Another way of analyzing the Jacobean Tradition is to see what the hypotheses of the detractors say. The existence of an explanation of the origin of the Jacobean phenomenon of unquestionable certainty would be very clarifying, but we will see how none of the proposed theories, other than the Jacobean Tradition itself, offers something resolute, and in all cases are proposals that have been proven wrong.
Some objections to the “Traditio” were analyzed, such as the Christianisation of pagan precedents, or the fruit of military and ecclesiastical opportunism, or lack of time for the journey, or the impossibility of transferring the mortal remains of the apostle. Of the various hypotheses hitherto valued, none offers a plea that contradicts or invalidates the Tradition in its basic aspects: the evangelizing work of James the Greater in Hispania, and the presence of his burial in Compostela. In this section we will analyze the theories that most properly deserve the term anti-jacobeas, since they deny the presence of Santiago in Hispania and make a proposal of how the phenomenon of the Jacobean cult could be started.
Three are the ones that deserve the interest of this analysis: the hypothesis of the Silence, the hypothesis Emeritense, and the hypothesis Priscilianista. The three, designed or supported by eminent ecclesiastical men, testify that the Church never modeled a Jacobean phenomenon to its measure. The third, despite its archaeological invalidity, has aroused the greatest sympathy.
THE HYPOTHESIS OF SILENCE, outlined by German priests Ignaz Schuster and Johann Baptist Holzammer in his Handbuch zur Biblische Geschichte (two volumes, 1862-64), whose 8th edition was translated into Spanish in 1934 as Biblical History. The hypothesis is developed with apodictic value by Monsignor Louis Duchesne in his article of 1900 Saint Jacques in Galice, as a reply to the Papal Bull Deus Omnipotens of Leo XIII. In short, he proposes that if Santiago had preached in Hispania, it would be impossible the silence the Hispanic authors of antiquity. The argument generated a great impact in the field of History, because it is undoubted that the lack of documented news in the Roman-Christian sources and Hispanic Visigoths around the coming and preaching of Santiago conditions the historian, given to found the historical facts in documentals sources, so that a void so relevant seems to suggest its historical inexistence.
But the lack of documents is a constant problem in the study of the past of humanity, and the silence of Hispanic sources about many other historical facts and figures is as much or more incomprehensible. Why is this negative criterion applied here, and with argument value? Accepting that it is a striking fact can not be accepted as a demonstrative argument. The historical reasons for the rupture of continuity between the Apostle’s preaching and later Hispanic Christianity were already seen, which explains the silence of the Hispanic sources of Late Antiquity and the Visigothic Patristic. To give value to the argument of silence would imply, for the same reason, that none of the “Twelve” preached in any of the places in the known world where their respective legendary traditions place them, because equally no documentary certainty exists about it. Neither the preaching of the apostles nor the history of the martyrs are documented, they were largely destroyed. Eusebius of Caesarea attests that the writings that Christians used in their rites were requisitioned and burned. During its persecution, was introduced the policy of obtaining by means of torment, apostates more than martyrs, and was ordered in diverse edicts, the destruction of churches and sacred books. There were traders, who for fear of being prosecuted handed over the sacred books and writings. Whole Christian files disappeared. It was intended, according to Eusebius, not to record the martyrs to prevent their faith and tradition from spreading. There was, therefore, a mass destruction of documents and the Church lost the reports of the history of its martyrs and its origins. Eusebius of Caesarea tells us how he himself witnessed the public burning of books. Only a solid oral tradition allowed the transmission of the facts, although in rewriting they were adorned with exuberant rhetoric and pious exaggerations.
Giving argumentative value to silence is tantamount to saying that what was not written did not happen, which is inconsistent when more than three quarters of the old books have been lost and many documents are false, so it is a negative valuation Without probative value, since neither silence shows emptiness, nor does the document guarantee historicity.
From a wider geographic range we can not speak of silence. Non-Hispanic authors of the fourth and fifth centuries, such as Didymus of Alexandria called the Blind (313-398), St. Jerome (342-420), Theodoret of Cyrus (393-466), speaking of the places evangelized by the apostles in the Century I, expressly mention Hispania and the lands of the West. Although they do not specify the name of the apostle, these quotations that expressly include the lands of Hispania in the plan of evangelization should not be omitted.
