to a virgin pledged to be married to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary.
Regarding the allegation that Paul "knew nothing of the virgin birth!" - such an error can derive only from ignorance of what that great apostle said: Christ was "of the seed of David" and also "Son of God"  (Romans 1:3,4); "Christ existed in the form of God ... emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men"  (Philippians 2:5-7); "God sent forth his Son, made of woman"  (Galatians 4:4).[21]  Versions or translations rendering this passage "born of a woman" are in error.  As Clarke said, "Being made of a woman was according to the promise of  Genesis 3:15: (meaning) produced by the power of God in the womb of the virgin Mary without the intervention of man."[22]  "He taketh hold of the seed of Abraham"  (Hebrews 2:16) has the reading in the Greek New Testament, "He taketh on him the seed of Abraham."  This makes the birth of Jesus to have been an act willed by himself while existing at a time prior to his entering our earth life.  This cannot be anything except a recognition of the fact of the virgin birth.  The Hebrew reference is here considered as Pauline.  The fact that Paul did not make any references to this doctrine is incapable of casting any doubt regarding his true acceptance of it; because, in his preaching to the Gentiles, he stressed the far greater miracle of the resurrection.  Significantly, Luke himself, in Acts, made no reference to the virgin birth in that volume; and if, for any reason, the Gospel of Luke had been lost, the critics would still have been shouting to high heaven that "Luke knew nothing of it?' We are thankful to God that Paul made a more than sufficient reference to this vital doctrine to justify the conclusion that he fully received it.