luke 2) And it came to pass they found him after three days sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished with his wisdom and his answers. And Jesus went down with them to Nazareth and was subject to them and he advanced in wisdom and age. All this at 12 years old....JMJ....

>8 NothingOutThereForMe: First of all in the NT we have evidence that Jesus could read LK 4: 16-21 tells us on the Sabbath he came to Nazareth where he was brought up; and he rose to read. This evidence along with the experience in the temple as a boy tells us he was very well educated. We must remember the culture of the times was primarily oral. We also have evidence of him writing in JN 8:3-9 Stooping down he wrote on the ground. Catholics don't have a problem with this. The bible is essential, it is not the only means of transmitting the Faith. Jn 21:25, There are many other things which Jesus did: which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written....AMDG....

I think >7 brone: is correct in emphasising the oral tradition, or word of mouth. The gospels were written many decades after the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. The oral tradition would have concentrated on what they considered to be the most important elements, which would of course be Jesus' public ministry and teaching, and his death and resurrection. I suspect it's unlikely that there would have been much interest in his childhood, few people still alive who actually remembered it, and not many tales about it floating around.