Where I began

The West Front of the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela

    My interest in Priscillian and his teaching began after I had walked the ancient Pilgrimage route to Santiago de Compostela. The city is founded on the pilgrimage to St. James the Great - however, the question must be asked 'Whose remains are interred in the shrine?'

    The following is from an article in the "Catholic Encyclopedia (1913),
    Volume 12   "Priscillianism" by Patrick Joseph Healy

    "In regard to the doctrines and teaching of Priscillian and his sect, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the discussion as to whether Priscillian was guilty of the errors traditionally ascribed to him, whether he was really a heretic, or whether he was unjustly condemned - the object of misunderstanding and reprobation even in his lifetime and afterwards made to bear the burden of heretical opinions subsequently developed and associated with his name. The weight of evidence and the entire course of events in his lifetime make the supposition of his innocence extremely improbable."

    A comment like this is almost guaranteed to start me asking questions!
    Why not "go into the merits of the discussion . . . "?
    Is the "supposition of his innocence extremely improbable."?
    If someone as theologically savvy as Professor Chadwick was prepared to enter the fray, what is there that prevents questions being asked?
    A fear that the "orthodox" church at that time would be seen as guilty of bigotry, self -serving and persecution of the innocent?
    A fear that the outcome - the torture and beheading of Priscillian and six of his followers (who may not have been guilty of the accusations brought against them) was bad PR for the Roman Church?
    A fear that the revealing of the viciousness of some of the accusers of Priscillian (including bishops) would be unedifying and show how power hungry some of those in authority really were?

    I will endeavour to set out the "merits of the discussion", to clarify my own thinking and so that you can decide for yourself! In this I will base much of my research on the book "Priscillian of Avila - the Occult and the Charismatic in the Early Church".by Professor Henry Chadwick, Oxford Press 1976. If you can get hold of a copy of this out of print book it makes for compelling reading. I have also read and will refer to some more recent monographs which are available online.

    The source most often quoted for details of Priscillianism is the writing of Sulpicius Severus (1) at the beginning of the 5th Century. His work was the basis of the above "evidence" in the Catholic Encyclopedia (2) above - (which article in turn is the basis for the entry about Priscillian in Wikipedia). Severus appears to have taken his material from a book by Ithacius, the prosecuting bishop at the trial of Priscillian in Trier, written some years after the event when Ithacius himself was in exile. Hardly an unbiased witness!

    What is important is that there is a "critical evaluation of the sources" (Chadwick p.22) so that we can understand the charges against Priscillian and his early followers. We need to know from whence the sources originate so that we can take into account the bias, if any, and try to understand the situation in which the events took place. What we cannot do is rely on the evidence presented by his accusers without questioning its veracity.

                                              ..................................................................

(1) Sulplicius Severus  Chronica, Chronicorum Libri duo or Historia sacra, c. 403
(2) Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), Volume 12   "Priscillianism" by Patrick Joseph Healy
     This unauthenticated material appears to have been used by Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica.