God as Male–Female: Priscillian, Prophecy, and the Witness of Irenaeus and Marius Victorinus

This paper examines a comment by Priscillian (d. c. 385) in his Liber apologeticus that certain people erroneously applied to God the unusual Latin neologism, masculofemina. He contrasts their perspective with scriptural teaching about the Holy Spirit being poured out on both men and women. This raises two questions, namely, how Priscillian’s comment relates to accusations he faced of encouraging dangerous intimacy between men and women and the source of his information about their teaching. This paper argues that the central thrust of Priscillian’s teaching is around the notion that the spirit of prophecy was manifested in both sexes, but that he distinguished his teaching from that of Valentinian gnostics to defend his own orthodoxy. It argues that Priscillian acquired this teaching about God as masculofemina from the translation into Latin of the Aduersus haereses of Irenaeus of Lyons (d. c. 202). The term also occurs within the writing of Marius Victorinus (c. 359–61) in defense of Catholic Christianity. Priscillian drew on Irenaeus to defend the orthodoxy of his notion that the gift of prophecy was given to both men and women.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Religions
Published
2024-09-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15091144
Primary Topic
Theology and Canon Law Studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

God as Male–Female: Priscillian, Prophecy, and the Witness of Irenaeus and Marius Victorinus

Constant J. Mews
Religions
Theology and Canon Law Studies
article

God as Male–Female: Priscillian, Prophecy, and the Witness of Irenaeus and Marius Victorinus

Constant J. Mews
article en

Abstract

This paper examines a comment by Priscillian (d. c. 385) in his Liber apologeticus that certain people erroneously applied to God the unusual Latin neologism, masculofemina. He contrasts their perspective with scriptural teaching about the Holy Spirit being poured out on both men and women. This raises two questions, namely, how Priscillian’s comment relates to accusations he faced of encouraging dangerous intimacy between men and women and the source of his information about their teaching. This paper argues that the central thrust of Priscillian’s teaching is around the notion that the spirit of prophecy was manifested in both sexes, but that he distinguished his teaching from that of Valentinian gnostics to defend his own orthodoxy. It argues that Priscillian acquired this teaching about God as masculofemina from the translation into Latin of the Aduersus haereses of Irenaeus of Lyons (d. c. 202). The term also occurs within the writing of Marius Victorinus (c. 359–61) in defense of Catholic Christianity. Priscillian drew on Irenaeus to defend the orthodoxy of his notion that the gift of prophecy was given to both men and women.

ReligionsVol. 15(9)
Monash University (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 77%
Theology and Canon Law Studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.