4. Let us take the points one by one, and follow the tracks of this impiety that we may show that he has contradicted himself. He admits that she was betrothed, and in the next breath will have her to be a man’s wife whom he has admitted to be his betrothed. Again, he calls her wife, and then says the only reason why she was betrothed was that she might one day be married. And, for fear we might not think that enough, “the word used,” he says, “is betrothed and not intrusted, that is to say, not yet a wife, not yet united by the bond of wedlock.”We should definitely seek to avoid self-contradiction. But is this a self-contradiction? Why else is a woman betrothed except in order to become a wife? Moreover, Joseph was minded to put her away, which is what one does with an unfaithful wife, but was encouraged to "take" her by the angel of the Lord,
Jerome seems to be attempting to score some kind of rhetorical points here, but it isn't working. Helvidius' and our position is pretty straightforward and non-contradictory. Mary was betrothed to Joseph, which was - at that time and in that culture - the first stage of the marriage, but it was prior to cohabitation. Nevertheless, as set forth in the previous sections, the legal status of a betrothed woman was like that of a married woman, in that any fornication would be adultery. Thus, Mary is sometimes called Joseph's wife even though they had not yet come together. It may be imprecise, but it is not really self-contradictory.
Jerome doesn't attempt to revitalize the "intrusted" alternatively, seemingly granting that Helvidius is right. Mary was betrothed (not intrusted) to Joseph. She was to be his wife.