'The type is never greater than the fulfilment' (Chapter 2 · 2.3 Immaculate Mary)	'It is a basic rule of Scripture that Old Testament prefigurations (known as types) are never greater than their New Testament fulfillments.' Adam prefigures Jesus, 'but Adam was not greater than Jesus (remember the Fall?)'; David foreshadows Christ, 'but David was certainly not greater than Christ (remember Bathsheba?).' Therefore: 'If Mary is really the new Eve, then she must be greater than Eve.' Eve was created 'very good,' without sin; so the New Eve begins without sin. And the corollary covers her whole life: 'if she had committed even one sin, then the old Eve would be greater than the new Eve.' Ephrem and Augustine state the exception, and Augustine is explicit that it is pure grace, 'not something she earns.'	catena::topic-typology
Joseph as a type of Jesus — Aphrahat, Genesis 50:20, and the full eight-point chart (Chapter 7 · 7.0 Opening)	A student's question — 'isn't the life of Joseph kind of like the life of Jesus?' — sent Pitre to the Fathers, where Aphrahat had already written that 'Joseph who was persecuted was a type of the persecuted Jesus,' and to scholars who call Joseph one of the most striking biblical types of Christ. The key verse: 'you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good' — through his suffering Joseph saves Israel and the nations. The chart has eight points: the beloved son of his father; betrayed and sold for twenty pieces of silver by Judah, one of twelve brothers / for thirty by Judas, one of the Twelve; with two condemned men, one of whom is given life; thirty years old when he begins; exalted to the right hand; feeding Israel and the Gentiles with bread; honouring Benjamin, the youngest of the twelve, at a banquet / the beloved disciple at the Supper; and revealed to brothers who do not recognise him. 'If Jesus is the new Joseph, then his mother is the new Rachel.'	catena::topic-typology
The five objections to Marian doctrine (Chapter 1 · 1.2 The Queen of Heaven?)	Pitre lists the Protestant case against Catholic Marian belief before answering any of it. The Immaculate Conception is 'seemingly nowhere' in Scripture, and 'full of grace' in Luke 1:28 'is not exactly the same thing as immaculately conceived.' Mary's sinlessness 'flies in the face of' Romans 3:23. The Assumption is not in Revelation 12:1 or anywhere else, and many deny the Woman is Mary at all. Perpetual virginity is 'flatly contradicted' by the brothers and sisters of Jesus. And Jesus himself seems to dishonour his mother — 'Woman, what have you to do with me?' reads 'almost like a preemptive strike against later devotion to her.'	catena::topic-typology
The single key that unlocks the whole book. (Chapter 1 · 1.3 Through Ancient Jewish Eyes)	Read Mary the way the apostles and Church Fathers read Scripture — 'through ancient Jewish eyes,' by typology: Old Testament persons and things (Eve, the Ark, the queen mother, Rachel) are patterns fulfilled in her. And every belief about Mary rests on a belief about Jesus.	catena::topic-typology
What counts as evidence — Jewish sources outside the Bible (Chapter 1 · 1.A Appendix — Jewish Sources Outside the Bible)	Pitre names his evidence base up front: the Dead Sea Scrolls, Josephus, Philo, the Pseudepigrapha, the Aramaic Targums and early rabbinic literature, with a full list in the Appendix — the Scrolls (2nd c. BC–AD 70), the Pseudepigrapha (1 Enoch, 4 Ezra), Josephus, the Mishnah and Tosefta (the most authoritative witness after the Bible), the Targums, the Babylonian Talmud and the Midrash Rabbah. He is careful about dates: he is not suggesting Jesus or the evangelists read these works, some compiled centuries later, but that they 'bear witness to ancient Jewish traditions outside the Bible that may have circulated at the time of Jesus.' Scholars of every stripe — Allison, Evans, Levine, Keener, Meier, Sanders, Vermes — use them the same way.	catena::topic-typology
Are Marian beliefs biblical? (Chapter 1 · 1.1 The Problem with Mary)	A Baptist pastor challenged him: the doctrines (Immaculate Conception, sinlessness, Assumption, perpetual virginity) seem absent from — or contradicted by — the New Testament, and calling Mary 'Queen of Heaven' echoes an idolatry the Bible condemns. The book is his answer.	catena::topic-typology
What's at stake — and the thesis in one sentence: 'It got them from Judaism' (Chapter 1 · 1.3 Through Ancient Jewish Eyes)	Pitre frames the dispute in stark arithmetic. If Protestants are right about Mary, then Catholic and Orthodox Christians — more than half of the world's Christians — commit idolatry on a regular basis. If Catholics and Orthodox are right, then Protestants — a little less than half — are missing what the Bible as a whole reveals about the mother of Christ. His answer to the pastor's charge of paganism is the thesis of the book: 'the Catholic Church did not get its teachings about Mary from paganism. It got them from Judaism.' The chapter ends by promising to show why ancient Christians called her 'the mother of all the living.'	catena::topic-typology
Why books against Marian doctrine ignore the Old Testament — Ratzinger, Timothy George and the inconsistency charge (Chapter 1 · 1.3 Through Ancient Jewish Eyes)	Pitre anchors his method in two witnesses from opposite sides of the Reformation. Joseph Ratzinger: 'The image of Mary in the New Testament is woven entirely of Old Testament threads.' The Baptist theologian Timothy George: evangelicals 'have much to learn from reading Mary against the background of Old Testament foreshadowings,' without which 'we are left with not only a reductionist view of Mary, but also of Christ.' Then the charge: virtually every book that rejects Mary's sinlessness, perpetual virginity or assumption as unscriptural 'would invariably ignore the Old Testament' — and while scholars agree Jesus can be understood only from within first-century Judaism, 'when it comes to Mary, the same rule does not seem to apply.'	catena::topic-typology