Sorry, Norman Geisler and Ron Rhodes: Isaiah 7:14 is not a prediction about Jesus

This is my reply to the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 as found in Geisler & Rhodes, "Conviction Without Compromise" (Harvest House Publishers, 2008).

(Triablogue published its own defense of the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 7:14, and my reply to that is here)

Geisler and Rhodes argue:



See here.

First, none of this matters: Paul says the resurrection of Jesus is the Achilles' Heel of Christianity:

 12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied. (1 Cor. 15:12-19 NAU)

I have extensively rebutted the arguments of Licona, Habermas and W.C. Craig for the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus.  So under Paul's logic, keeping Jesus in the ground after death would override whatever benefit you thought you could obtain by "proving" that Isaiah 7:14 was a prediction of Jesus.

Apologists will say Isaiah's ability to predict Jesus 700 years in advance still proves god's existence so atheism is still wrong.  But even supposing atheism to be wrong, Paul warns that Christians would be false witnesses of God if Jesus didn't rise from the dead.  If the atheist rebuttal to the resurrection arguments are solid, there is a corresponding rise in the likelihood that any "god" that is still there, will be more pissed off at the Christians for false witness, than he would be at those who simply deny his basic existence.  See Deut. 13.  If Galatians 1:8-9 is true, then apparently MISrepresenting God is far worse than simply refusing to believe he exists.  What the apologist never bothers with is why the alleged wrongness of atheism should be of any concern.  Being wrong cannot be a rational basis for concern to correct oneself, unless the wrong can be shown to increase the  probability that one will endure disaster.

Second, the late Geisler's promoters admit elsewhere that fulfillment of this prophecy "may be" two-fold (i.e., double-fulfillment, the last desperate exegetical acrobatic left to the fundie when you prove the immediate context isn't talking about Jesus). See here.

Third, Evangelical Christian scholars disagree about what is happening in Isaiah 7:14, which would hardly be the case if the "predictive" view espoused by Geisler and Rhodes, supra, was the only "reasonable" one. Apparently, some genuine Christian scholars don't think we should read the bible as if it was yesterday's headline in the New York Times. They are fearful that there are subtleties that will be easily missed by the childish fundamentalist method. The Christian scholars who see Isaiah 7:14 as not predictive, but merely typological are found contrasted with the fundamentalist views in David L. Turner's Matthew, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Baker Academic, 2008), pp. 69-73.

The apologists at "Triablogue" offer a bit more about this tendency among Christian scholars to doubt whether Isaiah 7:14 refers to the virgin conception of Jesus:

Wegner states, "There is little doubt that Isa. 7:14 and its reuse in Matt. 1:23 is one of the most difficult problems for modern scholars."⁶⁷ This stems from a growing amount of evangelicals who question whether Isaiah 7:14 prophesies about a virgin birth. To be clear, these scholars acknowledges that Jesus was certainly born of a virgin as Matthew states (1:23). However, did Isaiah intend for that idea originally? Is there any movement from Old Testament to New Testament in this case?

See here.  Christian scholars who are "evangelical" and thus have a higher view of the bible than "liberals" therefore have strong predisposition to just blindly insist that Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 is correct.  So when "evangelical" Christian scholars become disenchanted with this fundamentalist view, its probably because they sense serious scholarly reasons for doing so, not because they are being used by Satan as wolves among the sheep...or any other scare-analogy to keep the blindly ignorant fearful of God's wrath upon heretics.

How probable is it that the simple-minded fundamentalist "read-the-bible-like-a-newspaper" interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 is the only "reasonable" one?

No student of the Old Testament need apologize for a treatment of Isaiah 7:14 in relation to the doctrine of the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. From earliest times to the present the discussions which have centered about this theme have been both interesting, varied, and at times even heated. Lindblom characterizes Isaiah 7:14 as “the endlessly discussed passage of the Immanuel sign.” Rawlinson maintains: “Few prophecies have been the subject of so much controversy, or called forth such a variety of exegesis, as this prophecy of Immanuel. Rosenmueller gives a list of twenty-eight authors who have written dissertations on it, and himself adds a twenty-ninth. Yet the subject is far from being exhausted.” Barnes emphasizes the obscurity of the passage: “Who this virgin was, and what is the precise meaning of this prediction, has given, perhaps, more perplexity to commentators than almost any other portion of the Bible.” Again, he insists, “Perhaps there is no prophecy in the Old Testament on which more has been written, and which has produced more perplexity among commentators than this. And after all, it still remains, in many respects, very obscure.” Skinner seeks in a general way to pinpoint the source of the difficulties. He states: “Probably no single passage of the Old Testament has been so variously interpreted or has given rise to so much controversy as the prophecy contained in these verses.

Charles Lee Feinberg, The Virgin Birth in the Old Testament and Isaiah 7:14,

BSac—V119 #475—Jul 62—251

One Evangelical Christian scholar, J.D.W. Watts, explains Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14 as the result of taking OT passages out of context, a disaster-prone hermeneutic that nevertheless enjoyed wide popularity in 1st century Judaism:

A second factor facilitated the use of Isa 7:14 in Matthew. A hermeneutical method was in general use which allowed verses to be separated from their contexts. Verses or individual words were understood to have esoteric meanings whose significance could be revealed to an inspired teacher or writer. Thus the entire Scripture was viewed as a prophecy intended to interpret the moment in which the reader lived. Verses were abstracted from both the historical and literary setting in which they originally appeared. They were then identified with an event or a doctrine which was altogether extraneous to the original context or intention. This kind of interpretation presumes a view of inspiration and of history in which God moves in all ages mysteriously to plant his secrets so that later ages may put the puzzle together and thus reveal his purposes and the direction of his intention....This kind of interpretation is subject to the criticism that it ignores the rightful demands of contextual and historical exegesis which call for a meaning related to the end of the Syro-Ephraimite War in terms of v 16.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 24: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 1-33. 

Word Biblical Commentary (pp.103-104). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

So, just in case you might have thought that Isaiah 7:14 causes any atheist bible critic to lose any sleep at night, think again.  Your own Christian evangelical scholars refuse to push that verse as much as the fundies do when in fact by being "evangelical" and "Christian" those scholars know they stand much to gain by pretending that this verse is straight up predictive prophecy.  Seems reasonable to infer that the scholars are aware there's a hell of lot more complexity going on here than what we get with Geisler's "read the bible like a newspaper" crap.

Fourth, Giesler admits in his "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics" (Baker Books, 1999)

"Single Reference to a Natural Birth. Liberal scholars and some conservatives view Isaiah
7:14 as having reference only to the natural conception and birth of the son of the prophetess." (entry for "Virgin Birth in Isaiah 7:14").

We would not expect any "conservative" bible scholars to limit Isaiah 7:14 to an unknown boy born naturally in 700 b.c., unless what the text really means is far less clear than Geisler pretends.

Fifth, the "sign" is not the fact that the woman who conceives is a "virgin". The "sign" is the timing between when the boy learns to distinguish good and evil, and the fall of the two other kingdoms which Ahaz feared. This is clear from the immediate context, for which the following quote is longer than normal:

3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out now to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, on the highway to the fuller's field,
4 and say to him, 'Take care and be calm, have no fear and do not be fainthearted because of these two stubs of smoldering firebrands, on account of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah.
5 'Because Aram, with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah, has planned evil against you, saying,
6 "Let us go up against Judah and terrorize it, and make for ourselves a breach in its walls and set up the son of Tabeel as king in the midst of it,"
7 thus says the Lord GOD: "It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass.
8 "For the head of Aram is Damascus and the head of Damascus is Rezin (now within another 65 years Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people),
9 and the head of Ephraim is Samaria and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. If you will not believe, you surely shall not last."'"
10 Then the LORD spoke again to Ahaz, saying,
11 "Ask a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it deep as Sheol or high as heaven."
12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!"
13 Then he said, "Listen now, O house of David! Is it too slight a thing for you to try the patience of men, that you will try the patience of my God as well?
14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.
16 "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.
17 "The LORD will bring on you, on your people, and on your father's house such days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah, the king of Assyria."
18 In that day the LORD will whistle for the fly that is in the remotest part of the rivers of Egypt and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. (Isa. 7:3-18 NAU)

As is clear from the preceding context, the subject is King Ahaz's fear of other kingdoms, so we would only expect that the "sign" for him would consist of something to do with his safety or the defeat of those other kingdoms. "Look at that woman over there, her hymen is still intact, but she is pregnant anyway, what a miracle!" wouldn't fit the context as part of the "sign".

Sixth, the context makes clear that the words of encouragement are for Ahaz to find relief in. He lived in 700 b.c. He could hardly find relief in a prediction that some virgin would get pregnant 700 years after he died. That would be like some dipshit saying "don't worry about the gang-members plotting to kill you next year, because 700 years from now a woman will get pregnant from god in a way that doesn't rupture her hymen..." (!?). Evangelical Christian scholars agree:

14–16 The “sign” is revealed anyway. A young woman who is apparently present or contemporary, but not yet married (i.e., a virgin) will in due course bear a child and call his name Immanuel meaning God-(is)-With-Us. By the time the child is old enough to make decisions, the land of the two opposing kings will be devastated. The sign is simple. It has to do with a period by which time the present crisis will no longer be acute or relevant. This is parallel to the statement in v 8b but indicates a much shorter period. The shorter period accords with history. Tiglath-Pileser’s reactions to Rezin and the son of Remaliah came in 733 b.c. when he reduced most of Israel to the status of an Assyrian province.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 24: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 1-33. 

Word Biblical Commentary (Page 97). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Seventh, the conception/birth of Jesus have precisely nothing to do with the fall of the two kingdoms Isaiah predicts in 7:16.

