Talk:Priscillian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Priscillian and his sympathizers included many women, who were welcomed as equals of men" That's incredible if true. I'll have to read the articles because what I'd read previously would disagree with this.--T. Anthony 12:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

What to read apparently is Virginia Burrus, The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy. Berkeley: University of California, 1995. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft009nb09t/ reviewed in Journal of Early Christian Studies 5.3 (Fall 1997), pp. 458-460, with its feminist conclusions challenged. UCal's blurb reads:

"Silenced for 1,600 years, the "heretics" speak for themselves in this account of the Priscillianist controversy that began in fourth-century Spain. In a close examination of rediscovered texts, Virginia Burrus provides an unusual opportunity to explore heresy from the point of view of the followers of Priscillian and to reevaluate the reliability of the historical record. Her analysis takes into account the concepts of gender, authority, and public and private space that informed established religion's response to this early Christian movement.Priscillian, who began his career as a lay teacher with particular influence among women, faced charges of heresy along with accusations of sorcery and sexual immorality following his ordination to the episcopacy. He was executed along with several of his followers circa 386. His purportedly "gnostic" doctrines produced controversy and division within the churches of Spain, dissension that continued into the early decades of the fifth century.Burrus's thorough and wide-ranging study enlarges upon previous scholarship, particularly in bringing a feminist perspective to bear on the gendered constructions of religious orthodoxies, making a valuable contribution to the recent commentary that explores new ways of looking at early Christian controversies."

Can we get the gist of this, with some quotes, edited into this article?

Okay here's some explanation of my confusion. Here's snippets concerning Priscillian and women from Paganism and Pagan Survivals in Spain up to the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom by Stephen McKenna Women were forbidden to associate with men during the time of prayer...a woman was not to be admitted to the ranks of the virgins before the age of forty.[1] Although this is a list of Catholic accusations it seems like that side has some relevance to their history. Also a difficulty seems to arise in that their lifestyle is not well understood. This allows for speculation. I'll look into the Burrus book though.--T. Anthony 23:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see the article itself mentions that. The thing about virgins matters a bit because traditionally "the virgins" was a position of honor among early Christian women. I think in the Catholic Church pushing the age up to forty was a prelude to ending the position of deaconness altogether. (Curiously both feminist and conservative Catholics seem uninterested in reviving deaconess as a kind of compromise position)--T. Anthony 23:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

At the synod, things that were not to happen, i.e.Women were forbidden to associate with men during the time of prayer were things that Priscillian's people were doing. --Wetman 07:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I see, I misread it. They're kind of an obscure part of history.--T. Anthony 04:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguity

The canons issued by the synod shed light on Priscillian's practices, by condemnation: women were forbidden to join with men during the time of prayer; fasting on Sunday was condemned; ...

This can be interpreted in two ways. Either, the list that follows were practices by Priscillian that were condemned in the canon (so Priscillian forbade fasting on sunday); or it is a list of the condemntions itself (with the implication that Priscilians fasted on sunday). It's non-obvious to infer from context which interpretation is intended. — squell 10:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)