The reference of Didymus the blind says: “… quad alteri quidem apostolorum in India degenti, alteri vero in Hispania, alteri autem ab ipso in alia regione usque ad extremitate terrae distributo”: One of the apostles received in reparto India, another Spain, And even another plus a region to the extremity of the Earth “. (De Trinitate, Book II, p. 39, col. 487 § 136)
St. Jerome brings two significant references in his commentary to Isaiah: “… The Holy Spirit gathered them together and assigned them the place which had each fallen in the lot. One went to India, another to Spain, another to Illirico, another to Greece, so that everyone would rest in the province where he had preached the gospel and doctrine. (Commentary to Isaiah, L. XII, verses 16 and 17, chapter 34). “It is those apostles who, mending their nets by the shore of the lake of Gennesaret, were called by Jesus and sent into the immense sea, converting them in fishers of men; those who began from Jerusalem, preached the gospel to the Illirico and Spain, bringing their doctrine in a short time to Rome itself. (Commentary to Isaiah, L. IV, verse 10, chapter 42).
Theodoret of Cyrus speaks of the mission of an apostle in Spain (De Martyribus, Sermo VIII, PG 83, 1010).
When in 416 Pope Innocent I defends the liturgical uses of the Roman Church, against the currents of Eastern origin, it demands that it be said that in those places that follow them, if some other Apostle who has them taught, and that in his Defect must follow the ways of the Roman Church. Rather than rejecting local apostolic traditions, it seeks to consolidate the primacy of the Roman See and to unify liturgical uses throughout the West in times of great imperial instability. The implicit recognition of non-Roman liturgical uses and other oral traditions is already giving credence to the tradition of the evangelization of the West by other non-Roman apostles, which legitimates Paul’s exclusion and opens up options for Santiago as an evangelizer in the western Mediterranean basin. This opened a certain controversy that closed Hesychius, bishop of Salona (Dalmatia), who in 419 maintains that the preaching was done “to the end of the earth”, in Hispania, by one of the twelve apostles in person, and collecting the inheritance Of Saint Jerome recognizes that this Apostle could not be other than Santiago. A legendary life of San Clemente will attribute to Hesychius to have textually said that Santiago the Major was sent by San Pedro to Spain.
An ancient Hispanic tradition that establishes a bond between Santiago and his preaching in the Iberian peninsula is the chronicle of Bishop Maximus of Saragossa, who in 571 notifies the existence of a Marian temple built by Santiago. The evocation must be due to a remodeling of the previous building, proving an old oral tradition very rooted and well known between the people and the clergy by oral tradition that Maximo finished giving written form and that seems that it precedes the martyrdom of San Vicente († 303) during the Roman persecutions under the pontificate of St. Valero, in keeping with the letter of St. Cyprian of Carthage (254) in which he quotes Felix of Saragossa as “propagator and defender of the faith”.
In the sixth and seventh centuries various catalogs on the life and work of prophets and apostles circulate, seven are Greek and other Eastern versions: Syrians, Copts, Byzantines, etc. The Latin version of these catalogs or Breviarium Apostolorum, work of the second half of the sixth century, unlike others, places Santiago in Spain and regions of the West instead of Jerusalem. It is not a “handling” in benefit of the Jacobean Tradition, as has been suggested, since Baudouin de Gaiffier believes that the Latin version is inspired by earlier Eastern and Western texts that alsoIs Isidoro inspired; Among them the texts of Didymus, Jerome, and Theodoret, as well as St. Hilary of Poitiers (310-368), St. Ephrem of Syria (306-373) and the historian Eusebius of Caesarea († 339), and even the epistle To the Romans of Paul and the letter of Pope Clement to the Corinthians (late 13th century). Its early date of compilation, the variety of its sources and the presumption of impartiality derived from its extra-Pyrenean origin, make of the Breviarum a valuable element of promotion of the Jacobean Tradition and of the universalization of its cult, more than two centuries before the Discovery of the tomb in Compostela.
Isidoro of Seville (556-636), knows the Breviarium and the works that nourish him, and it is reflected in his writing of chapter 80 of De ortu et obitu patrum referring to Santiago el Mayor, written before 612, constituting the first testimony Known Spaniard who attributes to the Apostle James the Peninsula as his evangelizing destiny: “Preached the Gospel in Hispania and Western regions”, in which the evangelizing work is intuited as a global company of all Hispania, surely also know of the chronicle of Maximus of Saragossa . Contrary to what some authors propose, César Chaparro Gómez in his last revision, he discards that it is apocryphal and that is interpolated, but the news is of Isidorian paternity. According to Gaiffier, De Ortu and Breviarium draws on older sources. They could be the Pseudo-Epiphany and the chronicle of Maximus of Saragossa. This invalidates the hypothesis that the Breviarium is the sole starting point of the whole tradition of Santiago in the West.
