The virgin birth narrative is extremely problematic. Even if we assume that Jesus existed and performed miracles, there is still zero evidence to corroborate Matthew's claim. On top of this, the claim itself appears to be a lie.
Matthew cites Isaiah 7:14, which says,
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
However, Matthew omitted over half of the actual prophecy. Verses 15 and 16 say,
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Aside from the obvious problem - Jesus is never referred to as Immanuel except here by Matthew - we are also left dealing with the fact that the latter half of the prophecy has nothing to do with Jesus. In fact, it would be nonsensical for it to involve Jesus because Isaiah was addressing a king several centuries before Christ was born and he told this king that his enemies would be defeated. That was the entire point of the prophecy. What good is it if a virgin gives birth? Who cares? Aside from being a medical mystery, this would have no significance to anyone for any reason. The significance of the prophecy is that Judah will survive her enemies. The point was that if the king saw Isaiah was correct about one future event, he was justified in assuming that Isaiah would be correct about another future event.
(A quick parenthetical reference is needed here. It is well known that the word here for "virgin" - "almah" in the Hebrew - does not necessarily refer to a virgin but just a young woman who hasn't yet had a child. Leveraging this fact, many scholars say that the prophecy is fulfilled in the next chapter - Isaiah 8:3 - but I'm not entirely convinced of that because the child is given a different name. If anyone can show me the scholarly work linking the two verses, I'd appreciate it.)
I've only ever gotten one possible explanation from Christians on this matter: you can simply yank a quote completely out of context. That is how prophetic utterances work. Thus, this was a double prophecy: a micro-prophecy for the king, which involved verses 14-16, and then a macro-prophecy about Jesus which involved only verse 14.
I reject the above outright as sophomoric and ridiculous because you cannot divorce a prophecy from its purpose. If a prophecy does not warn or guide, what is the point of it? To show that the prophet speaks for God? Perhaps, but that only works if there is good reason to actually believe that the prophecy was fulfilled. Even then, the prophecy is still pointless unless the prophet then goes to actually speak for God. If you have an unverifiable prophecy that is neither a guideline nor a warning, and nothing further is expounded upon it, then it is totally pointless. Nothing more than a parlor trick - even if the magic were to be real, a parlor trick would have no real significance. Jesus may as well have materialized ex nihilo as a fully grown man. There is no reason he had to be born of a virgin. Even if this all happened exactly as Christians believe it, what was the actual point of the prophecy? Recall above where I said, "The point was that if the king saw Isaiah was correct about one future event, he was justified in assuming that Isaiah would be correct about another future event." So we grant Christians the virgin birth prophecy and then what? What warning or promise is this? Establishing foreknowledge of this future event without then telling us what other future events to look for is astonishingly pointless. Matthew is obviously just trying to validate Jesus as the Christ by fabricating a link to the Old Testament - which was, of course, the only scripture at the time.
But before I go calling Matthew a liar, there are a couple possibilities to consider:
a) Matthew had no access to the latter verses
b) Matthew had access to the latter verses but never bothered to read them
c) Matthew was aware of the latter verses and saw no problem in what he was doing
d) Matthew was aware of the latter verses and lied, knowing many won't have the same access to his source material
I find d) to be most likely.
Matthew cites Isaiah 7:14, which says,
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
However, Matthew omitted over half of the actual prophecy. Verses 15 and 16 say,
Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
Aside from the obvious problem - Jesus is never referred to as Immanuel except here by Matthew - we are also left dealing with the fact that the latter half of the prophecy has nothing to do with Jesus. In fact, it would be nonsensical for it to involve Jesus because Isaiah was addressing a king several centuries before Christ was born and he told this king that his enemies would be defeated. That was the entire point of the prophecy. What good is it if a virgin gives birth? Who cares? Aside from being a medical mystery, this would have no significance to anyone for any reason. The significance of the prophecy is that Judah will survive her enemies. The point was that if the king saw Isaiah was correct about one future event, he was justified in assuming that Isaiah would be correct about another future event.
(A quick parenthetical reference is needed here. It is well known that the word here for "virgin" - "almah" in the Hebrew - does not necessarily refer to a virgin but just a young woman who hasn't yet had a child. Leveraging this fact, many scholars say that the prophecy is fulfilled in the next chapter - Isaiah 8:3 - but I'm not entirely convinced of that because the child is given a different name. If anyone can show me the scholarly work linking the two verses, I'd appreciate it.)
I've only ever gotten one possible explanation from Christians on this matter: you can simply yank a quote completely out of context. That is how prophetic utterances work. Thus, this was a double prophecy: a micro-prophecy for the king, which involved verses 14-16, and then a macro-prophecy about Jesus which involved only verse 14.
I reject the above outright as sophomoric and ridiculous because you cannot divorce a prophecy from its purpose. If a prophecy does not warn or guide, what is the point of it? To show that the prophet speaks for God? Perhaps, but that only works if there is good reason to actually believe that the prophecy was fulfilled. Even then, the prophecy is still pointless unless the prophet then goes to actually speak for God. If you have an unverifiable prophecy that is neither a guideline nor a warning, and nothing further is expounded upon it, then it is totally pointless. Nothing more than a parlor trick - even if the magic were to be real, a parlor trick would have no real significance. Jesus may as well have materialized ex nihilo as a fully grown man. There is no reason he had to be born of a virgin. Even if this all happened exactly as Christians believe it, what was the actual point of the prophecy? Recall above where I said, "The point was that if the king saw Isaiah was correct about one future event, he was justified in assuming that Isaiah would be correct about another future event." So we grant Christians the virgin birth prophecy and then what? What warning or promise is this? Establishing foreknowledge of this future event without then telling us what other future events to look for is astonishingly pointless. Matthew is obviously just trying to validate Jesus as the Christ by fabricating a link to the Old Testament - which was, of course, the only scripture at the time.
But before I go calling Matthew a liar, there are a couple possibilities to consider:
a) Matthew had no access to the latter verses
b) Matthew had access to the latter verses but never bothered to read them
c) Matthew was aware of the latter verses and saw no problem in what he was doing
d) Matthew was aware of the latter verses and lied, knowing many won't have the same access to his source material
I find d) to be most likely.