Did Mark know the story of the birth of Jesus?

[TedM]

I don't know where you are going with all of this. Mark's physical Jesus existed before the baptism. Luke and Matthew IMO simply explained the events surrounding the physical birth of that physical Jesus that Mark wrote about

[Giuseppe]

Once you concede me the point that the baptism episode in Mark allegorizes already a birth (even if only a spiritual birth), then you can't deny that Mark knew the story of a "birth" for Jesus.

But the point I would point out is just the fact that, according to the authors of Matthew and Luke, the our Mark didn't know the story of a birth of Jesus, since they, just as you, didn't consider the baptism as the only birth really sufficient and necessary for the Jesus story.

From my POV, if Mark had read the birth story introduced by Matthew and Luke, he would have said: "but I have already a story of the birth. Why do you introduce another version of the same birth? It's redundant".

[lsayre]

To me it appears that the beginning of the Gospel of Mark is attempting to weave together the differing stories of two personas who would otherwise have passed each other in the night, each without ever noticing the presence of the other. John the Baptist and Jesus.

John proclaims the coming of another after him (after his passing, as I see it). Then he is purported to baptize Jesus, but he does not seem to even take notice of the events miraculous dove scene or hear God's voice. It is as if he isn't really there. And it is clear that Jesus is not anyone who comes "after" him in the story.

[Giuseppe]

What we have ignored to now, is the fact that Moses and Elijah in the Transfiguration episode work as a parallel to John the Baptist,

...while the voice from heaven during the Transfiguration episode works as a parallel to the voice (and dove) from heaven during the Baptism episode.

Add another striking parallel: in the Transfiguration episode the voice from heaven seems to be hostile against Moses and Elijah insofar they are commanded by that voice to obey to the Son (and only him). During the Baptism episode there is conflict between the baptism ( descending on Jesus) by the dove (=the holy spirit) and the baptism (with an ascending Jesus) by the John... ...at least insofar John doesn't see the dove.

So I think that who added the Transfiguration episode was repeating merely the points already addressed by the Baptism:
1) continuity between Jesus and the Law and the Prophets
2) the spiritual Birth/Adoption of Jesus by the god of the Jews.

It is not a coincidence that the same points are in Galatians 4:4: ''born by woman, born under the law''.

Even their order (before the Birth ''by woman'', then the Birth ''under the Law'' and Prophets), is not a coincidence.

[TedM]

Once you concede me the point that the baptism episode in Mark allegorizes already a birth (even if only a spiritual birth), then you can't deny that Mark knew the story of a "birth" for Jesus.

I don't concede that Mark thought of the baptism as a birth. The very fact that he has Jesus exist prior to the baptism seems to argue against your other points.

[Giuseppe]

Once you concede me the point that the baptism episode in Mark allegorizes already a birth (even if only a spiritual birth), then you can't deny that Mark knew the story of a "birth" for Jesus.

I don't concede that Mark thought of the baptism as a birth.

but the words "you are my Son" are spoken by any mother or father only the first time there is a recognition of the his/her son and this first time can only be the time of a birth (beyond if spiritual or physical).

[Giuseppe]

Note a possible reason why Mark introduced the Transfiguration episode:

Whereas John the Baptist didn't hear the voice from heaven, now in the Transfiguration episode the three disciples Peter, James and John did hear the same voice.

So now the three Pillars are witnesses of the divine Sonship of Jesus, while John wasn't so.

The Transfiguration episode is another "birth" of Jesus (at least to the eyes of the three Pillars).

[Giuseppe]

Put in another form: if I ask by you the your free invention of a story to represent the point that Jesus was "born by woman and born under the Law", would you invent a story where Jesus is born according to the Spirit with a Jewish prophet as a witness of a such birth?

My answer: I would invent precisely the Baptism of Jesus by John as it is represented in Mark.

[Giuseppe]

John was the true "Magus" and the true "sheperd" who witnessed the birth of Jesus by the true "woman" (the holy spirit) and physically (via baptism) "under" the representative par excellence of the Jewish Law: John the Baptist.

[TedM]

but the words "you are my Son" are spoken by any mother or father only the first time there is a recognition of the his/her son and this first time can only be the time of a birth (beyond if spiritual or physical).

Those words can be spoken as simply a statement as fact. If you think they were spoken to mean the for the first time Jesus was his son - that can be true for an adoption as well as a birth. You can't get around the existence prior to the baptism. That implies a physical birth. So at best Mark has Jesus being born twice - once implied by his very physical existence and a second time by the baptism. Nevertheless your argument appears to be 100% an argument from silence that is constructed by various outside sources that may or may not have influenced him.