It is said of Archbishop Julian of Toledo (642-690) that contradicts the Breviarium and the De ortu et obitum in denying the apostolate of Santiago in Hispania in De comprobatione aetatis sextae of 686, but in this apologetic work against Judaism, which does not recognize The coming of the Messiah to the sixth millennium since creation, Julian argues that the computation is not in millennia but in biblical ages according to Isidore: the 1st from Adam to Noah, the 2nd from Noah to Abraham, the 3rd from this to David , The 4th until the captivity of Babylon, the 5th until the coming of Christ, the 6th from Christ to the present day. The world is thus in the Sixth Age, legitimating Christ as the announced Messiah. The text quotes different Biblical allusions announcing the coming of the Messiah and the phrase that quotes the apostle does not allude to the territory of Santiago, but argues that all the preaching had been fulfilled in Christ. In speaking after the apostolic distribution he says: “… James illustrates Jerusalem, Thomas India and Matthew Macedonia,” but without distinction between the two James, and it was already known that who remained in Jerusalem was James the Less. Julián de Toledo continues the Isidorean legacy, and does not contradict the preaching of Santiago in Hispania nor the Isidorian apostolic distribution, as it appears in the Mozarabic liturgy, approved at the end of the sixth century, but revised in time by different authors such as San Leandro , San Isidoro, San Ildefonso and, above all, San Julián, remained unchanged until the eleventh century. So, although some deny it, the Jacobean Tradition also underlies the Visigothic patristic, which differentiates a Santiago in Hispania and a Santiago in Jerusalem.
Other Western sources, contemporary with St. Julian, spread the Jacobean preaching in the Iberian peninsula, such as that of the Anglo-Saxon abbot Aldhelmo de Malmesbury (639-709), author of the poem of Aris, work of the late seventh or early eighth century, versifying The apostolic mission of Santiago in Hispania: “Primitus Hispanas convertit dogmate gentes” (He was the first to convert the truth to the people of Spain). The expert Manuel C. Diaz and Diaz detected common signs between Aldhelmo and Liber Sancti Jacobi that reveal common eastern sources that also nourished the Breviarium.
The English monk Bede Venerable (672-735), also knower of the Breviarium and other contemporary catalogs, and reviewing the contradictions between them, consults previous sources and maintains the evangelization of Hispania by James the Greater in his texts. The most valuable of this author is that he is the first to write, a century before the discovery of the tomb, that the burial is in Hispania, with clear references to place it in Galicia. His martyrology says: “The sacred mortal remains of this blessed were transferred to Hispania and hidden in their last limits facing the British Sea”, where the British Sea or Sea of the West, is the one that bathes the coasts of Briton, today San Martin de Mondoñedo. The news is reiterated in the martyrologies of Floro de Lyon (830-840) and Adon de Vienne (860).
The Christian flight to Asturias by the Muslim domination will facilitate the diffusion of the preaching of Santiago in Spain in the nascent kingdom of Asturias. The great manager will be the monk Beato de Liébana († 798), great heir of the Isidorian work, from which he takes the tradition of the jacobea evangelization in Hispania, half a century before the discovery of the compostela sepulcher, placing in Spain the location of the tomb. His sources are Isidoro’s De ortu et obitum patrum, the Breviarium Apostolorum, the Martyrology of Bede, the Jeronimian work, and a long relationship of the patristics he portrays in his quotations. In the hymn O Dei Verbum, written in 785 during the reign of Mauregato, he reactivates the cult of Santiago and elevates him to the rank of Patron and Protector: “O most worthy and most holy Apostle, the effulgent and golden head of Spain, powerful defender and patron Very special … Pious attend to the flock that has been entrusted to you, be sweet shepherd to the king and to the clergy, and to the people. ” The great prestige and influence that reaches his work, constitutes a certificate of the Jacobean Tradition, which will spread through the copies throughout Europe are made of his Remarks to the Apocalypse, which in honor of its origin we call Beatus.
