Priscillian and Santiago de Compostela

[Quid est Veritas?]

The great shrine of St James at Compostela began in the reign of Alfonso II of Asturias in the early 9th century, when legend says lights were observed and the grave of the saint discovered. The mediaeval tradition unequivocally connected this to James the Apostle, telling a story of how his body was transported to Spain on a stone ship, after his death.

There is no early identification of James with Hispania. The earliest source to claim James preached there, was the 7th century Breviarium Apostolorum, although it says nothing about his being buried there - and was disbelieved by the 7th century Julian of Toledo, and unmentioned by Isadore of Seville. There does however seem to have been an early 8th century cult of James in Merida, which then moved northwards with the Muslim conquest, and seems to have originally come from Africa (according to information from charters of Odourio, bishop of Lugo). From the 9th century onwards, James is frequently associated with Spain.

Back to Compostela, excavations conducted in the 19th century underneath the basilica, found the remains of a late Roman Christian shrine. This was a cemetery arranged around the grave of a holy man, arrayed in a martyrium of the time. So we are dealing with a late Roman martyr cult here. No epigraphic evidence is evident, but this was clearly the tomb found in the 9th and attributed to James the Apostle.

Henry Chadwick, a church historian, makes an intriguing suggestion that I recently came across. He suggests that this tomb was perhaps that of Priscillian. He was from Hispania, an austere ascetic, and was condemned and executed as a Heretic at Trier. The sources report that his body was brought back to Gallaecia and was revered there, and Priscillianism remained rampant in the area for 2 to 3 centuries. So we have a late Roman martyr cult of Priscillian in the area, with a late Roman martyrium under Compostela; with no literary evidence to suggest someone else revered at the time, and no other candidate for the known entombment of Priscillian. Of course, very conjectural, but would it not be weird that one of the greatest pilgrimages of the historic Church perhaps centres on the grave of the first Christian executed as a Heretic?

 

[Root of Jesse]

This illustrates the difference between Tradition and tradition. This is a legend, which has been in effect since the 800's. But there is no evidence, just the claim of a miracle.
The tradition asserting that James the Greater preached the Gospel in Spain, and that his body was translated to Compostela, claims more serious consideration.

According to this tradition St. James the Greater, having preached Christianity in Spain, returned to Judea and was put to death by order of Herod; his body was miraculously translated to Iria Flavia in the northwest of Spain, and later to Compostela, which town, especially during the Middle Ages, became one of the most famous places of pilgrimage in the world. The vow of making a pilgrimage to Compostela to honour the sepulchre of St. James is still reserved to the pope, who alone of his own or ordinary right can dispense from it. In the twelfth century was founded the Order of Knights of St. James of Compostela.

With regard to the preaching of the Gospel in Spain by St. James the greater, several difficulties have been raised:

• St. James suffered martyrdom A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2), and, according to the tradition of the early Church, he had not yet left Jerusalem at this time (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VI; Apollonius, quoted by Eusebius, Church History VI.18).
• St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (A.D. 58) expressed the intention to visit Spain (Romans 15:24) just after he had mentioned (15:20) that he did not "build upon another man's foundation."
• The argument ex silentio: although the tradition that James founded an Apostolic see in Spain was current in the year 700, no certain mention of such tradition is to be found in the genuine writings of early writers nor in the early councils; the first certain mention we find in the ninth century, in Notker, a monk of St. Gall (Martyrol., 25 July), Walafried Strabo (Poema de XII Apost.), and others.
• The tradition was not unanimously admitted afterwards, while numerous scholars reject it. The Bollandists however defended it (see Acta Sanctorum, July, VI and VII, where other sources are given).

The authenticity of the sacred relic of Compostela has been questioned and is still doubted. Even if St. James the Greater did not preach the Christian religion in Spain, his body may have been brought to Compostela, and this was already the opinion of Notker. According to another tradition, the relics of the Apostle are kept in the church of St-Saturnin at Toulouse (France), but it is not improbable that such sacred relics should have been divided between two churches. A strong argument in favour of the authenticity of the sacred relics of Compostela is the Bull of Leo XIII, "Omnipotens Deus," of 1 November, 1884.

Regarding pilgrimages, a pilgrimage is a journey with a purpose. The purpose of each person's trek to Santiago is very personal, but everyone does it with some purpose, as it is an arduous journey from various points. If you go there from Barcelona, there's Monserrat to climb, for one. It is believed that St. James' relics are at home in the minor basilica, at least some of them.