Eighth, there is no historical evidence that the Jews, expectant as they were of a coming messiah, ever thought Isaiah 7:14 was a prediction of any such messiah.

Giesler and Rhodes continue:




The argument is that the woman is described as still having her hymen intact, despite the fact that she is pregnant, hence, a conception-miracle that could only have been caused by God.  There are numerous powerful objections:

a)  Once again, the born child in question must have something to do with giving King Ahaz relief from his fear of other kingdoms.  Telling him to take courage because a virgin will give birth to a son 700 years later doesn't exactly make "sense".  You don't change this contextual constraint by pointing out that almah in Hebrew always means woman with hymen intact.

b) The context does not support the premise that the "sign" is the pregnant woman still being a virgin, rather, again, the "sign" is the timing of the child's learning good/evil, and the fall of the other kingdoms Ahaz feared.  You don't change this contextual constraint by pointing out that almah in Hebrew always means woman with hymen intact.

c) According to the NRS, Isaiah uses the present tense (i.e., the young woman IS pregnant), which translation, if accurate, is a rather forceful proof that the child in question would be born in 700 b.c. and thus could not possibly be Jesus.  This is probably why die-hard fundamentalists blindly insist in "double-fulfillment" (i.e., when they cannot overcome the contextual constraints that show the child in question cannot possibly be Jesus, they suddenly discover that there can be a "primary" fulfillment and a "secondary" fulfillment...but such double-fulfillment fancy runs contrary to the standard rule of context, which says the subject IS about what the context says.

d) "But what is the precise meaning of ’almah? There are numerous scholars who are noncommittal as to whether the term signifies a virgin or a married woman. Rogers states his position clearly: “First of all, it must be said that the Hebrew word almah may mean ‘virgin,’ but does not necessarily mean anything more than a young woman of marriageable age. Had the prophet intended specifically and precisely to say ‘virgin,’ he must have used the word bethulah, though even then there would be a faint shade of uncertainty.” From BSac—V119 #475—Jul 62—255, supra.

e) "If one looks to Isaiah 7 and reads this passage in its context, he will see that the prophet was not primarily speaking of the birth of Christ…There is really no way that one can make this prophecy apply exclusively to the birth of Christ without totally disregarding the context of Isaiah 7…Nothing in the context of Isaiah 7 would demand a virgin birth."  Biblical Interpretation, Principles and Practice: Studies in Honor of Jack Pearl Lewis. Kearly, Myers, Hadley, editors, Baker Books, third printing, 1987, p. 279

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

Joel 1:8 doesn't say the girl is married.

 6 For a nation has invaded my land, Mighty and without number; Its teeth are the teeth of a lion, And it has the fangs of a lioness.
 7 It has made my vine a waste And my fig tree splinters. It has stripped them bare and cast them away; Their branches have become white.
 8 Wail like a virgin girded with sackcloth For the bridegroom of her youth.
 9 The grain offering and the drink offering are cut off From the house of the LORD. The priests mourn, The ministers of the LORD. (Joel 1:6-9 NAU)

The NET and NIV reflect this subtlety, thus proving such understanding is not "unreasonable":

NET  Joel 1:8 Wail like a young virgin clothed in sackcloth, lamenting the death of her husband-to-be.

NIV  Joel 1:8 Mourn like a virgin in sackcloth grieving for the betrothed of her youth.

Geisler and Rhodes  continue:

"The upshot of all of this is the conclusion that there is no defensible linguistic logic for suggesting the meaning “virgin” for the Hebrew almâ. Exegetical methods lead us to the meaning “youth” or adolescent.” It is only hermeneutical considerations, or should we say theological considerations, that would demand that the issue be pushed further than linguistic analysis could support."

John H. Walton, Isa 7:14: What’s In A Name? JETS 30/3 (September 1987) 293

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

But I don't believe the NT is inspired by God, since there is no way to "show" such a thing except by demanding that the historical happenstance that ended up giving us a NT was something guided by "god", which is not going to sound persuasive to anybody except those who already believe.

I also have no reason to think Matthew himself was inspired by God since nothing in the book now bearing his name indicates he claimed any such thing.  When your witness refuses to admit something that you need to help your argument, that means you lose.  What else are you going to say about Matthew that you don't know the first fucking thing about?  That he liked pizza more than cake?  he didn't say shit about that either, but don't let a lack of factual detail prevent your brain from conjuring up whatever you need to make you feel better.

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

Doesn't matter if the woman in question was a virgin at the time of the statement, saying she would conceive a child isn't the same as saying she would conceive a child without sexual union.   Especially if Isaiah is speaking prophetically, he could just as easily be referring to the fact that a woman who is now a virgin, will in the future conceive a child.  That doesn't necessarily mean her hymen will remain intact during conception.

And this interpretation violates the rule of context, since as demonstrated earlier, the idea that Isaiah might think King Ahaz could take comfort in the "fact" that a miraculous birth would occur 700 years after he dies, is just stupid, but set forth aggressively by apologists anyway in their inerrant quest to messianic prophecy while not being too forthright about what it means to let the immediate context determine meaning.

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

No, Isaiah in chapter 8 explains what he means by Immanuel, and it isn't a child born 700 years into the future, and the "god with us" ironically means that Ahaz shall not see political deliverance but only defeat and battle, because he rejected the message of Isaiah, whom the Lord was with:

5 Again the LORD spoke to me further, saying,
 6 "Inasmuch as these people have rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah And rejoice in Rezin and the son of Remaliah;
 7 "Now therefore, behold, the Lord is about to bring on them the strong and abundant waters of the Euphrates, Even the king of Assyria and all his glory; And it will rise up over all its channels and go over all its banks.
 8 "Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, It will reach even to the neck; And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel. 9 "Be broken, O peoples, and be shattered; And give ear, all remote places of the earth. Gird yourselves, yet be shattered; Gird yourselves, yet be shattered.
 10 "Devise a plan, but it will be thwarted; State a proposal, but it will not stand, For God is with us." 11 For thus the LORD spoke to me with mighty power and instructed me not to walk in the way of this people, saying, (Isa. 8:5-11 NAU)

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

That's just stupidity gone to seed:   The natural interpretation is that the speaker now wants all other Jews to hear his message, not merely Ahaz.  So all that is implied is an expansion of the message to other contemporaries of Ahaz.  The burden is on the apologist to show that "house of David" is meant to elicit the attention of future Jews, and despite Isaiah's ability to speak about future people, he indicates no such thing here.

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

The extraordinary nature of the sign is simply Isaiah's alleged ability to predict that before the boy in question learns to distinguish good from evil, the land of the two kings Ahaz feared would be abandoned.  Once again, there is no contextual justification for pretending that the pregnancy of the virgin was itself the "sign".  The sign had to be relevant to Ahaz.  Jesus being born to the virgin Mary 700 years after Ahaz and all his generation died off wold hardly qualify, except in the eyes of desperate apologists who will abandon the constraints of context anytime they feel the interests of apologetics would be served in doing so.

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

No, as explained above, Isaiah 8 shows that the "Immanual" refers to God being with those who are on Isaiah's side of the debate, a contextual clue that forces the child who is called by this name, to be a boy born in the days of Isaiah.  There is no fucking way any apologist is going to apply the events in Isaiah 8:8 to Jesus' day, except by the wild esoteric bullshit that favors mysticism over well-settled principles of interpretation.

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

Irrelevant, we've shown that applying Isaiah 7:14 to Jesus is to take Isaiah 7 out of context.

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

What do you mean the same verse cannot refer to opposing things?  I'm not an inerrantist, I don't automatically assume an ancient religious author was consistent in everything he said, especially in the case of Isaiah where it is likely there were at least 3 different authors and what we now have also went through textual modification for centuries before it came to us. 1QIsa only gets you back to about 100  b.c., when in fact Isaiah himself lived 600 years earlier.  Then you are going to tell me 500 years of textual darkness means nothing?

Geisler and Rhodes continue:

Jesus was never called "Immanuel" in the NT, and the fact that the angel of the Lord can speak as god without being god means in OT Judaism there was a doctrine that suffered from cognitive dissonance...the person doing the speaking wasn't himself god, but it was still appropriate to react toward him as if he was.

 11 The angel of the LORD said to her further, "Behold, you are with child, And you will bear a son; And you shall call his name Ishmael, Because the LORD has given heed to your affliction.
 12 "He will be a wild donkey of a man, His hand will be against everyone, And everyone's hand will be against him; And he will live to the east of all his brothers."
 13 Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, "You are a God who sees"; for she said, "Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?" (Gen. 16:11-13 NAU)
 11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
 12 He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." (Gen. 22:11-12 NAU) 

 2 The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed.
 3 So Moses said, "I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up."
 4 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, "Moses, Moses!" And he said, "Here I am."
 5 Then He said, "Do not come near here; remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground."
 6 He said also, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. (Exod. 3:2-6 NAU) 

 19 The angel of God, who had been going before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them. (Exod. 14:19 NAU) 

20 "Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared.
 21 "Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him.
 (Exod. 23:20-21 NAU) 

 31 Then the LORD opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the LORD standing in the way with his drawn sword in his hand; and he bowed all the way to the ground.
 32 The angel of the LORD said to him, "Why have you struck your donkey these three times? Behold, I have come out as an adversary, because your way was contrary to me. (Num. 22:31-32 NAU) 

 1 Now the angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land which I have sworn to your fathers; and I said, 'I will never break My covenant with you, (Jdg. 2:1 NAU) 

 12 The angel of the LORD appeared to him and said to him, "The LORD is with you, O valiant warrior."
 13 Then Gideon said to him, "O my lord, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all His miracles which our fathers told us about, saying, 'Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt?' But now the LORD has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian."
 14 The LORD looked at him and said, "Go in this your strength and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian. Have I not sent you?" (Jdg. 6:12-14 NAU) 

Better is Judges 6, where seeing the angel of the Lord face to face is considered equally as deadly as seeing the Lord face to face:
 21 Then the angel of the LORD put out the end of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened bread; and fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened bread. Then the angel of the LORD vanished from his sight.
 22 When Gideon saw that he was the angel of the LORD, he said, "Alas, O Lord GOD! For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face."
 23 The LORD said to him, "Peace to you, do not fear; you shall not die." (Jdg. 6:21-23 NAU) 

 9 In all their affliction He was afflicted, And the angel of His presence saved them; In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them, And He lifted them and carried them all the days of old. (Isa. 63:9 NAU) 

 6 And the angel of the LORD admonished Joshua, saying,
 7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'If you will walk in My ways and if you will perform My service, then you will also govern My house and also have charge of My courts, and I will grant you free access among these who are standing here. (Zech. 3:6-7 NAU)

The issue is not "can Christians be reasonable to view Isaiah 7:14 as a prediction of Jesus?".