This succession of authors, testimonies and texts, rather than an accusing void or silence, tells us rather that we are before the knowledge of a tradition that is transmitted, also among Hispanic authors, with vacios certainly important as it is a obscured tradition like so many other facts and ancient and medieval personages, by many historical factors (Apostolic anonymity, Christian persecutions, jacobean clandestinity), documentaries (confusion of the Santiago, loss of texts and documents), and sociological (depopulation, diseases, famines). In the case of the Jacobean Tradition, the argument of silence relies too much on rejecting many references as false, tardy, useless, rhetorical, doctrinal, generic, opportunistic, interpolated, or echoes reiterative, dismissing clues and vestiges, amplifying a supposed silence as if All would have been the fruit of a falsifying plot over centuries, or simply the result of an error. If so, History and Archeology would have detected it, but on the contrary, both the historical evidence and the archaeological findings are not at all oriented towards proposals installed in the void or silence, which today lacks argumentative force, although some authors still do not seem to want to see it.
HYPOTHESIS EMERITENSE. In the face of some extravagant and speculative hypotheses of the Jacobean question, the medievalist and Benedictine Friar Justo Pérez de Urbel seeks to give an objective basis to the cult of Compostela and designs a theory that explains the Jacobean Tradition as the pseudo-transfer of a relic of Mérida in the exodus Christian to the Muslim invasion. In 1948, the inscription of the commemorative plaque of the Church of Santa María de Mérida (first half of the 7th century) was published, which reads that under the altar of the temple some relics are kept and among them the one of Sci. Iacobi, (Perhaps a simple brandeum), without particular prestige within the lot. In fact it occupies last place of the list and its name requires a diminution of the letter because no longer it fits in the inscription.
From this inscription, Pérez de Urbel denounces the supposed coincidence of two churches in Santa María with an identical relation of relics, the one of Merida of the 7th century and another in Compostela in the 9th century. He deduces that they are the same relics, which explains through a flight of Christians to Galicia before the conquest of Mérida by the Mohammedans, carrying out a transfer of the relics from the diocese of Mérida to the one of Iria-Compostela, lowering the Guadiana and ascending the western coast of the peninsula in 6 days, whose memory reinterpreted underlies in the legend of Jacobean Translation. It argues that while the educated Visigothic Spain ignores the evangelization of Santiago and the Christians of the kingdom of Asturias welcome the news of the Spanish preaching of the Apostle, the emigrant community in Compostela builds a continuation temple of Mérida in the cult of its lot of relics, Among them the sancti Iacobi. The Jacobean boom will monopolize the cult after the diffusing work of Beato de Liébana that makes Santiago a patron and protector with the acquiescence of the Asturian monarch. The news of the presence in Galicia of a relic of Santiago, which popular enthusiasm exalts and magnifies, arising the pilgrimage and the need to explain the transfer with fabulous stories from the translation of a small batch of relics gathered in an altar, since Merida.
Pérez de Urbel is not really a Jacobean detractor, but between detractors and defenders he adopts an intermediate position, legitimizing the Jacobean cult and censoring the extravagant approaches. But his hypothesis introduces a proposition that denies the legitimate choices of verisimilitude of the original Tradition. His proposal is ingenious, to the point that the first academic evaluations were favorable. After his first appearance in the magazine Hispania Sacra (1952), he promoted his thesis in the media and also shows him in other related articles, and ends up giving it a scientific value. But after the first acceptances, soon the objections arise and the arguments that make it clearly unfeasible. In spite of this, Don Justo, poorly advised, disregards reasons and elevates his essay to the category of historical theory and exposes it in Volume VI of Menendez Pidal’s Historia de España, where he appears categorically, without the pertinent analysis of the State of the matter, without indicating that it is a new hypothesis or attending to the many serious objections generated. His immodest position can only be understood from the interest of a suggestive editorial commitment with a select work in which the most prestigious historians collaborate.
