Significance

At least two important points can be made from this fleeting reference. First, by its connection of gnostics with Mary, this reference comprises “one of the very few evidences that the Gnostics had some interest in the mother of Jesus” and attests to a very early Mariological work (Benko, “Libertine Gnostic Sect,” 108). This point assumes reference is being made to Mary the mother of Jesus, which seems probable in light of the later and more developed Protevangelium of James. Such cross-referencing and development can be further observed from the mention in Panarion 26.12.2 of Zacharias, who is also mentioned in the Protevangelium of James 23 as the father of John the Baptist (Puech, Other Gnostic Gospels, 396).

Second, a nearby mention of imagery common to the early third century ad may indicate that the Birth of Mary should be dated to the middle of the second century. Epiphanius refers to a supposed heavenly vision of a man with the form of an ass, or head of an ass (Panarion 26.12.2). Such imagery seems to have been a common polemic against early Christian movements and sects—evidenced by the now-famous Palatine Graffito, which consists of a figure with the body of a man and the head of an ass in what appears to be in a crucified posture (for recent discussion and connections with Christianity, see Evans, Jesus and His World, 71–73). The graffito, found in Rome, is dated to the beginning of the third century (Tomei, Museo Palatino, 104–5). This may indicate that the anti-Christian polemic of Jesus as an ass had spread widely by the third century. In order for Epiphanius to have found it necessary to refute, some believe the Birth of Mary should “be ascribed to the middle of the 2nd century” (Puech, Other Gnostic Gospels, 396).