The issue is "can a person be reasonable to deny that Isaiah 7:14 is a prediction of Jesus?"

Yes, obviously.

Answering Triablogue on Isaiah 7:14

This is my reply to an article by Patrick Chan posted at Triablogue, entitled

Virgin Birth (Isa. 7:14)

 

Wegner states, "There is little doubt that Isa. 7:14 and its reuse in Matt. 1:23 is one of the most difficult problems for modern scholars."67 This stems from a growing amount of evangelicals who question whether Isaiah 7:14 prophesies about a virgin birth.

Thanks for admitting that Christian scholars themselves are growing and more disenchanted with the "literal prediction" manner that they have been characterizing Isaiah 7:14 for centuries.  That would hardly be the case if squeezing Jesus out of that passage were as justifiable as you argue herein.

If spiritually alive people are growing tired of associating Jesus with that verse, you cannot rationally expect spiritually dead people to associate Jesus with it, or to give two shits about learning enough about hermenuetics so as to reply to Christian apologists who treat Isaiah 7:14  the way obstinate jailhouse lawyers for the ACLU treat the U.S. Constitution.

I have good reason to accept the views of some Christian scholars that the book of Isaiah went through an editing process lasting longer than 100 years after the prophet Isaiah died, before the text reached the canonical shape.  I therefore have every good reason to believe that the reason Isaiah seems to speak of a distant future of Israel is because editors took his words and "shaped" them toward that end, and that whether and to what extent the real Isaiah every orally spoke the things credited to him in that book, is forever beyond confirmation.  Your apologetic trifling will convince nobody except other fundamentalists who blindly presume the book of Isaiah is inerrant.  However, you still fail to show that Isaiah in ch. 7 was intended for his prophecy about the boy to relate to events 700 years into the future from himself.  The way you try to get around the obvious historical fulfillment of the prophecy, means you have less in common with honesty and more in common with jailhouse lawyers who get paid to pretend that words are really that elastic.

To be clear, these scholars acknowledges that Jesus was certainly born of a virgin as Matthew states (1:23). However, did Isaiah intend for that idea originally?

No, that's why the timing of the boy's birth, not the mother's pregnancy, is considered the "sign" in Isaiah 7:15.

Is there any movement from Old Testament to New Testament in this case?

Arguments against a messianic interpretation of the text appeal to three major pieces of evidence. First, the historical setting of Isaiah 7 seems to demand Isaiah's sign relate to the current circumstances. Isaiah 7 opens discussing how Ephraim and Aram are placing political and military pressure upon the southern kingdom (vv. 1-2).68 The discussion of the sign responds to that situation (vv. 3-14). This suggests it deals with something in the present and not future.

Thus putting the burden of proof on those who would insist on 'double-fulfillment' or other fundie tactic designed to avoid dealing seriously with Isaiah's immediate context.

Second, the wording of the sign implies this. Isaiah relates Immanuel's birth with the collapse of the kings of Ephraim and Aram (v. 15). That seems to say the sign relates to the current crisis.69

"Seems"? 

Third, later development of the sign in Isaiah seems to support this interpretation. In the very next chapter, Isaiah describes the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz in terms quite similar to [the] birth Immanuel (Isa. 8:4; cf. Isa. 7:16). Maher-shalal-hash-baz explicitly deals with the current situation of Ephraim and Aram (Isa. 8:4-8). That appears to confirm Isaiah intended the sign be fulfilled int he current time. Immanuel is a sign of the enemy's destruction and thereby Judah's deliverance.70

These arguments are admittedly compelling and make it seem that this is simply all the text discusses. However, several factors show there may be more involved.

 But if the average skeptic has a life outside of just sitting around all day googling for bible scholars who comment on this bullshit, they have perfect rational warrant to view Isaiah 7 and 8 as fatally ambiguous due to how much bible scholars disagree with each other about every detail therein.  . Joseph Jensen Joseph Jensen Associate Professor, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, sums it up nicely in the Anchor Bible Dictionary:

As already indicated, many aspects of these verses are disputed. For example,
Immanuel is said to be a royal child (H. Gressmann, E. Hammershaimb, A. S. Herbert, E. J. Kissane, J. Lindblom, J. L. McKenzie, S. Mowinckel, H.-P. Müller, H. Ringgren, J. J. Scullion, B. Vawter, W. Vischer, H. Wildberger, G. E. Wright),

specifically Hezekiah (Hammershaimb, Kissane, Lindblom, O. Procksch, Wildberger),

or Isaiah’s son (R. E. Clements, N. Gottwald, T. Lescow, J. J. Stamm, H. M. Wolf),

or any child conceived at this time (B. Duhm, G. Fohrer, G. B. Gray, O. Kaiser, L. Koehler, W. McKane, K. Marti, J. Mauchline), with “the young woman” being explained accordingly;

he is the new Israel (L. G. Rignell); and

some authors emphasize the difficulty of relating Immanuel to Isaiah’s historical context in order to favor a more strictly messianic interpretation (T. E. Bird, J. Coppens, F. Delitzsch, J. Fischer, Gressmann, H. Junker, M. McNamara, F. L. Moriarity).

Immanuel is said to be a favorable sign of salvation (S. Blank, Hammershaimb, Marti, Rignell, Scullion);

he is purely a sign of disaster (K. Budde, H. W. Hertzberg, R. Kilian, Lescow);

he is a double-edged sign (Fischer, Gressmann, Junker, Kaiser, Vischer, H. W. Wolff).
Immanuel’s food (“curds and honey”) is ideal and luxurious food of abundance (Gray, Hammershaimb, Lindblom, Rignell, Scullion, J. Skinner, Wildberger, Wolff);

his food is the nomad fare available in a land that has been devastated (Budde, Cheyne, Delitzsch, Duhm, Fischer, Fohrer, Herbert, Hertzberg, Kaiser, Kilian, McNamara, Marti, Mauchline, Stamm).
Immanuel’s coming to knowledge in v 15 is a temporal expression (“when he learns to reject . . . ,” “by the time he learns . . .”—G. W. Buchanan, T. F. Cheyne, Duhm, Fohrer, Herbert, Hertzberg, Kaiser, Lindblom, McNamara, Marti, Mauchline [following ], Rignell, Skinner, Stamm);

it expresses finality (“so that he may learn to reject . . .”—Budde, F. Dreyfus, P. G. Duncker, Junker, McKane, Mauchline [following MT], Müller, Scullion, Wildberger, Wolff).

The age at which a child learns to reject evil and choose good means the age at which he can distinguish pleasant from unpleasant (usually set at 2 or 3 years—Clements, Duhm, Fohrer, Herbert, Kilian, Lescow, Lindblom, McKane, Marti, Mauchline, Skinner, Stamm);

it means the age of moral discernment (often set at around 20 years—Budde, Buchanan, Cheyne, Delitzsch, Fischer [at age 3!], Herzberg, Kaiser, McNamara, Rignell, Scullion, Wolff);

it means the age of sexual awareness or maturity (around age 13—R. Gordis, L. F. Hartman, B. Reike).

Although most commentators agree that v 17 foretells devastation, there are some who take it as a prediction of future blessedness (Lindblom, Hammershaimb, McKane, Scullion).

Some authors question the authenticity of certain words, phrases, or even verses of the passage; in fact, some of the positions listed above require the rejection of parts of the text.

Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday.

Like other prophets, Isaiah's mentality in this text does not merely focus on the present but the future:

    The context of Isaiah 7 shows Isaiah's redemptive historical awareness. Isaiah 7 is not the first chapter of the book. The previous chapters have set up important concepts and issues Isaiah 7 addresses. This revolves around how God will send Israel into exile because of their sin (5:26-30) but will reverse this in the end with a glorious kingdom (2:1-4; 4:2-6). Isaiah's call reiterates this paradigm. His job is to proclaim Israel's condemnation (Isa. 6:8-12) so that in the end, they will be made holy (Isa. 6:13).71 Isaiah's mission is one that connects present with the eschatological. Isaiah 7 is not in a vacuum. Its context suggests the present situation discussed relates to something greater.

The larger context of Isaiah does not bear that strongly on the immediate context of Isaiah 7:14.   Pretending that the apparent purpose of the entire "book" must be read into one of its specific statements is dangerous territory.  The larger purpose of Matthew is to evangelize the Gentiles (28:19-20), but that hardly requires us to read Gentile-implications into everything Matthew recorded Jesus saying.   The apparent purpose of Jeremiah is to condemn his own people for their idolatry, that hardly means we must read a condemnation of the Jews into every last thing he said.

I'm sorry, but you are not opening the door to the possibility that Isaiah 7:14 might mean something greater than its immediate context suggests, by pretending that we have to read some of Isaiah's overall purpose into whatever specific story he relates, such as the one in 7:14.

