Why I Affirm The Virgin Birth

[Apologiaphoenix]

Are there reasons to believe it?

The link can be found here.

The text is as follows:

Are there good reasons to affirm Jesus was born of a virgin? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

A few months ago I was on the Unbelievable? forum and someone was there speaking about the "mysterious silence of Paul" as it's often thought to be. You would think that if there was such a reality as the virgin birth, that Paul would have mentioned it. A friend of mine and I pointed out that this is not so. After all, just because you believe in something does not mean you have to affirm it everywhere you go. I've written many blog posts that do not mention the virgin birth. I've interviewed many scholars and nowhere in our conversations do we mention it many times. I've heard many sermons that never mention the virgin birth.

Of course, this doesn't say why Paul wouldn't mention it. Aside from some times in Acts, we do not get much of the oral tradition of Paul, except for when he is quoting creeds. Paul no doubt had a strong oral tradition and preached for years in the areas he visited. It would be foolish to think that everything he taught could be found in the letters. In Paul's world, he lived in a high-context society, which meant a strong background knowledge was assumed. There was no need to repeat in a letter much information that had already been shared save to make a rhetorical point, and Paul apparently never saw the need to repeat in a letter that Jesus was virgin born.

But we still need more.

Okay. Well one point worth mentioning is how radically different Matthew and Luke are in their birth narratives. This does not mean they can't be harmonized, but it does present an interesting scenario. If Luke was just copying Matthew, why would he differ so radically from him? If Luke is not using Matthew, then we have the case that we have two independent accounts. Having independent accounts definitely helps out a historical claim.

Of course, we still need more.

The virgin birth would also just reek of paganism. Now I don't think the pagans had stories of virgin births really, but they did have stories of unusual births. They did have accounts that certainly showed Zeus to be a player who wanted to have sex with every attractive female he saw. Christianity however did have its roots in Judaism, at least at the start, and Matthew is the most Jewish of the accounts. If Matthew is wanting to present the Gospel to Jews, he's certainly not going to give something to them that they would think was borrowed from the pagans. That's the last thing that would convince them.

In fact, Matthew would likely not want to mention this as at all much like Mark and John didn't.

So why didn't they?

Well John has an even more exalted beginning, but let's look at Mark. Mark is supposed to be the account of Peter told through Mark. If so, Peter was not there at the birth of Jesus. Peter is giving an account of the ministry of Jesus and not giving a life story. Matthew and Luke are giving a little bit more. Still, this doesn't answer why Matthew would not want to mention the virgin birth.

Probably because it would give shame to Jesus.

Yes. Seriously.

To say this would give credence to the charge that Jesus was illegitimate and that there was something odd about his birth. In a Jewish culture, this could be taken care of by stoning the woman. Mary would have been better going with most any other story. It would have been more believable to say she got raped by a Roman soldier or to say that she and Joseph just couldn't wait until the wedding. Instead, she gives an account that she was pregnant by the divine action of YHWH. Now if you're pregnant out of wedlock and you're a Jew, the last thing you want to do is to instigate God in the action.

And yet this is the story that was presented.

Also, some people might argue that today, we happen to know that virgins don't give birth. Well check this out. They knew that back then today. There has not been a time since the supposed rise of science that we have made the new discovery that it takes sex to make a baby. This is nothing new. Everyone knew it. Jewish parents would just as much talk about the birds and the bees as any other parents would today. We can say that the account is miraculous, but let us not say that it was based on ignorance and today we know better. The ancients knew quite a bit about sex and its connection with babies.

If the virgin birth was not true, then we would have an account that would be shameful and would be seen as a direct affront on YHWH Himself. Why is it the account is in there? I think David Instone-Brewer sums it up well in The Jesus Scandals. It's in there because it's true and something had to be said to answer charges of illegitimacy.

In the end, I conclude that the virgin birth is a true account and matches with the life of Jesus. This is why I affirm the virgin birth.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

[Adrift]

Couldn't we see a hint of the virgin birth in Paul's description of Jesus in Galatians 4:4? The phrase "born of a woman" seems to me to point to his humanity in general, but also seems consistent with the concept of a virgin birth.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I agree, but most skeptics need something explicit.

[tabibito]

My take:
Paul wouldn't be overly excited about wasting writing materials on a matter that was already common knowledge.
He does not state that "Jesus was the seed of David", but that "Jesus was born of the seed of David." That is not, I believe, an insignificant distinction, and it would reinforce the possibility that Mary was considered, by Paul at least, to be descended from David.
There is the matter of Mary being found "to be pregnant of the Holy Spirit." I think it logical to assume that this means a test was conducted on the pregnant woman to determine whether her claim to be pregnant despite not knowing a man could be verified.