Regarding Priscillian, in researching him, it doesn't look to me like he was a heretic. He was controversial, and many other bishops were opposed to him, but he was executed by the secular government.

Lastly, it should be noted that most of Hispania at the time was being over-run by Islam.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Regarding Priscillian, in researching him, it doesn't look to me like he was a heretic. He was controversial, and many other bishops were opposed to him, but he was executed by the secular government.

The Church never executed anyone for heresy, if you make that argument. They were always found guilty by an ecclesiastical court and then handed over to the state for execution. This was true for Joan of Arc, the Spanish Inquisition, the Albigensian Inquisition, etc.

Generally, Priscillian is considered to be the first named or relevant Christian executed for Heresy. He was condemned by the council at Burdigala, and then appealed to the Emperor Magnus Maximus, with the acquiescence of the Council. The understanding was that he was to be put to death, which was why both Martin of Tours and Ambrose of Milan tried to intervene to spare him, but his ecclesiastical enemies and Maximus' attempt to portray himself as staunchly Orthodox and impartial (being from Hispania himself) led to his condemning him. Priscillian probably appealed because he expected leniency, instead the new anti-heresy statutes were applied - specifically the anti-Manichean ones - although technically his primary secular charge was sorcery (as Treason would be in later Heresy trials, as Heresy was a form of Treason against the God-given rulers).

An argument can be made that he wasn't really a Heretic, as a council at Toledo later could not really find much to condemn him for, but Priscillian was portrayed as such. Even those like Ambrose that opposed his execution weren't convinced of his orthodoxy though. His execution set the legal precedent in Roman Civil Law which led to countless others being tried in ecclesiastical courts and handed over for sentencing to the secular court right into the 19th century.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This illustrates the difference between Tradition and tradition. This is a legend, which has been in effect since the 800's. But there is no evidence, just the claim of a miracle.
The tradition asserting that James the Greater preached the Gospel in Spain, and that his body was translated to Compostela, claims more serious consideration.

According to this tradition St. James the Greater, having preached Christianity in Spain, returned to Judea and was put to death by order of Herod; his body was miraculously translated to Iria Flavia in the northwest of Spain, and later to Compostela, which town, especially during the Middle Ages, became one of the most famous places of pilgrimage in the world. The vow of making a pilgrimage to Compostela to honour the sepulchre of St. James is still reserved to the pope, who alone of his own or ordinary right can dispense from it. In the twelfth century was founded the Order of Knights of St. James of Compostela.

With regard to the preaching of the Gospel in Spain by St. James the greater, several difficulties have been raised:

• St. James suffered martyrdom A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2), and, according to the tradition of the early Church, he had not yet left Jerusalem at this time (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VI; Apollonius, quoted by Eusebius, Church History VI.18).
• St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (A.D. 58) expressed the intention to visit Spain (Romans 15:24) just after he had mentioned (15:20) that he did not "build upon another man's foundation."
• The argument ex silentio: although the tradition that James founded an Apostolic see in Spain was current in the year 700, no certain mention of such tradition is to be found in the genuine writings of early writers nor in the early councils; the first certain mention we find in the ninth century, in Notker, a monk of St. Gall (Martyrol., 25 July), Walafried Strabo (Poema de XII Apost.), and others.
• The tradition was not unanimously admitted afterwards, while numerous scholars reject it. The Bollandists however defended it (see Acta Sanctorum, July, VI and VII, where other sources are given).

The authenticity of the sacred relic of Compostela has been questioned and is still doubted. Even if St. James the Greater did not preach the Christian religion in Spain, his body may have been brought to Compostela, and this was already the opinion of Notker. According to another tradition, the relics of the Apostle are kept in the church of St-Saturnin at Toulouse (France), but it is not improbable that such sacred relics should have been divided between two churches. A strong argument in favour of the authenticity of the sacred relics of Compostela is the Bull of Leo XIII, "Omnipotens Deus," of 1 November, 1884.

Regarding pilgrimages, a pilgrimage is a journey with a purpose. The purpose of each person's trek to Santiago is very personal, but everyone does it with some purpose, as it is an arduous journey from various points. If you go there from Barcelona, there's Monserrat to climb, for one. It is believed that St. James' relics are at home in the minor basilica, at least some of them.