Your references to earlier chapters in Isaiah do not even bear out what you are trying to do, for in those cases the apparent intent that the historical reality be related to the eschaton is at least arguable, but nothing in the immediate context of Isaiah 7:14 expresses or implies the connection of his Ahaz-prophecy, to anything in the future. 

Worst of all, you pretend as if there's been no editing of Isaiah's words at 7:14 since the day they were first written down, a source critical judgment not shared by any other source critic.  You also don't even know how long of a period it was between what Isaiah allegedly spoke orally, and when these were transferred to written stories, yet you pretend as if there's just no doubting that the written words correspond perfectly to the oral original.  Sorry but you are just a bit more happy about the honesty and reliability of OT authors, than most biblical scholars are, for example, Christian scholar J.D. Watts:

The commentary will be looking at the Vision of Isaiah as a work of literature presented to a literate people. Although it certainly is the end product of a tradition, we will contend that the process was not automatic. Tradition provided the composers of the Vision with material for their book. But they, not tradition, determined the use to which the material was put and the interpretation it received. The commentary will show that this interpretation m many instances runs counter to the conventional thought of their day and of other biblical literature dealing with those events. It may well be that the Isaiah tradition itself ran counter to the conventional concepts and was thus congenial to the writers. But they, not it, produced the final result.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 24: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 1-33. Word Biblical Commentary (Page xlii). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

Chan continues:

    The immediate context exhibits this very perspective. Isaiah meets Ahaz with his son, Shear-Jashub, whose name means "the remnant will return" (7:3).

The names of the people in the story do not express or imply that what happened to them is some type of prediction of the future, unless you contend that the writer is employing fiction.

72 The language is used earlier in Isaiah (cf. 1:26, 27; 4:3) showing the situation in Isaiah 7 is not just about the present but God's greater agenda of exile and restoration.

Matthew's quotes of Jesus also weren't about merely the present, but the gospel to be given to future Gentile followers.  That hardly means that we read a Gentile-presupposition into everything Matthew says.

73 Likewise, Isaiah's use of the "house of David" evidences Isaiah believed the current situation was a threat not only to Ahaz but the entire Davidic dynasty (7:2).

No, it only shows he was addressing the present generation listening to his voice.  The burden is on you to show that "house of David" was Isaiah's way of addressing people who were not yet born.

74 Interestingly enough, the threat against the Davidic dynasty is the immediate context and concern of the sign (7:13). Again, the immediate context of Isaiah 7 does not merely describe a historical situation but one situated in a larger plan. Isaiah is not just speaking to the present situation

Once again, you have failed to make your case that because Isaiah elsewhere deals with the eschaton, surely he must be doing so in 7:14.  You also need to prioritize how Ahaz likely understood the prophecy, over what you think is going on with Isaiah's literary concerns.  Even if Isaiah took his conversation with Ahaz and transferred it to story-form and added eschatological details, so what?  That would just mean Isaiah is expanding what happened and pretending it has more significance than it originally did.

    The grammar of the sign indicates this. As discussed, some have interpreted Isaiah 7:14-15 to say the child is a sign that the northern kingdom and Aram will be defeated. The language makes mention of the present situation for sure. However, that is not precisely what Isaiah says. Notice, the wording states the son will eat curds and honey (v. 15) because (כִּי) before the child is old enough to choose between good and evil, the kings' lands will be desolate (v. 16). Technically, the resolution of the conflict with Ephraim and Aram is not the content or purpose of the sign but rather the reason the sign occurs the way it does.

Sorry, Mr. Jailhouse lawyer, but I see no difference between "purpose" and "reason".  If you think I'm wrong, check a thesaurus, see what synonyms are available for "purpose".  No better term was ever invented to characterize sophists like Christian apologists, than "doublespeak".

75 It answers the question "why does Immanuel eat curds and honey, the food of poverty?" (cf. 7:22), as opposed to "what is the significance of Isaiah's sign?"

Because the sign would be fulfilled at a time when poverty was plaguing Ahaz' kingdom, another rope anchoring Isaiah's words to the 7th century b.c. 

Hence, to say Immanuel is a sign for Israel's present deliverance is not grammatically correct. Rather, the present circumstances will cause the tragic circumstances surrounding Immanuel's birth and childhood. Again, the present connect with the future.76

 That can be fixed by noting that Isaiah's child in question probably wouldn't die immediately after Ahaz's enemies fled.  He would likely grow up past the days of Ahaz.  That's as far into the future as the text requires.  Pretending that Isaiah was intending to address people who wouldn't be born until 700 years later is total bullshit.

    Understanding this helps make sense of Maher-shalal-hash-baz in Isaiah 8. As discussed, some scholars parallel Maher-shalal-hash-baz with Immanuel. Indeed, in Isaiah 8:4, Maher-shalal-hash-baz signifies the upcoming desolation of Ephraim and Aram as predicted in Isaiah 7:16. That is the child's prophetic purpose. However, we just observed such desolation is not the purpose of the sign of Immanuel. In Isaiah 7:16, the desolation of those kingdoms explains why Immanuel will be born in poverty and not what Immanuel is all about.

Isaiah ties "immanuel's" significance to a feared invasion from the Assyrians:

 7 "Now therefore, behold, the Lord is about to bring on them the strong and abundant waters of the Euphrates, Even the king of Assyria and all his glory; And it will rise up over all its channels and go over all its banks.
 8 "Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, It will reach even to the neck; And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel. (Isa. 8:7-8 NAU)

Isaiah is obviously saying that an attack from the present King of Assyria would occur soon (i.e., "about to", v. 7).  By contrast, there is no Assyrian anything going on 700 years later when Jesus was born as Assyria fell not later than 500 b.c.  Isaiah's speaking to Immanuel was not some bizarre prophetic utterance, he was more than likely speaking to an actual boy, if the text can be trusted to convey what Isaiah really said.

Accordingly, Maher-shalal-hash-baz and Immanuel do not share the same purpose.

Then compare what Isaiah 7 says about Immanual, with what Isaiah 8 says about Maher-shalal-hash-baz:

 14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.
 15 "He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good.
 16 "For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken.
 17 "The LORD will bring on you, on your people, and on your father's house such days as have never come since the day that Ephraim separated from Judah, the king of Assyria."
 18 In that day the LORD will whistle for the fly that is in the remotest part of the rivers of Egypt and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. (Isa. 7:14-18 NAU)

 5 Again the LORD spoke to me further, saying,
 6 "Inasmuch as these people have rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah And rejoice in Rezin and the son of Remaliah;
 7 "Now therefore, behold, the Lord is about to bring on them the strong and abundant waters of the Euphrates, Even the king of Assyria and all his glory; And it will rise up over all its channels and go over all its banks.
 8 "Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, It will reach even to the neck; And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel.
 9 "Be broken, O peoples, and be shattered; And give ear, all remote places of the earth. Gird yourselves, yet be shattered; Gird yourselves, yet be shattered.
 10 "Devise a plan, but it will be thwarted; State a proposal, but it will not stand, For God is with us."   (Isa. 8:5-10 NAU)

Isaiah 7 associates Immanual's life with Assyria's attack on Isaiah's present-generation jews (v. 18), an attack that God "whistle's' for (v. 18), and then in 8:10, God is bringing the king of Assyrian upon the Jewish people.

Indeed, the circumstances in the life of Maher-shalal-hash-baz are said to precede an imminent invasion by the king of Assyria, just like the circumstances in the life of "Immanual" were said to:

 3 So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz;
 4 for before the boy knows how to cry out 'My father ' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria." (Isa. 8:3-4 NAU)

 Chan continues:

They relate, but are not the same sign. Maher-shalal-hash-baz is the sign that the harsh circumstances surrounding the Messiah's birth will take place.

No, there is no "Messiah" in Isaiah 7 or 8, unless you mean a temporary messiah living before 600 b.c.

Maher-shalal-hash-baz is near the prophecy that confirms one in the more distant future (Immanuel's birth in exile). Kidner's observation (reiterated by Motyer) sums this up nicely:

        The sign of Immanuel . . . although it concerned ultimate events, did imply a pledge for the immediate future in that however soon Immanuel were born, the present threat would have passed before he would even be aware of it. But the time of his birth was undisclosed; hence the new sign is given to deal only with the contemporary scence.77

 The time of the birth of the boy was given in Isaiah 8:

 3 So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz;
 4 for before the boy knows how to cry out 'My father ' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria." (Isa. 8:3-4 NAU)

 18 Behold, I and the children whom the LORD has given me are for signs and wonders in Israel from the LORD of hosts, who dwells on Mount Zion. (Isa. 8:18 NAU)

Your efforts to squeeze Jesus into a context he clearly doesn't belong, are laughable.

    The rest of Isaiah 8 further supports that Immanuel is not Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Isaiah's wife does not name the child contrary to what is prophesied in Isaiah 7:14 (cf. Isa. 8:3; Luke 1:31).

But if you read the context, you will find that they are one and same kid:

 3 So I approached the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. Then the LORD said to me, "Name him Maher-shalal-hash-baz;
 4 for before the boy knows how to cry out 'My father ' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria will be carried away before the king of Assyria."
 5 Again the LORD spoke to me further, saying,
 6 "Inasmuch as these people have rejected the gently flowing waters of Shiloah And rejoice in Rezin and the son of Remaliah;
 7 "Now therefore, behold, the Lord is about to bring on them the strong and abundant waters of the Euphrates, Even the king of Assyria and all his glory; And it will rise up over all its channels and go over all its banks.
 8 "Then it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass through, It will reach even to the neck; And the spread of its wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Immanuel. (Isa. 8:3-8 NAU)

 That passage twice associates the boy with an Assyrian invasion, once in v. 3-4, and again in v. 7-8.  Why Isaiah provides two names for the boy is anybody's guess, but it cannot be denied that it is one boy signifying one Assyrian invasion.

