Talk:Priscillian

message: :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)
thread_title:  Ambiguity 

message: The last sentence in the fourth paragraph in the section "Continued Priscillianism" is as follows:
:"Priscillian casts a long shadow in the north of Hispania and the south of Gaul, where mystic asceticism has repeatedly been carried to extremes that the political mainstream has denounced as heretical."
I question the tenses of the verbs in this sentence.  
:1) casts – Priscillian lived in the 300s.  The preceding few sentences describe how, for hundreds of years after Priscillian's death, there were followers in what are today Portugal, northern Spain, and southern France, but not up to today.  Thus, all this is really about events in the past.  I believe the past tense "cast" should be used here. 
:2) The way the sentence is worded now, it appears that Hispania and Gaul still exist today.  Since we know this is not the case, the sentence is clearly about the period just after Priscillian's death, further making the case for "cast" rather than "casts".
:3) In the adverbial clause beginning with "where", the verbs are in present perfect tense:  has...been, has denounced.  This suggests that "mystic asceticism" has been carried to extremes until today or very recent times, and that "the political mainstream" has denounced mystic asceticism as heretical quite recently.  I don't know for certain, but I believe these kinds of things have not happened in recent years.  
If "casts" is changed to "cast", then "the north of Hispania and the south of Gaul" makes sense and can stay as is.  Then the first part of the sentence will refer to the few hundred years after Priscillian's death, and something needs to change in order for the second half of the sentence to make sense.  Either the time period for "mystic asceticism" being carried to extremes and for "the political mainstream" denouncing it needs to be made clear, or the verbs "has...been" and "has denounced" need to be changed to past tense "was" and "denounced".
If "casts" stays in present tense, suggesting that the shadow cast in the late 300s is still present today, then "Hispania" and "Gaul" need to be updated.  Even if this is done, and the second half of the sentence is not changed, it would still be helpful to the reader if it were made clear that the actions in the adverbial clause beginning with "where" have continued until today, or until recently.CorinneSD (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued Priscillianism 

message: Rm this extraordinary sentence. "Records also state he was the first Christian martyred (executed, and in an horrific manner no less) by the Catholic church (see life of Magnus Maximus). (Hans-Josef Klauck, Brian McNeil, Magic and paganism in early Christianity: the world of the Acts of the Apostles (2003), p.66)
* The work cited  mentions nothing of Priscillian, but of St. Paul's encounter with a soothsaying slave girl in Philippi 300 yrs earlier. It apparently makes the point that ventriloquism was often viewed as magic. Priscillian was charged with practising magic, but nothing indicates he was a ventriloquist. 
* The reference to "(see life of Magnus Maxmus)" is the same irrelevant observation on ventriloquism as magic.
* "by the Catholic Church" - a couple of jealous rival bishops involved in a "turf war" does not constitute the RCC. Damasus seems to have preferred a local synod handle things. What Siricius, Ambrose, and Martin objected to was the Emperor's usurping jurisdiction. Penalties in an ecclesiastical setting would have included a cleric being degraded, being sent to a monastery, and, at worst, exile on the part of the civil authorities.
* "horrific matter" is unencyclopedic, and
* links to "Brazen bull" despite the fact that no sources suggest that Priscillian and his associates were subjected to that. A.J.Grieve (EB 1911) is the only source that says they were burned to death, and he is contradicted by thirteen others, to wit: M. B. Cowell, (DCB) says "gladio perempti"). i.e., "slain by the sword"; PJ Healy (CE) "put...to the sword"; Burrus - "executed by sword"; similarly J.H. Worman. The rest say "beheaded" (B. Wagner, C.C. Ames (CUP), A. Butler, A. Neander, J.C. Robertson, etc. 
* if beheading is so "horrific", wasn't it considered a more honorable option for British nobility? Mannanan51 (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ventriloquism and other matters 

message: Again rm sentence: "But the official teaching of Rome would not allow it to be the ideal and duty of every Christian Priscillian perished for insisting that it was such; and seven centuries later the Church began to burn the Cathari by thousands because they took a similar view of the Christian life". (Grieve|1911)"
This is A.J.Grieve again drawing a false analogy by suggesting Priscillian and the Cathars were similar because they suffered the same manner of death ---which they did not. (see above) When just about all other RS say Priscillian & Co. were beheaded not burned, one has to wonder whether this is a simple oversight on Grieve's part, or something else. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More of the same