Regarding Priscillian, in researching him, it doesn't look to me like he was a heretic. He was controversial, and many other bishops were opposed to him, but he was executed by the secular government.

Lastly, it should be noted that most of Hispania at the time was being over-run by Islam.

So as I said, there is an interesting trail of relics from Merida. A Church said to house remains of James was consecrated there, and later one was consecrated at Lugo - presumably with the same relics, as they fled Islamic conquest in the south. These relics originally were brought north from Africa where they were fleeing persecution. Either way, the Tomb at Compostela under the basilica was certainly not James' one when built in late-Roman times. Whether relics of James were later brought there or not, is a different matter entirely. The stone boat legend of the mediaeval period (your miraculously translated to Iria Flavia) is probably just folk-etymology for the name Padron.

I don't understand the relevance of noting that Iberia was being overrun by Islam though. The Asturian royals, from Alfonso III onward, generously patronised Compostela. It became a national cult, like Denis in France or Cuthbert at Durham, and helped cement their status as the successor of Visigothic Spain. The purpose of the royal patronage is clear, and Compostela was clearly a facet of the Reconquesta, especially in the transformation of James into the military saint Santiago the Moorslayer. In the Gospels James was portrayed as being of fiery temperament, so perhaps he was suited to take on this role. This does not have much to do with the possibility that Priscillian was laid to rest there, though. The ecclesiastical dominance of Iria Flavia is a mystery though, as it is unusual for the bishopric to not be in the dominant centre of an area. It has been suggested that this stems from the Compostela site, as a bishopric was certainly established there after the Suebi were conquered (or was already present) by the Visigothic Church. Many see this as further support for Priscillian being buried at Compostela, as he still had much devotion in Gallaecia at the time. Again though, very conjectural. We'll never really know, unless new information comes to light such as new excavations done under the basilica.

Here is another post on the supposed appearance of St James in battle in 9th century, the investigation of which sent me down this road, which is relevant here:

Yes that is the type of thing I was looking for. Reading up about it now, it seems the consensus of historians is that the specific appearance of St James assisting the Asturians at the battle of Clavijo (and even the battle itself) is legendary. However it seems to be based roughly on the real battle of Monte Laturce, and that battle was a famous and unexpected victory in Northern Spain, by Ordono I. He was the father of Alfonso III, who first richly endowed Compostela.

Further, the battle of Clavijo was supposed to have been fought by Ordono I's father, and Alfonso III's grandfather, Ramirez I. There seems some further evidence that Ramirez used Santiago as a residence, as a Muslim ambassador al-Ghazal returning from Ireland called on him there. The king prior to this was Alfonso II, when the tomb at Compostela was supposedly discovered after a miracle of lights shining on a hill, and the first small chapel built.

I wonder if the legendary narrative was not condensing Ordono's victory, with his son's devotion to St James as a national cult, to his father's construction of a modest chapel? Also, placing the victory against Abd-al Rahman, an almost legendary Muslim founder in Spain, rather than the local Bene Qasi dynasty makes more sense in a reconquesta narrative.

It also seems there was a current tradition of the Virgin Mary supporting the Asturians at the battle of Covadonga, seen as the symbolic starting point of Asturias as successor of Visigothic Spain. This seems reminiscent of some surviving idea of the similar role of Freyja and the valkyrie (although I am unaware of such a specific report amongst Visigoths, rather than Germanic peoples in general, as the Visigoths had been largely Christian for centuries). Then again, the Hispano-Roman tradition already had Roman stories like Castor and Pollux in battle to fall back on, even without addition Germanic influence.

I'll look into it more closely. Alas a dark ages references, so much conjecture. I wouldn't be surprised if the martial James the moorslayer appearance was ascribed originally to Monte Laturce, and hence Alfonso III endowed the grave at Compostela in honour of his father's victory, before all moved back in time to Ramirez I as he had first had the chapel built - and then a more compelling narrative built around Ramirez vs the Ummayads, who had been fighting in and around Clavijo at the time. Then again, it all might just be embellishment of a burgeoning Asturian royal cult of St James.

