Good point about extant copies; however, that same is true of of the inspired scripture: the preserved copies are much older than we know the books actually are.
But the Scriptures have an additional essence which proves them without the need of any critical analysis, that being the prophetic voice inherent in them all. And furthermore, for the most part, they have the convenience of being agreed upon. You and I both accept the Protestant books as being valid Scripture. In that sense, their pedigree is already an established matter. But the things from without that loose federation must needfully be examined very carefully... And I hold not only you and yours to such a standard, but all of the brethren corporately.
As to your proofs:
I think that you (or more precisely, the quoted article) begin with a desire for Temple virgins to be true, and thus your orders of women (and particularly Mary) can be defended as having naturally been established prior to the existence of Christianity. I think that clouds your exegesis. When I read the passages mentioned, I do not get the feeling of 'consecrated' virgins at all (which your quoted article assumes to interject).
This is utter folly to me, as the workings of the Temple are exquisitely defined in the Bible, and in no way is *any* order of women ever established. In fact, women were universally prohibited from even entering the Temple (beyond the Court of the Women, which is not the Temple proper) on pain of death. Considering the Jewish penchant (to this very day) toward separating their women away during services, and in consideration of the vast bulk of Jewish Tradition which is utterly silent wrt any order of virgins, I find this handful of widely gathered verses to be cherry-picked, as it were, and the meaning you infer is installed therein, rather than drawn from them.
Bear with me in that, as I do not mean it to be an accusation: We all have baggage that we would like to 'read in,' and thus edify what we have been taught to believe.
What seems to be the throttle or safety valve in determining these things is that YHWH allows for no novelty. What He said in the beginning is what He wants, and what will be, lest He and all His agents turn out to be liars altogether. That cannot be. Thus, arguments from silence (as this subject does) do damage to (add to, or take away from) His initial declarations.
One does not require 'vestal virgins' at all, unless one must prove sources for what 'Mary' has become. The horse needs to be in front of the cart, after all... Ergo, the cart must be. But your handful of proofs notwithstanding, there does not appear to be a cart at all. So then, what need of a horse?
Lets look to the inverse evidence: In pagan systems, their vestal virgins are famously defined. One cannot long study the Greeks or Romans without finding volumes of evidences toward their existence (their actual virginity, be it as it may)... Not only by prescription and regulation within their religious activities and in their stories and myths, but even to the point of secular writings and poetry, and in murals, pictures, and decorations.
But here you would seem to impose such a thing in a system which lauds them not at all... where their very existence must be established in wispy and far-flung passages, if it is to be found in the least part, and that against the judgement of the very practitioners thereof (Judaism and it's traditions). How do you explain such a dichotomy?
The citations of the OT say nothing about “temple virgins” and this is the kind of slight of hand (or words) that is necessary to support a temple virgin fable.
Josephus was cited but he says nothing about temple virgins in fact he writes in Bk 5,
“For since there was a partition built for the women on that side, as the proper place wherein they were to worship, there was a necessity for a second gate for them: this gate was cut out of its wall, over against the first gate. There was also on the other sides one southern and one northern gate, through which was a passage into the court of the women; for as to the other gates, the women were not allowed to pass through them; nor when they went through their own gate could they go beyond their own wall. This place was allotted to the women of our own country, and of other countries, provided they were of the same nation, and that equally”.
The idea of Mary and temple virgins is simply an attempt to force fit Scripture to myth.
I am not Taylor Marshall. Both He and I eat Protestant children for lunch. That exercise might indeed cloud our judgement from time to time. However, if you want to dispute his findings, you need to address the scriptural and historical evidence he offers, rather than psychologizing his, or mine, motivation, evil as it may be. The salient point is that the Holy Scripture makes mention of virgins in liturgical roles in the Temple, and so does the Jewish tradition. Do you dispute that?