An author not suspected of “Jacobism” as Claudio Sánchez Albornoz detected insurmountable difficulties that invalidate the theory. Being documented the initial flight to Galicia some people of Mérida before the Muslim advance, it is even more that the majority decided to stay and defend its walled city that resisted almost a year; And it is even clearer the permanence of canons and clerics who, by accepting Islamic rule and paying the corresponding tribute, ensured the respect and protection of the rulers whose ethical rule was to respect the monks, their monasteries, and their relics. Those who fled did so by land and to the north, by unoccupied territories to take refuge, never to the south, and in no case by river and sea, not only by the high improbability of having ships suitable for that crossing, but Because it descended to territories in the power of the invader that would cut hostile the withdrawal. To what part of Galicia did they flee ?, because then the limits of Galicia are still wide and imprecise, and lands of Leon, Castile, Portugal, Zamora, etc., are still identified in many contemporary chronicles as lands of Galicia. Some dioceses from the north of Lusitano are included, but Iria-Compostela only includes the migrations of the dioceses of Tuy and Lamego. Outside of this there is no other news of a migration to Iria from Mérida, that would have better access to Asturias by the Way of the Silver. To make matters worse, the Church of Santa María de la Corticela in which Pérez de Urbel locates the new destination of the emeritenses relics, was built in time after the Jacobean temple, which from the beginning recognizes the sepulchral cult to a complete tomb, in So that the transformation of one cult into another from a small relic is an impossibility. The martyrologies of the eighth century (Bede the Venerable) and IX (Floro of Lyons and Adon of Vienne) always spoke of a sepulchral veneration to a holy body, not a single relic, that would never have moved Theodomiro to transfer his thirst of Iria to Compostela, nor decide there his burial, nor would have led the Asturian kings to convert Compostela into a religious center of his kingdom, above the Holy Chamber of San Salvador de Oviedo.
Portela Pazos presents the most solid objections: that the relic would not be of Santiago the Major, but the Minor, and that of the 63 Compostela relics only 7 coincided with those of Mérida, relics habitual in temples and monasteries, whose most probable origin was the Great reserve of Oviedo. But most important was the absence in Compostela of the three relics considered rare and unique in Spain, only kept in Merida. That is to say, the equivalence between the emeritenses relics and Compostela is false.
The hypothesis elevated to theory also omits all mention of the archaeological findings that the author knew, discoveries that discover the existence of the Roman imperial period and the presence on its ruins of a paleo-Christian necropolis at the foot of a Roman tomb of Importance, indicator that a great personality was venerated there many centuries before the Muslim invasion and the emeritense gravestone.
If the restricted escape had to be terrestrial, if the monks and clerics did not emigrate, if there is no indication that the migration would go to present-day Galicia and even less to Iria, if there is no concordance between the relics of Merida and of Compostela, if the relic Was not of Santiago the Major but the Minor, and if you omit the archaeological arguments that accredit a sepulchral cult very previous to the emeritense lapida, the hypothesis of Pérez de Úrbel stays in a pleasing and attractive castle of cards, apparent but without content nor any function.
What is most regrettable of the matter is that despite its falsity, after its first appearance in 1956, it continues to be exhibited in the successive editions of Menéndez Pidal’s History of Spain, raised with the rotundity of one who exposes a conclusive historical reality, without clarify that It was a new, improvised, experimental hypothesis, without proven research, filled free assumptions and flagrant omissions, omitting the objections raised, inducing the reader to take for granted what is false. And everything installed more in the editorial anquilosamiento than in the historical rigor, in the enquistamiento of an obfuscation that in the scientific dialectic. But if the precipitation in the prestigious History of Menendez Pidal was bad, it is even worse that a text of historical science does not change its errors. Past editions, present and, if no one corrects it, future editions of Menéndez Pidal’s prestigious History of Spain will continue to show the fraudulent hypothesis of Perez de Urbel as a fresh out of the oven, deceiving the reader and perpetuating an error. In other sciences this is unacceptable. History, on the other hand, allows this luxury.
Finally the PRISCILIANIST HYPOTHESIS. Insinuated by the mentioned Monsignor Louis Duchesne and developed later by many other authors, it proposes that the occupant of the compostelan sepulcher is not Santiago but Prisciliano. This Hispanic ascetic of the fourth century adheres to a critical movement towards a well-to-do church, their attitude condemned as heresy in Council I of Toledo (397-400) with excommunication, at a time when the Church lacked the death penalty or secular arm. The situation unleashes an epic escalation of struggle for power and ecclesiastical influence that unexpectedly ends in reply to the emperor, before whom in addition to heresy, is accused of attacking customs and practicing magic and sorcery, domains that belonged to secular justice and punished with death penalty. Priscillian had to respond unexpectedly to crimes of common law by the prefect of the praetorium, who condemns him to decapitation along with some of his companions, along with the confiscation of goods for the benefit of the emperor. His death unleashes the posthumous following, which is particularly rooted in Galicia, under the Sueva tolerance. The hypothesis of being the remains of the compostela tomb is only posed as a possibility in the form of suspicion, based on certain coincidences: the two were beheaded and of the two we talk about their transfer to Hispania. Given the legendary halo of the Jacobean transfer in the face of the certainty of the priscillianist transfer in the chronicle of Sulpicio Severo, it seems legitimate to think that the transfer was that of Prisciliano and that the muted memory of it should be confused with that of the one, and the option is surrounded Of a verisimilitude plot of departure, which make it very attractive and novel.