Isaiah also records how Immanuel will ultimately triumph over Judah's enemies and end exile (Isa. 8:10).

Correct, and the enemy in context, is the King of Assyria.  See v. 7.

Based upon this, Immanuel seems to be different than Maher-shalal-hash-baz. After all, the latter never delivers Judah from its enemies. Thus, Isaiah differentiates Immanuel from Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

 Dream on.  Your God is a stupid mother fucker if this is his idea of predicting events that wouldn't occur until 700 years after Isaiah and his generation die.

    Isaiah 8 also affirms the logic we observed in Isaiah 7:14-16. It describes how the Assyrian invasion will desolate Aram and Ephraim. However, it also discusses how the invasion will flood Judah, the "land of Immanuel" (8:5-8). If Immanuel is a sign that Israel's enemies will be destroyed resulting in Judah's salvation, why does Isaiah 8 state the opposite result occurs?

Gee, religious fanatics never contradict themselves, do they?  No sir, the bible is the inerrant word of God.

Instead, the description in Isaiah 8 fits with what I have suggested above. Isaiah 7 prophesies Immanuel would live in poverty because of the present circumstances. Isaiah 8 states the desolation of the Judah's enemies would lead to Judah's own desolation and so Immanuel will be born in exilic conditions.

And you want us to believe that although your god could have been a bit clearer about predicting Jesus, in his infinite wisdom he thought it best to couch "predictions" in past tense fortune-cookie language?  FUCK YOU.

    The rest of Isaiah 8-11 reinforces a messianic perspective to Isaiah 7:14. At the end of Isaiah 8, the prophet describes how Israel and its king will collapse in darkness (8:21-22).

Ahaz.

78 However, from that darkness a light will come (9:1-2 [Heb., 8:23-9:1]) based upon the birth of a child (v. 6 [Heb., v. 5]) who bears the authority of God upon his shoulders.

All biblical prophets had the authority of God on their shoulders.  you haven't narrowed this to Jesus.

This messianic individual in Isaiah 9:6 (Heb., v. 5) corresponds with Isaiah 7:14.79 Both record the birth and naming of a child associated with God's presence ("God with us" versus "Mighty God"). Both discuss how a child is born in exile and trial. Both texts ensure the security of the Davidic dynasty by virtue of the child's birth.

A thing that Jesus failed spectacularly in.  He was killed in 33 a.d., and no demonstrable evidence outside the dreams of biblical authors has expressed or implied that Jesus continued to rule over the Davidic dynasty for 2,000 years after he died.

With such parallels, Isaiah arguably equates his prophecy in 7:14 with the messianic figure in 9:6 (Heb., 9:5). This reinforces a messianic interpretation of Isaiah 7:14.

But you don't know how much went on in Isaiah's life between what he says in ch. 7 and what he says in ch. 8.  You might be seeing contextual inferences that were conjured up by the way Isaiah's post-exilic editors chose to put his ramblings together.

And don't forget Isaiah 8:18, where Isaiah explains that it is his own kids (plural) who are for signs to Israel.

Isaiah 11 also reiterates this. That chapter introduces a child-deliverer (Isa. 11:2) whose dominion is at the culmination of history (11:9-12).80 With that, Isaiah 11 repeats the same pattern of a royal child born who secures ultimate deliverance and reign.

At the time the deliverer of Isaiah 11 does his stuff, will also be the day when the wolf lies down with the lamb (metaphor for utopia actually achieved):

 6 And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, And the leopard will lie down with the young goat, And the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; And a little boy will lead them. (Isa. 11:6 NAU)

 But before, during, and after Jesus' life, the only time the lamb laid down with the wolf is if the lamb was inside the wolf.  You lose.

The similarities and pattern argue that Isaiah tied all of these texts together.

More correctly, the evangelistic hopeful way that his post-exilic editors threw his shit together.

Isaiah shows how the Son born of a virgin in exile (Isa. 7:14) is the Son/Child who will conquer the exile (9:6 [Heb., v. 5]) and ultimately restore the world (11:1-12). Again, later texts reinforce Isaiah 7:14 is not just about the present but the future.

These factors illustrate what we have observed in this chapter. Isaiah did know complex theological concepts like the Messiah. His writing develops that idea (Isa. 9:6 [Heb., v. 5]; 11:2) which clarifies the nature of Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah also did not strictly write about his current situation but had in mind how the present relates to the future.

A future that was known to Isaiah's later editors.

Hence, he talks about how the current crisis relates to the sign of the ultimate deliverance and security for the Davidic dynasty (Immanuel). He writes with greater complexity than we might originally anticipate.

Or most people simply aren't as familiar with sophistry and illusion as jailhouse lawyers are.

One factor remains. Intertextuality not only helps us to see Isaiah's directionality but also his theological depth.

Translation:  "forget how the words of Isaiah were cobbled together over hundreds of years, seeing it the way inerrantists see it causes all sorts of entertaining theology to come bursting out." 

This relates to the sign itself, the virgin birth. One might ask how the sign of a young woman (rightly assumed to be a virgin) giving birth participates in Isaiah's theological agenda.81 Scholars have consistently wondered about this reality.82 Intertextuality can aid in this discussion.

No thanks, I prefer to see the problems of Isaiah's authorship and sources solved before I start dogmatizing about what he meant.  I was only arguing herein under YOUR assumptions that one person is responsible for the text.  God only knows to what degree editors of centuries after Isaiah changed the material that later became his ch. 7 and ch. 8.

The phrase "conceive and give birth" (יֹלֶ֣דֶ + הָרָה֙) is actually a formula reiterated in the canon. The formula applies to individuals including Eve (Gen. 4:1), Hagar (16:11), Sarah (21:2), Jochebed (Ex. 2:2), the mother of Samson (Judg. 13:5), and Hannah (1 Sam. 1:20).83 Ruth is a close parallel (4:10).84 The births are often miraculous because God overcomes barrenness (Judg. 13:5; 1 Sam. 1:20) or provides protection from harm (Gen. 16:11). Accordingly, the sons born are important individuals in God's plan.

Precisely what the gospel authors would have known in first century Judaism.  Telling stories about Jesus being born of a virgin puts him on par with other important people in the OT.  How convenient.

The significance of the virgin birth seems to be an argument of lesser to greater. A virgin birth exceeds any other miraculous births. Consequently, the virgin-born Son is the most significant individual in redemptive history.

So significant that his virgin-birth status is nowhere attested in the NT except Matthew and Luke, despite your contention that such status strongly argues for his importance.  I'd say the NT authors did not agree on whether Jesus was born of a virgin.  Otherwise, they wouldn't neglect it any more than Protestant evangelicals neglect John 1:1.

He surpasses Isaac, Moses, Samson, or Samuel. In the context of Isaiah 7:14, the birth of this ultimate individual secures the Davidic dynasty and the restoration of a remnant (cf. Shear-Jashub, 7:3).

Then it cannot be Jesus, since Jesus died in disgrace in 33 a.d. and didn't "restore" jack shit.

He will be born in exile to end it.

Jesus did not end any exile.

Demolishing Triablogue, part 2: Yes, Steve Hays, the virgin birth is poorly attested, Mark's silence screams

Less than a week after I showed up at Triablogue to challenge Engwer and others on their Christian claims, somebody there banned me, but did so in a way that caused my posts to disappear while leaving up the reply posts made by Engwer and others, so that the only part of my posts that survived was the part they chose to quote in their replies.

(!?)

This is akin to a Christian who posts his unedited video recording of a live atheist-Christian debate to youtube, but after deciding he doesn't wish to interact with the atheist debator's remarks, removes it and posts an edited version of the video that removes all the atheist's speaker's remarks, except for a few that the Christian doesn't feel threatened by.

 Anyway, what follows is my direct point-by point reply to Steve Hays's post, followed by a justification for the argument from silence and why it is powerful in light of Mark's silence on the virgin birth.

Is the virgin birth poorly attested?

Thursday, December 29, 2016 

1. A stereotypical objection to the virgin birth is that it's only attested in two of the four Gospels. Likewise, Paul is silent on the subject.

The more detailed form of the objection is that if the virgin birth was believed to be historical truth by any NT writers beyond Matthew and Luke, those other authors would surely have mentioned it, since they clearly intend to exactly "repeat" truths that their originally intended addressees were presumed to already trust in.

A potential problem with stereotypical objections is how they condition people who view an issue. If an issue is routinely framed in a particular way, it may not occur to people to think outside that framework.

It's not that complicated, Steve.  All that needs to be done is to show the proper criteria for justifying an argument from silence, and then showing that the silence of the NT authors outside of Matthew and Luke on the virgin birth, fulfills that criteria.

2. Before getting to my main point, Paul's silence is to be expected. He was an adult living in Jerusalem at the time of Christ's public ministry. It's hardly surprising that he talks about events so close to his own time and place, in the life of Christ. By contrast, the birth of Christ probably took place several years before Paul was born.

That is not biblically sound.  Yes, the birth of Christ took place several years before Paul was born, but Paul  refers to the birth of Jesus nonetheless in Galatians 4:4.  Since Paul here refers to an event in Jesus life preceding Paul's life by a few years, then, contrary to your argument, Paul cannot be presumed to stay silent about things in Jesus' life merely because they happened a few years before Paul was born.   You'll have to find something other than "it's old news!" to explain Paul's silence.

3 Apropos (1), I'd recast the issue. If anything, what's striking is not that the virgin birth wasn't recorded in more than two Gospels, but that's recorded at all. Reporting the circumstances of his conception poses a dilemma.

