Why Do Mark and John’s Gospels Not Mention Jesus Was from Bethlehem?

In a 2021 critical article on whether Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem, one of the most telling statements by the author is this:

The Gospels’ different views might be hard to reconcile. But as a scholar of the New Testament, what I argue is that the Gospels offer an important insight into the Greco-Roman views of ethnic identity, including genealogies.

Today, genealogies may bring more awareness of one’s family medical history or help uncover lost family members. In the Greco-Roman era, birth stories and genealogical claims were used to establish rights to rule and link individuals with purported ancestral grandeur.

The Accounts of Jesus’ Birth Are Nearly Impossible to Reconcile?

The author then quotes from another scholar who also holds a low view of inerrancy.

The differences between Matthew and Luke are nearly impossible to reconcile, although they do share some similarities. John Meier, a scholar on the historical Jesus, explains that Jesus’ “birth at Bethlehem is to be taken not as a historical fact” but as a “theological affirmation put into the form of an apparently historical narrative.” In other words, the belief that Jesus was a descendant of King David led to the development of a story about Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem.

Taking this last quote first, the two accounts are not “nearly impossible” to reconcile, especially when accurately viewed as sequential, not both describing the exact same event at the same time. The two articles Christmas Timeline of the Biblical Account and Popular Conservative Journalist Attacks Genesis and the Birth of Christ clearly show that the accounts can easily be harmonized and that the Yahoo! news author is letting his preconceived biases slip.

Misunderstanding the Sequence of Events

Secondly, Matthew’s account stresses that Jesus was a descendant of King David, and since he was writing to a primarily Jewish audience, this is both accurate and also most appropriate. Luke, of course, does record Jesus’ genealogy through Mary’s line, so there is still a direct tie-in to David. But Luke’s genealogy goes not through Solomon but Nathan. However, contrary to the article writer’s claim, Matthew doesn’t just “develop his story” to fit the narrative of Jesus’ descent from David, he uses genealogies to document this and utilizes massive amounts of Old Testament prophecy to show that this is true, in addition to recording the actual events of Jesus’ birth.

But to look at the issue logically, let’s say (for the sake of argument) that you read two eyewitness account books on the history of the Battle of Midway (from WW2). Would you expect them to be identical? Of course not—one author may have been in the Navy and another in the Marines. They would have been attached to different squadrons and attacked different targets, or perhaps one was on the island of Midway when the attacks came, etc. Assuming they were both true and accurate, they would not contradict each other, but they would offer vastly different perspectives, timelines, and sequences of events due to their observations. One may not care to relate how many ships he hit or how many planes he downed but focuses more on overall strategic plans; whereas the other may go into intricate detail on those aspects. A ground-based observer may relate how the soldiers reacted to the initial assault and what plans were made next. It would be foolish (and extremely presumptive) to tell these two eyewitness authors that they “cannot get their story straight” and assume that one must be embellishing (or lying) because both accounts do not relate the exact same material. How much more foolish is it to assume that the Holy Spirit cannot tell an event from different perspectives through two different authors, especially when the events surrounding Jesus’ birth and the visit of the magi may be separated by anywhere from months to a year or so in time?

The Gospel Writers Were Unaware or Unconcerned About Where Jesus Was Born?

Another red-herring statement in the Yahoo! article is that “The Gospels of Mark and John reveal that they either had trouble linking Bethlehem with Jesus, did not know his birthplace, or were not concerned with this city.” First of all, Mark’s Gospel commences with the ministry of Jesus, starting with his baptism by John the Baptist. John’s Gospel starts with Jesus as the preexistent Son of God who created all things “in the beginning,” but then quickly moves to Jesus’ baptism and first miracle. Both Mark and John are starting their Gospel accounts when Jesus was about thirty years old, so they are not concerned with relating the events of Jesus’ birth.

Both Mark and John are starting their Gospel accounts when Jesus was about thirty years old, so they are not concerned with relating the events of Jesus’ birth.

Again, for a comparative analogy, you could look at hundreds of books on Abraham Lincoln, and most will identify him as an Illinois senator who became president. Some may even mention his youth in Indiana. But only a select few even mention that he was born in Hodgenville, Kentucky. In fact, it is not uncommon to read accounts with this main intro text: “Lincoln was born in poverty in a log cabin and was raised on the frontier primarily in Indiana. He was self-educated and became a lawyer, Whig Party leader, Illinois state legislator, and U.S. Congressman from Illinois.”1 Yet Lincoln’s birthplace and his first six years were spent in Kentucky. Illinois may be called the “Land of Lincoln” but only because the time he spent in his birth state was short and not well-known to others. However, I’m not suggesting that the Gospel writers did not know Jesus was born in Bethlehem—Mark and John just saw no reason to mention it directly.

A Prophet Greater than Jonah Is Here

John (7:42) documents a debate where people argue concerning Jesus being from Galilee and not from Bethlehem. What is often mentioned here (as in the Yahoo! article) is that John does not correct this by editorially commenting on this point. But they miss the fact that he does do so in a very subtle way.

Also consider that Mark consistently relates accounts where people call Jesus “son of David” and in Mark 12:35–37, Jesus relates that although the Messiah is the son of David, David calls him “Lord” in Scripture, signifying that this son of David is God. And John (7:42) documents a debate where people argue concerning Jesus being from Galilee and not from Bethlehem. What is often mentioned here (as in the Yahoo! article) is that John does not correct this by editorially commenting on this point. But they miss the fact that he does do so in a very subtle way. In John 7:52, he records the Pharisees’ answer to Nicodemus: “They replied, ‘Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee.’” Yet they were wrong, because in 2 Kings 14:25, we read: “He [Jeroboam II] restored the border of Israel from Lebo-hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the Lord, the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gath-hepher.” In this verse, John records their own statement and uses it against them as a mocking jab at the Pharisees who neglected to remember that Jonah was from Galilee (Gath-hepher is in western Galilee just a few miles north of Nazareth).

If they couldn’t be correct about where a prophet whose birthplace was recorded in their written Scripture was from, how could they be so sure Jesus was not born in Bethlehem but raised in Galilee? Ironically, who did Jesus link his prophetic ministry to the most? Jonah—as recorded in Matthew 12:39–41:

But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.”

And again, in Luke 11:29–30:

When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation.”

Conclusion

The Yahoo! news article is full of willful blindness in order to meet the author’s a priori assumption that Scripture is not the inspired and inerrant Word of God. This author and other “critical scholars” (sadly, mostly New Testament university professors) attempt to downplay divine inspiration and try to force a narrative of men concocting stories to develop their own ideology. But Scripture itself debunks this idea: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) and “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).