[The Pixie]

A few months ago I was on the Unbelievable? forum and someone was there speaking about the "mysterious silence of Paul" as it's often thought to be. You would think that if there was such a reality as the virgin birth, that Paul would have mentioned it.

I think it is more significant that the virgin birth is missing from Mark, who after all wrote a lot about Jesus' life, than Paul, who hardly mentions it at all.

Mark is supposed to be the account of Peter told through Mark. If so, Peter was not there at the birth of Jesus. Peter is giving an account of the ministry of Jesus and not giving a life story. Matthew and Luke are giving a little bit more. Still, this doesn't answer why Matthew would not want to mention the virgin birth.

While that is possible, I think a more plausible reason is that Mark was not aware of the virgin-birth story when he wrote his gospel. It looks to me like Mark thought Jesus was adopted by God at his baptism - which Mark did decide to include, despite Peter not being present at that either.

Mark 1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son;[d] with you I am well pleased.”

The account in Luke is rather strange:

Luke 1:6 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed[b] to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”[c] 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

It was actually very common back then for virgins to become pregnant, all they had to do was have sex with a guy a few times. Did Mary really not know that?

Suppose we exclude that sentence from the account... Let us suppose she is not as dumb as a sack of hammers, and, as you point out yourself, she has a clue about the birds and the bees. Is it possible the verse was added later, to agree with Luke?

Without that one verse the virgin birth becomes less certain. The passage continues:

35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[e] will be called holy—the Son of God. 36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.” 38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant[f] of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

I see nothing in there to indicate sex was not also involved. No one thinks John was the product of a virgin birth, and the angel is relating the two pregnancies.

Okay, so Matthew. You probably know what I am going to say here already. Matthew tries to link Jesus to Old Testament prophecies numerous times. In this one, two great kingdoms, Israel and Syria, are threatening Jerusalem, and Isaiah prophesies that both will soon fall - before the unborn Immanuel can tell right from wrong. That prophecy is the basis of the virgin birth, when you add in the LXX using the Greek for virgin, when the Hebrew said young woman.

To say this would give credence to the charge that Jesus was illegitimate and that there was something odd about his birth. In a Jewish culture, this could be taken care of by stoning the woman. Mary would have been better going with most any other story. It would have been more believable to say she got raped by a Roman soldier or to say that she and Joseph just couldn't wait until the wedding. Instead, she gives an account that she was pregnant by the divine action of YHWH. Now if you're pregnant out of wedlock and you're a Jew, the last thing you want to do is to instigate God in the action.

And yet this is the story that was presented.

Was it? What evidence is there that anyone had heard of the virgin birth before AD 70? See Mark 3:21:

Mark 3:21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."

So we are supposed to believe that an angel appeared to Mary telling her she would give birth to the Son of God, and she then got pregnant by a miracle, but when her son starts his ministry she thinks he is mad? A more likely scenario is that no angel appeared to Mary, and that Jesus was conceived normally, and until his baptism, Mary had no idea about Jesus.

I suggest that the virgin birth story did not appear until after Mark was written (possibly when Matthew was written). Mary was quite safe from getting stoned because she was already dead by then. That also meant she was not able to say whether or not it actually happened.

If the virgin birth was not true, then we would have an account that would be shameful and would be seen as a direct affront on YHWH Himself. Why is it the account is in there? I think David Instone-Brewer sums it up well in The Jesus Scandals. It's in there because it's true and something had to be said to answer charges of illegitimacy.

And yet here you are affirming it. Clearly you do not consider it shameful, indeed, most Christians consider it miraculous. Why suppose Christians in AD 80 would think differently?

[Apologiaphoenix]

I think it is more significant that the virgin birth is missing from Mark, who after all wrote a lot about Jesus' life, than Paul, who hardly mentions it at all.

Which is addressed below.

While that is possible, I think a more plausible reason is that Mark was not aware of the virgin-birth story when he wrote his gospel. It looks to me like Mark thought Jesus was adopted by God at his baptism - which Mark did decide to include, despite Peter not being present at that either.

Mark 1:9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son;[d] with you I am well pleased.”

Acts 1:21-22 gives me some pause on that.

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

The account in Luke is rather strange:

Luke 1:6 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed[b] to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”[c] 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
34 And Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?”

It was actually very common back then for virgins to become pregnant, all they had to do was have sex with a guy a few times. Did Mary really not know that?

