Nope, he doesn’t say a thing about it. Nor does John. For them, the story of Jesus’ birth, as told by Matthew and Luke (in different ways), was not a part of the story which needed to be told.
Now, given the big deal we make over Christmas, doesn’t that seem odd? It might be argued that each gospel was a part of a whole, since that’s how we read and apply the four New Testament books. If that was truly the case, though, wouldn’t the Matthew and Luke stories about the birth, or about numerous other episodes in Jesus’ life, be a bit more congruous? Wouldn’t you think that all the facts they wrote about would line up in perfect agreement?
In fact, each gospel was a stand alone project. There is no reason to assume- none!- that gospel writing was a group endeavor. Each was written by a different person, for a different audience, with differing motivations. Obviously, Luke and Matthew shared some source material for their gospels- the book of Mark and a collection of stories and sayings about Jesus known as the ‘Q’ source- but even those sources were specifically reshaped for the particular messages Matthew and Luke were writing.
For Mark and John, the Messiahship of Jesus began at his baptism; thus, no ‘away in the manger’ stories. That is not a minor point to be passed over on our way to Luke 2:1 or Matthew 1:18. For Mark and John, “becoming” the son of God was the important part of the story, not being “born” the son of God.
Personally, I like that viewpoint because it gives me a shot at the same status.