 

[tz620q]

Here is another post on the supposed appearance of St James in battle in 9th century, the investigation of which sent me down this road, which is relevant here:

I love history and strive for the true accounts. So thank you, as always, for your scholarship in this. But there is something so prosaic and powerful about the appearance of St. James on a silver armored white horse carrying a gonfalon of a field of stars on the morning of the battle and leading the Asturians to victory. That is the sort of legend that quickens the blood of all men and creates an idea. This victory came at a low point in the Spanish fight for control of Iberia. There was a thought that the Moors were unbeatable in Spain. So the Spanish needed a rallying point and the image of their patron apostle returning from the dead to lead them in battle is certainly worthy of that. Would you say that this event and this idea was the start of the Reconquista (yielding to the Spanish)?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I love history and strive for the true accounts. So thank you, as always, for your scholarship in this. But there is something so prosaic and powerful about the appearance of St. James on a silver armored white horse carrying a gonfalon of a field of stars on the morning of the battle and leading the Asturians to victory. That is the sort of legend that quickens the blood of all men and creates an idea. This victory came at a low point in the Spanish fight for control of Iberia. There was a thought that the Moors were unbeatable in Spain. So the Spanish needed a rallying point and the image of their patron apostle returning from the dead to lead them in battle is certainly worthy of that. Would you say that this event and this idea was the start of the Reconquista (yielding to the Spanish)?

The Reconquesta is a later idea in my opinion. In the early days as Visigothic Spain crumbled, the lords were just trying to hold on. The Muslims were ranging into France, after all. Traditionally the Reconquesta is started from Covadonga, but that was literally just holding on - no one thought about recovering all of Spain back then. Think of the opponent at Monte Luterca, the Beni Qasi - this sounds very Muslim, but translates as the House of Cassius. We are dealing with marcher lords that had converted to Islam to maintain their hold, as the Visigothic kingdom crumbled. These people were very much in each others' affairs, so the Beni Qasi use both Christian, Muslim and Basque names - and everyone at Monte Luterca were related to one another.

Back then having possession was the most important thing, and legal niceties came later. The Reconquesta and portraying themselves as the successors of Visigothic Hispania were after the fact supports. It is similar to Outremer in the Crusades, which technically should belong to the Byzantines - as it was reconquered Byzantine territory and all the leaders of the 1st crusade, except Raymond of Tolouse, swore fealty to Alexius I. Or the Norman princes in Italy, that carved their own kingdoms.

Think of Portugal, a county and then Kingdom carved from Muslim Spain, often with the support of visiting crusaders on their way to the Holy Land (which is where the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance originates).

It has to do with the expansion of the Crusading idea. Spain came to be seen as another sphere for crusade, and many of the advantages were also applied there. This became the background for the Reconquesta, and a suitable military order in the Knights of Santiago stem only from the 12th. It is in emulation of the Crusades, and it was only once Navarre, Castille-Leon and Aragon were well established, that thought of conquering the rest of Spain came to be. It is a similar idea to the Drang nach Osten in Germany, where historic events were a posteriori placed into a framework and then used to call for the furtherance thereof. Or how France has historically attempted to expand into the lands of Gaul.

Or think of El Cid, the great Christian hero, that did service under Moorish Taifa states too. The allegiances were messy, and even intermarriage occurred (by way of which Elizabeth II of Britain can claim descent from Mohammed by the way, as an aside). I think the idea of the Reconquesta only stems from after the 1st Crusade, and built in power over time. The other states tolerated an independant Granada for a long time, for instance, and it was only once Aragon and Castille united that it was thought necessary to 'complete the Reconquesta'.

I don't think there was a concept of 'Spanish' as a people in the 9th century, and James appearance was probably a rally for all Christians - but especially for Asturians, as he had become their royal saint. From there he became Spanish in general later, but portraying it as a 'low point for the Spanish and being saved by their saint' is a bit anachronostic, I feel. Certainly this played a prominent part in the later weaving of the Reconquesta narrative, mind you. It reminds me of how the Germans could 'legitimately', claim that they were retaking their lands in Eastern Europe by quoting Tacitus' Germania, and why the Poles were therefore forced to claim Sarmatian heritage or descent from the Ancient Venetii.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I love history and strive for the true accounts. So thank you, as always, for your scholarship in this. But there is something so prosaic and powerful about the appearance of St. James on a silver armored white horse carrying a gonfalon of a field of stars on the morning of the battle and leading the Asturians to victory. That is the sort of legend that quickens the blood of all men and creates an idea. This victory came at a low point in the Spanish fight for control of Iberia. There was a thought that the Moors were unbeatable in Spain. So the Spanish needed a rallying point and the image of their patron apostle returning from the dead to lead them in battle is certainly worthy of that. Would you say that this event and this idea was the start of the Reconquista (yielding to the Spanish)?