Or could it be the more likely case that she knew she was to be married to Joseph at a later date and the message of the angel meant that she would conceive even before that? Yes. Mary definitely knew what it takes to make a baby. There's no reason we should think otherwise.

Suppose we exclude that sentence from the account... Let us suppose she is not as dumb as a sack of hammers, and, as you point out yourself, she has a clue about the birds and the bees. Is it possible the verse was added later, to agree with Luke?

Without that one verse the virgin birth becomes less certain. The passage continues:

35 And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born[e] will be called holy—the Son of God. 36 And behold, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son, and this is the sixth month with her who was called barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God.” 38 And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant[f] of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

I see nothing in there to indicate sex was not also involved. No one thinks John was the product of a virgin birth, and the angel is relating the two pregnancies.

Except Elizabeth was a married woman. The miracle was she conceived at an old age.

Okay, so Matthew. You probably know what I am going to say here already. Matthew tries to link Jesus to Old Testament prophecies numerous times. In this one, two great kingdoms, Israel and Syria, are threatening Jerusalem, and Isaiah prophesies that both will soon fall - before the unborn Immanuel can tell right from wrong. That prophecy is the basis of the virgin birth, when you add in the LXX using the Greek for virgin, when the Hebrew said young woman.

Okay....

And?

Was it? What evidence is there that anyone had heard of the virgin birth before AD 70? See Mark 3:21:

Mark 3:21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, "He is out of his mind."

So we are supposed to believe that an angel appeared to Mary telling her she would give birth to the Son of God, and she then got pregnant by a miracle, but when her son starts his ministry she thinks he is mad? A more likely scenario is that no angel appeared to Mary, and that Jesus was conceived normally, and until his baptism, Mary had no idea about Jesus.

Or it could be his behavior was so bizarre she thought something had to have been going wrong. Wouldn't be the first time people in the Bible had a word from God and acted inconsistently with it.

I suggest that the virgin birth story did not appear until after Mark was written (possibly when Matthew was written). Mary was quite safe from getting stoned because she was already dead by then. That also meant she was not able to say whether or not it actually happened.

This assumes Mark is late. There are at least three cases I know of that place it extremely early and two of them by non-Christians.

And yet here you are affirming it. Clearly you do not consider it shameful, indeed, most Christians consider it miraculous. Why suppose Christians in AD 80 would think differently?

Oh I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with a different time, culture, place, language, worldview, social-setting, religious outlook, etc. For instance, in our churches today we can sing about the wonderful cross. That would hardly be anything the early church would sing about. Artwork of the cross by Christians doesn't show up until around the 4th century even. Our culture today doesn't even think much of shame at all.

[The Pixie]

Acts 1:21-22 gives me some pause on that.

21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection.”

So was Mark right, or Luke? I would guess Mark as he was closer to the witnesses, he was writing earlier and he gives more details of the event.

Even if Peter was present at the baptism, that still does not lessen the argument that Mark believing Jesus was adopted as the Son of God, which is the main point here.

Or could it be the more likely case that she knew she was to be married to Joseph at a later date and the message of the angel meant that she would conceive even before that? Yes. Mary definitely knew what it takes to make a baby. There's no reason we should think otherwise.

So why did she not understand how a virgin can get pregnant? If she had said; How can this be, I am not married? that would make sense. Unmarried women would not - in theory anyway - get pregnant. Virgins clearly do.

Except Elizabeth was a married woman. The miracle was she conceived at an old age.

Not sure what your point is. Women do conceive at old age, even if it is rare. They do not conceive without sperm. People back then knew that was the case.

Okay....

And?

Well the motivation for writing about a virgin birth appears to be to fit it to the supposed prophecy, rather than because it actually happened. Of course, it might have happened anyway, but this gives a reason why the author of Matthew might put it in if it was not true, which makes it all less likely.

Or it could be his behavior was so bizarre she thought something had to have been going wrong.

What sort of behaviour would make her think something was "going wrong" with the Son of God? Do you think he was ranting like a lunatic, frothing at the mouth, etc.? I ask because the "lunatic, liar or lord" thing is predicated on Jesus not doing that.

According to the earlier verses he was preaching and casting out demons, which would seem to be consistent with the whole Son of God thing.

Wouldn't be the first time people in the Bible had a word from God and acted inconsistently with it.

Do you feel this comment makes the Bible more or less believable?

This assumes Mark is late. There are at least three cases I know of that place it extremely early and two of them by non-Christians.

Actually it does not assume that. The statement stands even if he wrote as early as AD 35.