It also provides "reason" to believe Jesus is the son of God, so there's clearly more than mere "concern to tell the historical truth" in the motives of Matthew and Luke to tell this story.

In the nature of the case, a NT author can't mention the virgin birth without simultaneously informing his readers that Mary was pregnant out of wedlock. After all, you can't have one without the other.

I don't see your point, Matthew and Luke make it clear that this particular out-of-wedlock pregnancy was the will of God.  They solved the dilemma before it had a chance to exist. 

But the moment he says Mary was pregnant out of wedlock, that opens a can of worms. Only people who are already Christian believe the story of the virgin birth.

And as you'll find out later in my post, Matthew's likely intended readership was not unbelievers or unbelieving Jews, but Jews who already had a Christian faith.  If that theory is more likely than the theory that he wrote for unbelieving Jews, then Matthew was telling the virgin birth story only to Christians, and as such, your attempt to create a dilemma so you can argue Mathtew and Luke only mention the story because it is true, fails.

By contrast, people who aren't Christian are inclined to view the virgin birth as a cover story for a prenuptial scandal.

And since Matthew didn't write the virgin birth story for the purpose of convincing unbelievers, there is no potentially embarassing situation to speak of, and hence, no basis for an argument that Matthew and Luke wrote solely out of concern for historical truth.

Indeed, that was Joseph's initial reaction. When he discovered that she was pregnant, he was planning to divorce her, on the assumption that she had a child by another man.

Ok, so are you writing this solely for Christian readers of your blog?  Apparently so, since you know perfectly well a skeptic is not going to presume the historical accuracy of anything in the virgin birth story, as you just did.

So why would Matthew and Luke record the virgin birth unless they thought it happened?

Maybe for the same reason Pindar wrote 450 years previously that Zeus took the form of a golden mist at the time he got the virgin Danae pregnant?

You might say the reported the virgin birth despite the virgin birth. For surely they knew that by recording that story, their account invited a contrary interpretation.

So by your logic, surely Pindar knew that by recording Zeus getting Danae pregnant without taking away her virginity, he invited a contrary interpretation, hence he only told the story by constraint of the historical truth?  Either way, Matthew only "invites" a contrary interpretation if he intended his story to be used to evangelize unbelievers.  He didn't, and you offer no compelling evidence that he did.

By narrating the virginal conception of Christ, they were starting a fire they couldn't extinguish. Enemies of the faith will seize on that to discredit Jesus.

 A first century orthodox Jew would have to be a fool to think the virgin birth is true because the Christians say it's true.  Matthew surely knew the Jews, who hated Christ more particularly than anybody else, surely wouldn't be persuaded by his simply putting down in writing the kind of miracle story the Jews would surely balk at.  Luke writes for a Theophilus so that he may be sure of the things he has been previously taught about Jesus.  Matthew and Luke intended no other original audience except Christian believers.  Since there is no scandal to be inferred from the original audience of these two gospels, your scandal-based argument falls flat.

They will say this is a transparent alibi to camouflage the fact that Mary had premarital sex. Not only would that stigmatize the mother, but stigmatize the illegitimate child.

Perhaps so, but again, you need to worry about who Matthew and Luke intended as their original target audience.  First argue that Matthew and Luke were intended by the authors to be used to evangelize unbelievers. Until you do that, you are seeing potential scandals where no such potential exists.

So, if you think about it, NT writers had to overcome a disincentive to report it at all, since the very mention of it would play into the hands of their enemies.

The risk of ridicule is counterbalanced by the edifying nature of the story for existing Christians.  Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith also had to overcome a disincentive to publicly proclaim himself finder of additional inspired scripture, but without more, that argument hardly gets near suggesting his motives were honest. False prophets are often willing to suffer greatly because they are so deluded and obstinate.

They only record it because that's what happened, even though it hands enemies of the faith a propaganda coup. Sometimes you have to tell a true story knowing that people will twist the truth.

Thank you for confirming, by how quickly you draw your conclusion that the story is true, that you didn't write this for skeptics.  If you wish to re-write it for the purpose of refuting skeptics, let me know, and I'll respond to that too.

4. Now, a critic might object that my explanation misses the point. Given the rumors of a prenuptial scandal, they had to say something to squelch the rumors.

I don't know any skeptics who seriously believe the purpose of Christians concocting the virgin birth fiction was to persuade non-Christian Jews that the rumors of Mary's out-of-wedlock pregnancy was nevertheless from god.   That just makes first-century Christians more gullible than most skeptics assert.

But there are problems with that objection. For instance:

 i) That would be a counterproductive alibi. Rather than draw attention away from the specter of a prenuptial scandal, it would draw attention to the specter of a prenuptial scandal. Hostile readers will view this as a coverup.

Which only has force if you assume, as you appear to be doing, that Matthew and Luke intended their stories to be used to evangelize or refute non-Christians.  The minute you try to defeat this objection by saying "yeah, that was some of their purpose" then you make Matthew and Luke equally as gullible as the rest of the first-century laity.  Paul apparently had great difficulties persuading many Jews despite his doing so involving heated lengthy arguments.  It doesn't make much sense to assume Matthew and Luke thought their writing down a miracle story would suffice to evangelize unbelievers.  Therefore, it is more than likely that these two NT authors did not intend any other original audience, except Christians.  In that case, they were not writing to squelch rumors.  Again, your "they-wouldn't-say-such-scandalous-thing-if-it-weren't-true!" theory is largely unpersuasive, primarily because it blindly assumes, without any evidence or argument, that unbelievers were part of Matthew's and Luke's originally intended target audience.

ii) If the Gospel writers were attempting to conceal a prenuptial scandal, and if they felt free to invent a cover story, why not just say Jesus was conceived after Mary and Joseph got married? After all, the Incarnation doesn't require a virgin birth. The sinlessness of Jesus doesn't require a virgin birth.

Why didn't Pindar just say Zeus took a form "different than human" when he got Danae pregnant?  After all, the conception of Perseus doesn't require Zeus take the form of a golden mist. And again, since I deny the gospel authors were trying to invent a cover story, your questions here don't threaten my own basis for unbelief toward the virgin birth story.

If some people find the story of the virgin birth fishy, there's nothing suspicious about saying he was born to married parents. So that would be a better cover story.

But the motive of Matthew and Luke involved more than merely inventing a cover story.  Their details in the virgin birth narratives also strongly "support" the idea that Jesus is God, the Son of God, and Savior.

5. But a critic might say that misses the point. If Mary was known to be pregnant out of wedlock, then it's too late for Matthew and Luke to fabricate a cover story that denies that fact. The best they can do is to spray paint it with miraculous whitewash. But there are problems with that objection, even on its own grounds:

i) People who deny the virgin birth typically think Matthew and Luke were written about a century after the birth of Christ.

Then count me out.  My objections are persuasive even assuming Matthew and Luke finished the currently canonical form of their gospels 41 days after Jesus died.

They don't think Matthew or Luke had access to firsthand information about the circumstances surrounding his conception and birth. So what, exactly, is there to rationalize or cover up? By that late date, who knews any better what really happened?

Again, the virgin birth story doesn't just "cover" a sex scandal, it's details also "support" important doctrinal themes like Jesus being God, Son of God and Savior.

ii) Likewise, even if we take the historicity of Matthew and Luke far more seriously, how many people were really privy to the timing of Mary's pregnancy in relation to her engagement and marriage?

Again, I don't think the virgin birth narrative is a cover story.  I think it is mere fiction invented to "support" other gospel themes like Jesus being God, Son of God and Savior.  Good writers back then didn't just provide a bulleted list of factoids, they weaved romance and drama and scandal and unexpected stupidity and moral lessons around their "facts".  The later authors of the Christian pseudopigrapha must have learned the technique of embellishment from somewhere.

Other than some relatives and villagers, who else would know about it?

That depends on how much effort Christians in the first 20 years after Jesus death, went around advertising Jesus as Savior.  Acts contains a mixture of embellishment and fact., it does not suffice to explain any of these missing years.

Mary wasn't born famous. She was a nobody. She's one of those people who becomes retroactively famous in association with a famous person. Jesus himself only became relatively famous towards the end of his short life, and even then he was just a local celebrity at the time of his death.

What is this now, your third or fourth indication that you aren't writing to refute skeptics, but writing to people who presume the biblical facts about Mary and Jesus are true?

Had anyone heard of him outside some pockets in Palestine?

You have a knack for asking questions that you know no biblical or other history provides answers to.   It's called a question-framing fallacy, "First, a proper historical question must be operational-which is
merely to say that it must be resolvable in empirical terms."  Fischer at 38. Your question is not resolvable in empirical terms, unless you equate conjecture and speculation with "empirical terms", so it is a fallacious question.

So why assume, decades later–when Matthew and Luke were written–that there'd be a widespread rumor about the illegitimacy of Jesus?

I don't assume the virgin birth narrative was a cover story, because even as a skeptic, for the sake of argument, I think Matthew and Luke weren't quite that dumb.   Regardless, it could just as easily be that yes, there was some scandal going on about Mary being pregnant out of wedlock, and Matthew and Luke responded by limiting the story of the miraculous truth solely to Christian believers.  So the scandal interpretation can be true yet without implying that the story was told because it was true.  No, the Christians invented a miracle-story to explain the scandal, and their original intent was not to provide that explanation to anybody except other Christians.  You act as if Matthew was just screaming the virgin birth of Jesus in the Temple through a bullhorn in 34 a.d., but you have done exactly nothing to substantiate your view that either gospel author ever intended the story to convince the gainsayers.

iii) Presumably, the target audience for Matthew and Luke are people who don't already know about the life of Christ.

