Chapter VI.—The Parallel Case of Mary Considered.

Let us now see whether the apostle withal observes the norm of this name in accordance with Genesis, attributing it to the sex; calling the virgin Mary a woman, just as Genesis (does) Eve.  For, writing to the Galatians, “God,” he says, “sent His own Son, made of a woman,”²⁹⁶²⁹⁶    Gal. iv. 4. who, of course, is admitted to have been a virgin, albeit Hebion²⁹⁷²⁹⁷    [i.e., Ebion, founder of the Ebionites.] resist (that doctrine).  I recognise, too, the angel Gabriel as having been sent to “a virgin.”²⁹⁸²⁹⁸    Luke i. 26, 27.  But when he is blessing her, it is “among women,” not among virgins, that he ranks her:  “Blessed (be) thou among women.”  The angel withal knew that even a virgin is called a woman.

But to these two (arguments), again, there is one who appears to himself to have made an ingenious answer; (to the effect that) inasmuch as Mary was “betrothed,” therefore it is that both by angel and apostle she is pronounced a woman; for a “betrothed” is in some sense a “bride.”  Still, between “in some sense” and “truth” there is difference enough, at all events in the present place:  for elsewhere, we grant, we must thus hold.  Now, however, it is not as being already wedded that they have pronounced Mary a woman, but as being none the less a female even if she had not been espoused; as having been called by this (name) from the beginning:  for that must necessarily have a prejudicating force from which the normal type has descended.  Else, as far as relates to the present passage, if Mary is here put on a level with a “betrothed,” so that she is called a woman not on the ground of being a female, but on the ground of being assigned to a husband, it immediately follows that Christ was not born of a virgin, because (born) of one “betrothed,” who by this fact will have ceased to be a virgin.  Whereas, if He was born of a virgin—albeit withal “betrothed,” yet intact—acknowledge that even a virgin, even an intact one, is called a woman.  Here, at all events, there can be no semblance of speaking prophetically, as if the apostle should have named a future woman, that is, bride, in saying “made of a woman.”  For he could not be naming a posterior woman, from whom Christ had not to be born—that is, one who had known a man; but she who was then present, who was a virgin, was withal called a woman in consequence of the propriety of this name,—vindicated, in accordance with the primordial norm, (as belonging) to a virgin, and thus to the universal class of women.