Further, if you want to make claims about non-Christians it might help your credibility to actually name them. Better yet, quote them. Just a suggestion.

Oh I don't know. Maybe it has something to do with a different time, culture, place, language, worldview, social-setting, religious outlook, etc. For instance, in our churches today we can sing about the wonderful cross. That would hardly be anything the early church would sing about. Artwork of the cross by Christians doesn't show up until around the 4th century even. Our culture today doesn't even think much of shame at all.

Right, so there are differences, so they might have viewed the virgin birth differently in AD 80.

And they might not. Given Matthew chose to include the virgin birth, I think it is pretty safe to say it was consider miraculous by then, not shameful. Given that in Matthew 12 the bit about Jesus' family thinking him mad has been edited out, so we know Matthew was happy to remove unfavorable passages.

[Apologiaphoenix]

So was Mark right, or Luke? I would guess Mark as he was closer to the witnesses, he was writing earlier and he gives more details of the event.

Even if Peter was present at the baptism, that still does not lessen the argument that Mark believing Jesus was adopted as the Son of God, which is the main point here.

Okay. Feel free to present your evidence Mark held to an adoptionist theology.

So why did she not understand how a virgin can get pregnant? If she had said; How can this be, I am not married? that would make sense. Unmarried women would not - in theory anyway - get pregnant. Virgins clearly do.

Who says she didn't? I take it to be that the message was of an immediate nature and Mary was not married and knew that was a way's off.

Not sure what your point is. Women do conceive at old age, even if it is rare. They do not conceive without sperm. People back then knew that was the case.

Old age is one thing. Well beyond child-bearing years is another.

Well the motivation for writing about a virgin birth appears to be to fit it to the supposed prophecy, rather than because it actually happened. Of course, it might have happened anyway, but this gives a reason why the author of Matthew might put it in if it was not true, which makes it all less likely.

The problem with this is that there are no sources I know of that have Isaiah 7:14 as a Messianic prophecy. Matthew's writing of it would in fact give charge to the idea that Jesus was illegitimate, something that he would want to avoid.

What sort of behaviour would make her think something was "going wrong" with the Son of God? Do you think he was ranting like a lunatic, frothing at the mouth, etc.? I ask because the "lunatic, liar or lord" thing is predicated on Jesus not doing that.

Jesus is the firstborn son of the family and as such, the responsibility of providing for the family falls next on Him. What is going on? Jesus is preaching so much that He and His disciples can't even eat. In fact, having disciples and providing for them would show that His family was not the first responsibility. The family would be thinking "How is He going to handle His obligations? Has He gone mad? He is bringing great shame on us." The consequences of His vocation were getting out of hand.

According to the earlier verses he was preaching and casting out demons, which would seem to be consistent with the whole Son of God thing.

It would be, but exorcisms at least were also done by others outside the Jesus movement. As for healing, sure He was healing, but in the midst of this healing, He was not able to provide for Himself and those close to Him. This was getting out of hand. He needed someone to take more charge.

Do you feel this comment makes the Bible more or less believable?

More. The saints in Scripture are painted in very real terms.

Actually it does not assume that. The statement stands even if he wrote as early as AD 35.

Further, if you want to make claims about non-Christians it might help your credibility to actually name them. Better yet, quote them. Just a suggestion.

James Crossley is one who did his dissertation on the Gospel of Mark and why he dates it to the 40's. Maurice Casey in his own writing such as his book on Jesus mythicism agrees with Crossley in large part but offers even other reasons for holding an earlier date.

Right, so there are differences, so they might have viewed the virgin birth differently in AD 80.

And they might not. Given Matthew chose to include the virgin birth, I think it is pretty safe to say it was consider miraculous by then, not shameful. Given that in Matthew 12 the bit about Jesus' family thinking him mad has been edited out, so we know Matthew was happy to remove unfavorable passages.

If you think they did, feel free to present the evidence. My evidence is that Jews had a view of children who were born out of wedlock and you would not want to give any credibility to a Messiah who was born illegitimately. The last thing you'd want to do is to blame that on God Himself, especially for people who might already be skeptical of your claim. Finally, while the parallels are not exact, this could make some people think of what pagan deities did.

[Adrift]

There is an interesting point in Mark 6 that may be a veiled hint at the virgin birth.

Mark 6:1 Now Jesus left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue. Many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did he get these ideas? And what is this wisdom that has been given to him? What are these miracles that are done through his hands? 3 Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” And so they took offense at him.