Then your presumption is false.  Only by assuming first-century people were embarrassingly more gullible than we are today, could we think Matthew seriously believed his writing down miracle stories about Jesus would be the least bit persuasive to non-Christians.  Then again, today's Christianity has some treacherously gullible people in it, as testified by the Pentecostals and TBN and KJV Onlyism and others.  So it remains at least a possibility that yes, Matthew and Luke, like gullible Christians today, seriously thought that publishing miracle stories about Jesus would convince non-Christians to believe.  And we have direct evidence, assuming apostolic authorship, that at least one apostle seriously thought mere storytelling was sufficient to compel faith.  See John 20:31.  Paul similarly thinks his written words would be sufficient to overcome the Judaizer arguments that caused his Galatian churches to abandon his gospel, Gal. 1:8-9.

So what would possess Matthew and Luke to introduce a cover story about the circumstances of his conception? That would create a problem that hadn't existed before in the mind of the reader. For the average reader would never have reason to suspect anything untoward unless Matthew and Luke gratuitously interject this subterfuge.

 I don't have a problem with gratuitous interjection.  That's what's happening every single time a gospel author says Jesus did a miracle.

Left to their druthers, I wouldn't expect any NT writer to mention the circumstances of Christ's conception if they could avoid it, since the story of the virgin birth will be used against them.

Again, you unreasonably place too much stock in the theory that Matthew and Luke were originally intended to evangelize unbelievers, when in fact you make no argument to that effect (you admit said presupposition is a "presumably"), and other evidence indicates it makes more sense to say they originally intended their gospels to do nothing more than edify and instruct those already in the Christian faith.

It's one of those dilemmas where doing the right thing looks like doing the wrong thing. What's striking, therefore, is that we have even one, much less two Gospels, that record the virgin birth. For they must do that despite the derision which that will provoke.

Why should be think telling the story was so compelling on Matthew and Luke, but not compelling for any other NT author?

You also ignore the fact that Jesus made clear that discipleship consists of future followers obeying all that HE had taught the original disciples, see that part of the Great Commission most people forget, Matthew 28:20.  Jesus never expressed or implied that his birth was in any way supernatural or that it had the slightest thing to do with the gospel, and when given the perfect opportunity to highlight his birth (Luke 11:27) he disagreed and insisted that things outside the issue of his mother's blessedness in giving birth to him, were the key to true blessedness (v. 28).  Skeptics can be confident that the virgin birth story is irrelevant to the gospel, they have god's word on it.

==================

That concludes my point-by-point reply to Hays, and I finish up with argument based on Mark's silence:

First, the main players at Triablogue are not free to say arguments from silence are automatically fallacious, for example, Engwer argues from the early patristic silence about Peter that Catholics are wrong to view Peter so highly.

Even Peter himself isn’t referred to as having papal authority among the early post-apostolic sources. Terence Smith explains:  “there is an astonishing lack of reference to Peter among ecclesiastical authors of the first half of the second century. He is barely mentioned in the Apostolic Fathers, nor by Justin and the other Apologists” (cited in Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], p. 15)   
Again we see Mr. Engwer engaging in an argument from silence...

Second, historians disagree on what exact criteria must be met for the argument from silence to be forceful.
Howell/:Prevenier assert the person creating the silence must a) have intended to give a full account and b) the author had no compelling reasons to leave a known fact out of his report:

Of course, an argument from silence can serve as presumptive evidence of the "silenced" event only if, as in this case, the person suppressing the information was in a position to have the information, and was purporting to give a full account of the story from which he omitted the crucial information, and if there were no compelling reasons why he should have omitted the information (other than the wish to conceal). Hence, it is usually a considerably greater leap to conclude that "silence" means "con¬cealment" than it was in the case of Shamir's selective omissions during his interview. In most cases, historians have to guess a bit more. They must presume that a suspected fact was an integral part of the story being re¬ported and so central a part of such a story that the reporter would auto¬matically have included it. That he did not becomes, then, presumptive proof that he was deliberately suppressing this piece of information.

the person suppressing the information was in a position to have the information
Under the fundamentalist assumption that Peter believed in the virgin birth story as true, and the other assumption that Mark wrote Peter's preaching, yes, Mark was in a position to "have" the virgin birth information, but because he is described as a "young man" (Mark 14:51), it is unlikely he knew of the virgin birth first-hand, but would only have known it second-hand. 

was purporting to give a full account of the story from which he omitted the crucial information
There are several reasons to characterize Mark as intending to provide a "full account" of Jesus:

First, Mark 1:1 characterizes its opening as the "beginning"  (Greek: ἀρχή) of the gospel.  Why would Mark characterize his opening as the "beginning" of the gospel?  Probably because where exactly in Jesus life the gospel "starts" was in dispute or could be misunderstood, and Mark's clarification helps end that dispute:  the gospel begins with John the Baptist baptizing Jesus in fulfillment of OT prophecy.

Second, according to standard lexicons, this Greek word means the first or first part.  Mark uses the same word in 13:8 to say that certain disasters will merely be the first of many, which means those initial disasters are to be considered the very first in the chain of disasters spoken of there.  In ἀρχή, God created people as male and female (Matthew 19:4), meaning, the very first persons were male/female. The only reason an apologist would deny the implications of cognate usage here is their prior commitment to biblical inerrancy, forcing them to insert a bit of wiggle room in the ἀρχή to allow legitimizing other gospels who start their beginning points earlier in Jesus' life than Mark did.  If they had no theological axe to grind, they would have no trouble believing the cognate usage is consistent and determinant.

Third, Mark 1:1 says it is the beginning of "the" gospel (Greek: τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, NA28, τοῦ is the definite article, its not just "a" gospel, but "the" gospel.  That is, if you want to know what "the" gospel of Jesus is, you get it by reading Mark's account of it). Again, Mark knew he could characterize his version as the beginning of "my" gospel, so why does he choose to employ the more dogmatic sounding definite article (i.e., he is giving "the" gospel)?  Most likely because he wants the reader to believe what he has written will sufficiently instruct them in gospel basics.  In other words, Mark didn't omit anything that was essential to the gospel.

Fourth, under the fundamentalist assumption that Papias is telling the truth about Mark's relation to Peter, then because Papias says Mark omitted from his gospel nothing that he heard Peter preach, a fundamentalist would be compelled to agree that Mark was intending to give a full account.  Richard Bauckham, sadly aware of what "omitted nothing" implies, weakly argues that this phrase was nothing more than literary convention, thus not literal, but a) to clarify, Papias doesn't say Mark omitted nothing from his gospel, he says Mark didn't omit from his gospel anything he heard Peter preach, , b) the literal interpretation of "omitted nothing" is supported by Papias' prior statement that Mark wrote down "whatever" he remembered of Peter's preaching;  c) the context in which Papias wrote "omitted nothing" is highly defensive of Mark's integrity and accuracy, so that the statement that he "omitted nothing", was likely intended to be taken as more significant than mere literary convention.

Sixth, Eusebius at H.E.6.14 says, on authority of 2nd century Clement of Alexandria, Peter's original audience requested that Mark write down Peter's preaching, and there is nothing in the context to suggest they only wanted a few, or certain specific subjects.  Those who have no theological axe to grind would take the statement to mean that Mark wrote down whatever he could remember of Peter's preaching.   Indeed, had you been one of the Roman citizens who heard and converted at Peter's preaching, how comprehensive would you want the written record of said preaching to be?

Seventh, yes, it's possible that Peter preached the virgin birth, but if so, questions are raised that fundies cannot easily answer:  If Peter preached the virgin birth, how could it be that Mark either didn't remember it, or remembered it but felt it wasn't as important as other gospel material Peter preached?  Are we to believe that Mark, whose theme was "Jesus is the Son of God", felt that other stories like the feeding of the crowds were more important than the shockingly unprecedented (so fundies say) circumstances of Christ's birth, which in Matthew and Luke strongly support the Markan theme that Jesus is the Son of God?

Eighth, some apologist will try to duck these problems by saying it is more likely Peter's preaching didn't preach the virgin birth in the first place, but a) you don't know of any statement in historical sources to that effect, you like the theory for no other reason than that it is the type of speculation that can get your ass out of a theological jam, nothing more; b) the consequence of employing the "Peter-didn't-preach-the-virgin-birth" is severe:  Mark's gospel is filled with gospel BASICS.  Peter was not preaching to seasoned theologians, but unbelievers who needed salvation.  So if Peter believed the virgin birth to be true, but didn't preach it to unbelievers, it is most likely because he didn't think the doctrine was a legitimate part of the gospel...which then puts him in disagreement with Matthew and Luke, who apparently think the virgin birth IS a part of the gospel.

Some apologist will say "no, Peter's silence only implies he didn't think the virgin birth to be essential doctrine", but again, Matthew's and Luke's details on the virgin birth provide strong "support" for the essential doctrine that Jesus was truly divine and the Son of God.  The idea that Peter knew and believed these strong supports for his doctrine that Jesus was the Son of God, but "chose to avoid" employing them when making his case that Jesus was the Son of God, is absurdly unlikely.  Peter was faced with unbelieving pagans in Rome, if Clement and Papias are correct about where said preaching took place.  If the fundies are correct to say there is no pre-Christiain pagan parallel to Jesus' virgin birth, that is yet another reason to say Peter would have employed this unprecedented historical fact in his preaching for the same reason apologists so violently oppose the pagan copycat thesis today: the uniqueness of Jesus' birth story argues for its truth.  Sure, you can have Peter choosing to avoid using the most powerful tools at his disposal, but the person who wins the historiography debate is the one who shows his theory is more likely than the others, not the one whose runs to the corner and simply carps "but my theory is always possible!"