The subject has been treated with a great attachment and very little rigor, and in no case are there any rigorous indications of certainty that will be solved by Priscillian who is in Compostela, and from mere vagueness interests are immediately aroused in highlighting their Galleguity, although there is nothing to say that Prisciliano was a Galician (even less of Iria, some consider him Portuguese, Betic or North African), and although the concept of “Galician” did not exist in the fourth century, neither as a language, nor as a culture, nor ss a unit of feeling of a people. Prisciliano was a executed hispano-roman, surely of abusive and undeserved way, whose memory and legacy deserve historical rehabilitation; but not from a nationalist perspective. From a Priscillian resurrected by the jacobean controversial, it is claimed as the genuine spirit of the Galician soul. Nationalism sometimes clouds the most illustrious minds. The great authors of the “Galician Rexurdimento” or the “Xeración Nós”, in their romantic vision of Galicia considered Prisciliano “prototype of Celtic pantheon, far from all heterodoxy”, and wanted to see in him the resurgence of Druidism of the ancient Celts. From the distorted vision of identifying the Celtic with the Galician, one arrives to propose as an exclusive alternative of the jacobea tradition, and the occupant of the compostela tomb happens to be Prisciliano and not the Apostle Santiago, denying to Santiago what is given to Prisciliano, Without foundation for one thing or another. It does not matter if there are other places with better options to locate the grave of Prisciliano that should be investigated better; Is not very interested in his ideological and intellectual legacy, what interests is to cross the similarities between two figures and to emphasize that one is the forget and the reinterpretation of the other. In some authors, there is a greater interest in deprecating the Jacobean Tradition than in objectively studying the historical value of Priscilian, and it seems that it is more profitable to undermine the Jacobean Tradition than to recover the image of Priscilian.
The mistake is to establish, at the outset, a mutual exclusion between Santiago and Prisciliano, as incompatible protagonists of the same phenomenon of which one of the two must necessarily be discarded. Priscillianus, for whom he proposes other possible locations of his tomb with greater verisimilitude than the compostelana, surely deserves historical rehabilitation, but not at the expense of Santiago, and the rooting of Priscillianism in the Roman Gallaecia is even indicative of a primitive Galician Christianity that Prisciliano proposes to recover.
Prisciliano and Santiago are not mutually exclusive but compatible, as the Ferrolan Xosé Leira Domínguez believes in his work “Xacobe e Prisciliano”, in which he proposes that both figures deserve the same intellectual treatment without discriminatory interference. But there are more solid criteria that solve the case: the long unaltered “Archaeological Silence”, which guarantees the preservation of the contents of the mortuary chamber of the edicule, from its inhumation between the second half of the second century and its discovery in the ninth century, with The peculiarity that inside the edicule, after the relocation of the tombs, was sealed by an ornamental mosaic of the second century that existed, therefore, long before the death of Prisciliano. The date of the mosaic, together with the arqueological evolution of the edicule, its martyrs fenestelle, the inscription Atanasio Martir, the Ara de San Paio, and the dynamic, integral and multidisciplinary evaluation of the whole, attest to a cult long before Priscillian. A burial in the fourth or fifth century would have been detected by archeology and the Priscillianist hypothesis would have its verisimilitude. But the conclusion is that it is impossible for Prisciliano to be buried in Compostela.
The Priscillianist hypothesis, contradictorily, arouses interest and continues to receive credit from writers and novelists, whether for editorial interests, nationalist passion, technical ignorance, anticlericalism, esoterism, sensationalism, fiction or morbidness, that there is everything, is a subject that is recycled as a controversial literary product. Not infrequent is their lack of rigorous treatment in the media (radio and TV), which in the context of programs of esoteric sensationalism, sell supposed assumptions as if they were New Age truths. This lamentable and almost voluntary error, I believe, is maintained above all by the fact that the identity of the Jacobean tomb remains questionable, but not because it is legitimate to place Prisciliano in Compostela.
Archaeological proofs, which are obligatory studies in a Roman tomb, clearly discard Priscillian’s options in Compostela, but do not deny its historical reality, its legacy, or the need for its rehabilitation in the memory of history, nor the existence of a place of burial, in some other place, perhaps also in Galicia.