Answering his question about why bring up Islam.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Answering his question about why bring up Islam.

It doesn't answer it in the slightest. This thread is about the possibility that Priscillian might have been buried at Compostela, and the related point that the late Roman martyrium there is unlikely to have been James'. What this has to do with the later expansion of Islam in Iberia is minimal, especially as there was no strong devotion for James in Iberia before the growth of the Asturian royal cult from the 9th onward, when Islam was already in its slow retreat on the peninsula. A related question is why the devotion to James began and took on its role in the Reconquesta narrative, but this is circumferential to the main question of the thread.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It doesn't answer it in the slightest. This thread is about the possibility that Priscillian might have been buried at Compostela, and the related point that the late Roman martyrium there is unlikely to have been James'. What this has to do with the later expansion of Islam in Iberia is minimal, especially as there was no strong devotion for James in Iberia before the growth of the Asturian royal cult from the 9th onward, when Islam was already in its slow retreat on the peninsula. A related question is why the devotion to James began and took on its role in the Reconquesta narrative, but this is circumferential to the main question of the thread.

Well, you're missing something. The fact that all this information is shrouded in the mists of the centuries, with little or no documentation, would have something to do with something that came between here and there.
Look, I'm agreeing with you that it is legend. But so what if it is legend? What is your point?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Well, you're missing something. The fact that all this information is shrouded in the mists of the centuries, with little or no documentation, would have something to do with something that came between here and there.
Look, I'm agreeing with you that it is legend. But so what if it is legend? What is your point?

So the Late Roman Martyrium seems to have been active from the late 4th, early 5th century, till about the 6th. So it is well before Islam arrived. Hispania was overrun by Alans and Vandals, then the Suebi and the Visigoths. The Suebi specifically created a kingdom in Gallaecia, and seeing that they still had synods in the 6th to stamp out Priscillianism, that is part of the reason this is argued. The idea is that Priscillianism survived in Gallaecia as the Arian Suebi ruled after the fall of Rome, and thus Priscillianism tolerated until their own conversion to Orthodoxy. If anything, the Visigothic conquest of the Suebic Kingdom is probably to blame for the abandonment of the martyrium (or perhaps just before, if coupled to that synod at Lugo). By the 9th, it had been abandoned for 2 or 3 centuries. Besides, this part of Spain was never, or only very briefly, occupied by Islam - as the Asturians were too much trouble initially, and the only concerted attempt to conquer them failed at Covadonga.

My point? My point is just that it might have been Priscillian's tomb, which I find interesting and ironic if true. I have no anti-catholic bias here. I have thought of walking the pilgrimage myself one day. When talking of Santiago, no need to go tilting at windmills...

 

[Root of Jesse]

So the Late Roman Martyrium seems to have been active from the late 4th, early 5th century, till about the 6th. So it is well before Islam arrived. Hispania was overrun by Alans and Vandals, then the Suebi and the Visigoths. The Suebi specifically created a kingdom in Gallaecia, and seeing that they still had synods in the 6th to stamp out Priscillianism, that is part of the reason this is argued. The idea is that Priscillianism survived in Gallaecia as the Arian Suebi ruled after the fall of Rome, and thus Priscillianism tolerated until their own conversion to Orthodoxy. If anything, the Visigothic conquest of the Suebic Kingdom is probably to blame for the abandonment of the martyrium (or perhaps just before, if coupled to that synod at Lugo). By the 9th, it had been abandoned for 2 or 3 centuries. Besides, this part of Spain was never, or only very briefly, occupied by Islam - as the Asturians were too much trouble initially, and the only concerted attempt to conquer them failed at Covadonga.

My point? My point is just that it might have been Priscillian's tomb, which I find interesting and ironic if true. I have no anti-catholic bias here. I have thought of walking the pilgrimage myself one day. When talking of Santiago, no need to go tilting at windmills...

