Why Doesn’t Mark Say Anything About Jesus’ Birth?

This week I’m looking at the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ birth and responding to a number of skeptical objections related to the virgin conception. If the virgin conception was an historical event that was well known to the earliest Christians, why wasn’t it mentioned by Mark? Mark’s gospel is widely accepted as the first account of the life and ministry of Jesus. Why doesn’t it contain anything about the virgin conception? Does the absence of a birth narrative in Mark demonstrate that the entire story is a late fictional creation?

Silence Doesn’t Mean Denial
While it is true that Mark does not include a birth narrative, this does not mean that he was either unaware of the truth about Jesus or denied the virgin conception. Eyewitnesses often omit important details because they either (1) have other concerns they want to highlight with greater priority, or (2) presume that the issue under question is already well understood. The gospel of Mark exhibits great influence from the Apostle Peter. In fact, the outline of Mark’s Gospel is very similar to the outline of Peter’s first sermon at Pentecost. According to the Papias, Mark was Peter’s scribe; his gospel is brief and focused. Like Peter’s sermon in Chapter 2 of the Book of Act’s, Mark is focused only on the public life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus. But Mark is not alone in omitting the birth narrative. John’s gospel is considered by scholars to be the last Gospel written. The prior three “synoptic Gospels” were already in circulation and the issue of the virgin conception had already been described in two of them. Yet John also omitted the birth narrative. Why? John clearly wanted to cover material that the other Gospel writers did not address; over 90% of the material in the Gospel of John is unique to the text. If John did not agree with the virgin conception as described in the Gospels of Matthew or Luke, he certainly had the opportunity to correct the matter in his own work. But John never does this; his silence serves as a presumption that the “virgin conception” has been accurately described by prior authors.

Brevity Doesn’t Mean Ignorance
It really shouldn’t surprise us that the earliest version of the life of Christ would be the shortest and most focused account. Something very similar happens when police officers are dispatched to a crime scene. The first radio broadcast to responding units is always incredibly brief, offering just the bare details needed to get officers rolling in the right direction, aware of the most important issues they may be about to face. The first broadcast is brief, focused on essentials and designed for a purpose. As units are closing in on their arrival at the scene, a second or third broadcast is offered in order to provide more detail, especially if a responding unit has a question that needs clarification. The Gospel of Mark is the first broadcast about the life of Jesus. As such, the Gospel is prioritized around the same public events that concerned Peter; the events that were most important in articulating the salvation that is offered through the cross.

Absence Doesn’t Mean It’s Not Assumed
At the same time, Mark does not appear to be ignorant of the “virgin conception”. Note, for example, that Mark uses an unusual expression related to Jesus’ parentage:

Mark 6:1-3
Jesus went out from there and came into His hometown ; and His disciples followed Him. When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue ; and the many listeners were astonished, saying, “Where did this man get these things, and what is this wisdom given to Him, and such miracles as these performed by His hands ? “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon ? Are not His sisters here with us?” And they took offense at Him.

It is highly unusual for the “many listeners” in this first century Jewish culture to describe Jesus as the “son of Mary” rather than the “son of Joseph”. These first century eyewitnesses of Jesus apparently knew something about Jesus’ birth narrative and chose to trace Jesus’ lineage back through His mother rather than through His father (as would customarily have been the case). This early reference in the Gospel of Mark may expose the fact that Mark was aware of the “virgin conception” and that the first eyewitnesses of Jesus were also aware of Mary’s marital status at the time of her conception. 

The absence of a birth narrative in Mark does not demonstrate that the narrative (including the virgin conception) is a work of fiction. Mark appears to have been writing with a specific purpose and sense of urgency that precluded its inclusion, and he assumed the truth of the narrative in his text.

Comments

[emmzee]

After taking a graduate level class studying the synoptic gospels this semester, I'm much more open to the two-gospel hypothesis (which theorizes that Matthew's gospel was written first, followed by Luke, then Mark) than I was before. That theory (also called the Greisbach hypothesis) seems to fit better with this post than the more commonly-cited two-source hypothesis (ie, Mark first, Matthew & Luke used Mark & Q). This omission of Jesus' birth narrative makes more sense if Mark was written last of the synoptics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-gospel_hypothesis
(I'm not convinced the two-gospel hypothesis is correct ... I think it has merit though.)

[Steven Carr]

Did the disciples and/or James know that Jesus had been born of a virgin?

What would have been the reaction of the people around him , when they knew he had been born of a virgin?

Perhaps they (like James) would simply not have believed it.

So why should we?

[Steven Carr]

'It is highly unusual for the “many listeners” in this first century Jewish culture to describe Jesus as the “son of Mary” rather than the “son of Joseph”. '

Perhaps Mark didn't know it was unusual, and thought people would have talked like that?

[John M]

@Steve Carr...Mark definitely would have known it was unusual to talk like that. Women in Jewish societies were held with very little regard. They weren't even allowed to be witnesses in a trial as their testimony was considered worthless. By calling Jesus, the "Son of Mary" Mark was intimating the virgin birth. The lineage would come down through the father and if Joseph was the father, Jesus would have been called the "Son of Joseph." It's extremely important to understand Jewish culture and beliefs when reading the New Testament documents. Which is another reason why women discovering the empty tomb and being the first witnesses is a sign of credibility of the Gospels. It fulfills the criterion of embarrassment. If they Gospel writers were going to make it up, they would not have used women as witnesses.

[ricky]

Why should Mark have a narrative of Jesus' virgin birth when the context of his account of Jesus would not even require it? Who knows? Maybe Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John came together and decided on and divided between themselves who would cover a particular aspect of Jesus' life. What I know is that each gospel account had a particular purpose in the recollection of the events of Jesus' life. Why are we not concerned with what Jesus was doing as a toddler and into his teenage years and his young adulthood? You know what I mean? The fact that Mark mentions Jesus in His hometown is enough to know that Mark was well aware of the virgin birth. Mark had a specific reason and purpose for his account and it simply did not need to make mention of the birth of Jesus.

[Brent McCrory]

Thanks for your post Mr. Wallace and your service to the Kingdom.

You are correct that Mark had a different focus than the authors of the other gospels. A professor in Seminary (the late Dr. Robert Lowery) told us a key to understanding the focus of the gospel writers can be found in the opening chapters/birth narratives.

Matthew - shows Jesus as King;
e.g., "David the king" (Mt1:6), plus Christ ~ King for Jews [not the last name of Jesus]
e.g., the genealogies have 2 sets of 7 (7 is a Jewish number for completion) three times (cf. Mt1:17) - this shows the call of Abram to the high point (with King David), the downfall of the kingdom (deportation), and God bringing redemption (to the Christ) - that revolves around kings...

Luke - shows Jesus as fully human
e.g., genealogy all the way back to Adam (not just Abraham of Matthew)
this human aspect is carried out with Luke's concern for the "outcasts" of society

John - shows Jesus as divine
e.g., in the beginning was the Word and the Word was God...
the "I Am" statements of Jesus

Mark - no genealogy b/c Mark shows Jesus as a slave...and in the ancient world slaves did not have genealogies
e.g., Mk10:45 - "...came not to be served but to serve..."

Four gospels, each written to portray a truth/facet of Jesus. Obviously there is overlap between them - but the themes of King (Mt), man (Lk), slave (Mk), and divine (Jn) are prominent.

grace & peace - Brent