Ninth, most fundies unreasonably argue that Mark omits the virgin birth because he saw no need to repeat what his audience already believed.  But this is foolish for two reasons:  a) the patristic sources linked above assert that Mark's motive in writing was exactly to repeat in writing, what the church, who had requested his writing, had already heard and believed in Peter's oral preaching, they obviously weren't asking to hear new things; b) Mark's alleged unwillingness to repeat what his intended audience already believed, is an excuse conjured up out of thin air, it is not based on any biblical, patristic or historical statement.  IF apologists be allowed to rest on crass speculation, doesn't fairness and academic integrity require that benefit be extended to skeptics?

So under the criteria of Howell, et al, for the argument from silence, Mark's and Peter's desire to convince unbelievers that Jesus was the Son of God necessarily implies, absent sheer stupidity on their part, that they would have found the virgin birth story particularly useful to their preaching purpose, and therefore, Mark's silence on Jesus' birth is explained better by the theory that he either didn't know about, or disapproved of, the virgin birth story, either of which does violence to the fundie position.

Historian Gilbert Garraghan has slightly different criteria:

 To be valid, the argument from silence must fulfill two conditions: the writer[s] whose silence is invoked in proof of the non-reality of an alleged fact, would certainly have known about it had it been a fact; [and] knowing it, he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it. When these two conditions are fulfilled, the argument from silence proves its point with moral certainty. (§ 149a)

 would certainly have known about it had it been a fact
 No problem: if as most fundies believe, Mark was the naked man in Mark 14:51, he was in a position to have known, before authoring a gospel, that Jesus was born of a virgin.  It is unlikely, if the doctrine be true, that the apostles somehow never heard of it or didn't discuss it enough to keep it in memory.

he would under the circumstances certainly have made mention of it
 That has already been established by the prior arguments in this post.  The virgin birth details strongly "support" Jesus being the Son of God, which most scholars say was Mark's intended theme.  Here's what one scholar says in the inerrantist-driven New American Commentary:
 

8.  Occasion and Purposes

..Mark clearly was not content merely to give an account of the life and teaching of Jesus. He wanted to set forth his own understanding of Jesus and thus develop his Christology. He wanted to do so in such a way as to minister to the needs of his own church. He used and applied the accounts at his disposal—something Christian teachers and preachers have been doing ever since. Mark’s concept of Jesus was that he was fully human and fully divine, both Son of Man and Son of God. Furthermore he was both the Jewish Messiah (Christ, Son of David) and the Lord of the Gentiles. Such a balanced Christology as Mark’s weighs against the theory that he was battling a heresy. Mark was especially concerned to emphasize the suffering and death of Jesus as a ransom for sinners.

Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic e.).

Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 29).

Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers

Gee...how well does the virgin birth story support Mark's intended theme of Jesus being Son of God and the Jewish Messiah?   Mark wanted to show Jesus was Son of Man and Son of God, so having God come down to earth via virgin birth from a typical female virgin without the aid of human seed, would have underscored his points very strongly.
 
Tenth, courts of law are concerned with making sure juries get the straight admissible and relevant facts as much as possible, and therefore, the "rules of evidence" American Courts use, are a reliable guide for determining whether evidence is admissible.  As luck would have it, American jurisprudence lays out the rules juries must use to evaluate arguments based on silence.  It says, quoting the undisputed authority of Wigmore, that American common law has always allowed juries to take a witness's failure to assert a fact, when it would have been natural for the witness to mention it, to be the functional equivalent of a positive statement that the alleged fact is false:

Common law traditionally has allowed witnesses to be impeached by their previous failure to state a fact in circumstances in which that fact naturally would have been asserted. 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1042, p. 1056 (Chadbourn rev. 1970). Each jurisdiction may formulate its own rules of evidence to determine when prior silence is so inconsistent with present statements that impeachment by reference to such silence is probative.

Cunningham v. Commonwealth, 501 SW 3d 414, 418 - Ky: Supreme Court 2016

quoting v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231, 100 S.Ct. 2124, 65 L.Ed.2d 86 (1980).

If Courts of law are always applying their rules of evidence to help fact-finders decide what actually happened, then it would seem only a foolish Christian apologist would trifle that court is "too different" from historical analysis.  We just saw that historians agree there are times when the argument from silence is valid, so that's something historiography has in common with Wigmore's above-cited rule.  Court proceedings might be "formal", but it is only for the good goal of getting to the the actual truth, that court rules instruct the judge on what should be admissible and relevant.

Well then...did Mark write "in circumstances in which that fact [of the virgin birth of Jesus] naturally would have been asserted..."?

Hays did his best to argue that we shouldn't expect Mark to have mentioned the virgin birth, but his arguments are unconvincing, here's a recap:

Hays' reason for Paul's silence is that "the birth of Christ probably took place over several years before Paul was born", but this is nonsense, Paul says what he does about Jesus because he considers himself divinely inspired and an apostle (1st Cor. 9:1).  Paul also curiously uses the OT to support his notion that the gospel has already gone out into the world, despite the fact that he cites such OT text a few years after the public earthly ministry of Jesus (Romans 10), Paul mentions Abe and David too (Romans 4), so Paul cannot be presumed to avoid mentioning something merely because it happened before he was born.  If he can quote Abe and David to support his theology, what in blazes could have possessed him to think that the commentary by God himself, coming to earth as Jesus just a few years before Paul wrote, was less reliable for supporting theological points, than the more obscure OT?  Isn't the word of Jesus the "later light" that tells the world the "true" meaning of the OT?

Hays' next argument is that it is astounding that the virgin birth would have been recorded at all if indeed it be false, since it opened up Christians to a charge that this is a mere cover story for Mary getting pregnant out of wedlock, therefore, to record the story at all is to testify to it's historical veracity.  This too is foolish, since he assumes Luke and Matthew were intended to evangelize unbelievers, when in fact Hays doesn't want skeptics to say first century people were excessively gullible.  If that is the case, then Matthew and Luke can hardly have believed they could break down unbeliever-resistance by simply publishing their written versions of Jesus' life.  Jerome, writing in the 4th century and thus with a solid 200 + years of history behind him on which to draw, asserts Matthew wrote "for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed" (Live of Illustrious Men at 3)

Inerrantist scholar Craig Blomberg asserts in the NAC that the larger context of that quote seems to indicate Jerome was there talking about a Gospel to the Hebrews, which was a corrupt form of Matthew Jerome errantly attributed to Matthew.  I think Blomberg is really stretching here.  First, Jerome plainly talks about the gospel he thinks Matthew wrote.  What are the odds he only means the heretical gospel so controversially connected to Matthew, and not the genuine gospel?  Second, yes, in ch. 2, Jerome mentions the GoH, but he qualifies that it was a thing he recently translated into Greek, and a document Origin sometimes makes use of.  These qualifications make clear that Jerome thinks the GoH's authenticity is uncertain at best.  Therefore, when in ch. 3 he candidly asserts that Matthew wrote a gospel, he likely isn't still talking about the GoH, but rather the Matthian gospel that was non-controversial in the churches.  Therefore, when he says there that Matthew wrote for those Jews "who believed", he is saying apostle Matthew wrote the authentic gospel for Christian Jews.

 If this be so, then Hays' problem with the idea of gospel authors mentioning a scandal, disappears.  If Matthew was writing to Christians, then saying Jesus was born of a virgin  would cause no more scandal than the writing down of any other oral tradition would.  In fact, the Christians for whom Matthew wrote would likely know the Jews would mock such a story as an invention, and therefore the Christians would likely guard the story and only permit it to be taught to serious converts.

Matthew cannot be credited with an authorial purpose merely because of how the gospel happened to be used later, anymore than a modern author can be credited with a purpose to use his book as a coaster simply because that's how somebody else outside his intended readership put it to use.


Hays also says he wouldn't expect Paul to mention the virgin birth, but here again, Paul is willing to mention the resurrection of Jesus and repeat it over and over, was this not scandalous to the Jews, as Matthew alleges (27:63 ff)?  Apparently then, fear that the Jews would find the story scandalous, is, alone, insufficient to justify saying a NT author would avoid mentioning a subject.  On the other hand, Paul repeatedly asserts what he thinks the gospel consists of, and it's always the two things that scandalize non-believing Jews far more than a virgin birth story:  Christ died to pay for sin, and rose from the dead three days later (1st Cor. 15).  Paul scandalized unbelievers so much, the last half of the book of Acts primarily consists of how this got Paul arrested and sent to Rome to face Caesar.  Paul would constantly go to the synagogues (places of worship for orthodox Jews) and debate long and loud that Jesus was the Christ.  Acts 17:17, 18:4, 19:8-9.

More controversially, Paul disagrees with modern-day Calvinists and asserts the OT is sufficient to prepare the Christian minister to preach the gospel (2nd Timothy 3:16-17), i.e., that is, the OT as interpreted by Paul.  But even with that caveat, Paul is not just being silent with respect to the earthly ministry of Jesus.  His claim that the OT as interpreted by him is sufficient to equip Christian ministers for every good work, logically excludes any need to use anything beyond Paul's understanding of the OT to so equip, and that means logically excluding whatever Matthew or Luke have to say, thus logically having Paul exclude any need to equip Christian ministers with the virgin birth doctrine.

But Paul's silence on the life of Jesus and other such issues go beyond the scope of this already-long post.

In short, Hays' attempt to provide objective reasons consistent with his fundamentalist view of the bible, for why most NT authors are silent on the virgin birth, fails. Jesus positively asserted that it is what HE teaches, that is what his disciples must follow (Luke 11:27-28, Matthew 28:20), Jesus never taught that his birth had anything to do with the gospel, and when put into a circumstance where it would have been natural for him to affirm the blessedness of his mother giving him birth, he rebukes the lady who calls him blessed, and reminds the hearers that blessedness is rather what anybody has when they hear the word of God and do it (Luke 11:27-28).  This fulfills Wigmore's rule that the silence should be taken as a positive statement that the alleged fact is false.