As Ben Witherington points out in his blog,

Source: PROBLEMS MULTIPLY FOR JESUS TOMB THEORY by Ben Witherington

Jesus is never called ‘son of Joseph’ by anyone who knew him intimately in the NT--- not by his family members, and not by his disciples. Indeed where this idea arises, for example, in John 6.42 the Jewish officials who are accosting Jesus call him ‘son of Joseph’ (cf. Jn. 8.41). These can only be called hostile witnesses, not those who were likely to have known the actual case. It is telling that in Nazareth itself, in our account in Mk. 6.1-6 in our earliest Gospel Jesus is called “the carpenter, the son of Mary”. Now in that patriarchal culture you don’t call a person a ‘son of their mother’ even if the father has died. That is a pejorative way of addressing a person, rather like calling them an S.O. you know what today. Did the people in Nazareth know there was something unusual about Jesus’ origins, and it disconnected him from Joseph? Yes they did, which is why they were angry and did not think Jesus had any right to teach them. He was probably viewed as a mamzer, as Dr. Bruce Chilton has argued—an illegitimate child.

© Copyright Original Source

[KingsGambit]

Interesting point. Wouldn't Jesus still have been viewed by this crowd as illegitimate regardless of what they believed about his birth because Mary became pregnant prior to her marriage to Joseph?

[tabibito]

Pregnancy (to the best of my knowledge, and certainly under Levitical law) to one's betrothed was not a problem - the marriage would simply be sealed and (perhaps) with no option for a later divorce.

[Adrift]

Who says she didn't? I take it to be that the message was of an immediate nature and Mary was not married and knew that was a way's off.

That's precisely the view of a number of scholars on this issue.

Source: Luke and Introduction and Commentary by Leon Morris, pg. 81

The solution to the difficulty rather is that Mary understood Gabriel to mean that she would bear a child without the intervention of a man, perhaps even that conception would be immediate.

© Copyright Original Source

The family would be thinking "How is He going to handle His obligations? Has He gone mad? He is bringing great shame on us." The consequences of His vocation were getting out of hand.

Yeah, Witherington makes a similar suggestion in his Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Mark "They either thought he was unbalanced or, at least, not in control of the situation he was precipitating. If the latter, then they may be trying to protect Jesus rather than remove him from the public scene because of the shame and controversy he was bringing on his family."

More to the point, though, Mark 3 does not say that Mary, specifically, called Jesus "mad" or "out of his mind", rather the text offers, more generally, that members of his family had said this (though some translations assert that this is only something the family heard from others but did not say themselves). And this would be in accord with what we know of some skeptical members of Jesus' family. After all, John 7:5 tells us that Jesus' brothers were unbelievers, and only after the resurrection do we get that they eventually converted (Acts 1:14-15), and of course, according to Paul, James saw the risen Jesus and became one of the heads of the Christian church in Jerusalem.

[One Bad Pig]

For instance, in our churches today we can sing about the wonderful cross. That would hardly be anything the early church would sing about. Artwork of the cross by Christians doesn't show up until around the 4th century even.

A major reason for artwork of the cross not showing up until the 4th century is that most Christian art pre-Constantine was deliberately ambiguous due to the illegality of Christianity; a cross would have been obviously Christian. This does not mean that the cross was unimportant to early Christians:

Source: Everett Ferguson

Writings from the early church show how central the cross was to Christian preaching and confession. Moreover, Justin Martyr, a Christian apologist writing in the 150s–160s, argued that God had providentially put the shape of the cross in everyday objects, such as the masts of ships, tools like the plough and the axe, and the standards of Roman legions. Christians would often pray standing up with their arms stretched out in the form of a cross. As early as the 200s, Christians were making the sign of the cross with their hands. The cross was so important that pagans charged Christians with worshipping the cross.

© Copyright Original Source

(source)

[psstein]

There is an interesting point in Mark 6 that may be a veiled hint at the virgin birth.

Mark 6:1 Now Jesus left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach in the synagogue. Many who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did he get these ideas? And what is this wisdom that has been given to him? What are these miracles that are done through his hands? 3 Isn’t this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” And so they took offense at him.

Yes, this can be used to argue for the virgin birth. However, many scholars have taken this as evidence that Joseph had died long before the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Such a claim would make sense, as Joseph is conspicuously absent from the ministry in all gospels.

[Adrift]

Yes, this can be used to argue for the virgin birth. However, many scholars have taken this as evidence that Joseph had died long before the beginning of Jesus' ministry. Such a claim would make sense, as Joseph is conspicuously absent from the ministry in all gospels.

Not sure if you read the rest of my post, but Witherington covers that.