The Teaching of Priscillian - 7 - and yet more Difficulties!

Church doorway Llanes, Asturias, Spain

First, a brief explanation of some of the basic tenets of Gnosticism.

Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Ancient Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) describes a collection of ancient religions which taught that the material world created by the demiurge should be shunned and the spiritual world should be embraced. Gnostic ideas influenced many ancient religions which teach that gnosis (variously interpreted as knowledge, enlightenment, salvation, emancipation or 'oneness with God') may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, sexual abstinence (as far as possible for hearers, completely for initiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others. (1)

Central Gnostic beliefs that differ from orthodox Christian teachings include: 
the creator as a lower being [‘Demiurge’] and not a Supreme Deity; 
the belief that all matter is evil and the body is a prison to be escaped from (versus the Nicene Creed teaching that there will be a physical resurrection of all people); 
scripture having a deep, hidden meaning whose true message could only be understood through “secret wisdom”; 
and Jesus as a spirit that “seemed” to be human, leading to a rejection of the incarnation (Docetism). (2)

Gnosticism can be seen as a syncretism between early Christian beliefs and Platonism / Neo-platonism.
In a footnote in the Wikipedia article it says:-

In Platonism the soul [psuchē] was self-moving, indivisible; degenerated and eternal, existing before the body which housed it, and longing to be free from its earthly imprisonment, leading to the Docetist-dualist concept of ‘good’ & ‘evil’ matter. Ed. Note.68  (2)

Looking at the text of the Priscillianist documents as a whole, there is room as, Conti says, for an in depth study of the influence of Platonism and Neo-platonism on the theology and thinking of Priscillian. (3).
Priscillian himself acknowledges that he has studied "their works as for the instruction of the mind." (4).

However, the specific dualism of Gnostic teaching is absent even from the later Tractates. e.g. Tractate V: 56  " . . know that God made all the things which were made, . . . . . " and V;67 - 71  "Therefore, because of all the things 'made according to their kind' which the life of this world possesses, 'God made man in his image and likeness' and by taking the mud of the earthly dwelling he gave life to our body, . . . " (5)  There is a clear statement here that God himself is the creator of all things, including man. The material world is not the creation of the 'Demiurge'

Anna Maria Jorge says:-
"Can one say that Priscillianism was based on Manichaeism or Gnosticism? This is a difficult question. The research that highlights these issues is generally based on Priscillianist writings – this is the case of the treatises that were compiled as part of the Würzburg corpus, most of which post-dated Priscillian’s death (see Schepss 1889: 1-106; Madoz1957: 72). We must bear the following in mind: while the theses contained in these texts are rooted in the ideas that Priscillian personally developed, they were written in other spatial/temporal contexts . . .

Perhaps one ought to distinguish between an initial phase of Priscillianism, which was restricted to his lifetime, and a second one following his death – (6)

What then could have been the driving force behind the theology and practical teaching of Priscillian?

Jorge again:-
. . . . . . . . . We know of the Bishop of Ávila’s predilection for the ascetic life, including penitential reclusion; we catch glimpses of his practices, all of which aimed at attaining a state of perfection or election (electi Deo), but if we are to interpret them correctly we must also gain an in-depth understanding of where they really came from. . . . ..
. He played the role of a catalyst among Lusitanian Christians and crystallized a variety of ascetic, monastic and intellectual aspirations that were either fairly, or even entirely, incompatible with Christianity as it was lived by the great majority of the bishops of the day. What Priscillian wanted was to reform the church. He thought that the separation of men and women was not inevitable and that the fundamental thing was to seek out the traditional practices of Christian asceticism . . . . . . . (6)

So, it would appear from the facts known to us that Priscillian was not a 'gnostic' in the usual definition of that word! However an in-depth study will need someone far more experienced in the writings and thoughts of ancient philosophers than myself. A thorough going comparison of the thoughts expressed in the Tractates and those of Plato would be of interest. As would a comparison between the teachings of Priscillian, Origen(184/185 – 253/254) and Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300 – c. 368) as all three appear to have been influenced by Platonism / Neoplatonism.
Plenty of material there for a PhD for someone!

In Tractate III, Priscillian gives an account of why he thought apocryphal writings ought to be read and accepted, providing they were held to the touchstone of the Canonical Scriptures.  

The question still remains:- why was Ithacius and others so opposed to the teaching and work of Priscillian?
Why did Pope Damacus and Ambrose of Milan refuse to even meet him? and ultimately -
Why was Priscillian condemned?



(1) From a long article on Gnosticism in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism#Primary_sources
    This extract quotes passages from:-
    John Hinnel (1997). The Penguin Dictionary of Religion. Penguin Books UK. and
    Tobias Churton (2005). Gnostic Philosophy: From Ancient Persia to Modern Times. Inner Traditions, VA USA.
(2) Opp cit.
(3) Conti. p.11
(4) Opp cit. p. 44 - 45 .Tract I: 200
(5) Opp cit. p.111
(6) Ana Maria C.M. Jorge (2006). Priscillian. A paper for Center for the Study of Religious History (CEHR)    Portuguese Catholic University (UCP)