I guess my point is that the true person buried in the tomb of "St. James" is obscured because of all those people you mentioned, and yes, not merely Islam. So we don't really know, but even so, we believe it's a legend, certainly not something the Church believes, but something the populace might. I have thought about walking the Via Santiago, myself, but I don't think my knees could take it anymore. I have FLOWN the Way over the Pyrenees and visited the small Basilica from Barcelona, but given to life circumstances, I probably won't be there again. It might be ironic if it was Pricillian, but we might never know.

 

[Bob Crowley]

I followed this conversation without having any prior knowledge of the area, its legends or history. The only Spanish pilgrimage I'm aware of is El Camino de Santiago, and the only reason I became aware of it is because I happened to see the movie "The Way" starring Martin Sheen (which shows my depth of knowledge of Spanish Catholic history...).

But what I'm curious about is if this Pricillian was executed for heresy what would have been the means of execution? I'd assume the method would have some effect on the state of the remains? And why would a heretic end up in what seemed to be a revered Christian burial site?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I followed this conversation without having any prior knowledge of the area, its legends or history. The only Spanish pilgrimage I'm aware of is El Camino de Santiago, and the only reason I became aware of it is because I happened to see the movie "The Way" starring Martin Sheen (which shows my depth of knowledge of Spanish Catholic history...).

But what I'm curious about is if this Pricillian was executed for heresy what would have been the means of execution? I'd assume the method would have some effect on the state of the remains? And why would a heretic end up in what seemed to be a revered Christian burial site?

It is the El Camino we are talking about.

Priscillian was executed by being beheaded with a sword, the same end ascribed to James the Apostle. Priscillian was much revered in Roman Hispania, and Priscillianism lingered long in Gallaecia. The records also report that his followers reverently recovered his body and buried it there (4th to 5th century, perhaps into 6th or 7th).

Subsequently the area falls under the barbarians, nothing more his heard about this, then in the 9th century the Asturians discover the tomb of St James and the pilgrimages begin. Under Santiago de Compostela is found a Roman era martyrium.

So, we have Priscillian, a revered beheaded figure laid to rest in a Christian-style martyrium, in the general area where three centuries later they discover the grave of a beheaded figure ascribed to James. It could simply be that none of the Asturians knew who was buried there, but looking at the nature of the relics and the obvious Christian set-up of the place, and the catchet of having the bones of an Apostle, could easily believe or sell it as that of St. James. This could be especially the case if the discovery was deemed miraculous, as the account of following lights to the hill has it. Why would not a miracle lead to the authentic bones of an Apostle, if they found a beheaded man laid to rest reverently in archaic Christian style?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Is St. James Really Buried in Santiago de Compostela, Spain?

 

[tz620q]

It is the El Camino we are talking about.

Priscillian was executed by being beheaded with a sword, the same end ascribed to James the Apostle. Priscillian was much revered in Roman Hispania, and Priscillianism lingered long in Gallaecia. The records also report that his followers reverently recovered his body and buried it there (4th to 5th century, perhaps into 6th or 7th).

Maybe one day they will DNA sequence the bones and determine the heritage of the relics.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Maybe one day they will DNA sequence the bones and determine the heritage of the relics.

Extracting DNA will partially destroy or at least damage, the relics. I would be highly disappointed in the Catholic Church if they allowed that, as it is irreverent to the dead to exhume them merely to sate our curiosity. Besides, if it comes back that the person came from Spain it wouldn't prove it was Priscillian, rather than some other forgotten saint.

They found the martyrium when they last refurbished the Basilica and high altar back in the late 19th century, but they just did a rudimentary investigation. I am sure if they found something overtly connected to James, they would have poked about a bit more. We can just wait until they must do maintenance again, and then hopefully a more thorough investigation might yield iconography or an inscription.

 

[tz620q]

Extracting DNA will partially destroy or at least damage, the relics. I would be highly disappointed in the Catholic Church if they allowed that, as it is irreverent to the dead to exhume them merely to sate our curiosity. Besides, if it comes back that the person came from Spain it wouldn't prove it was Priscillian, rather than some other forgotten saint.

They found the martyrium when they last refurbished the Basilica and high altar back in the late 19th century, but they just did a rudimentary investigation. I am sure if they found something overtly connected to James, they would have poked about a bit more. We can just wait until they must do maintenance again, and then hopefully a more thorough investigation might yield iconography or an inscription.

I think you are right. This would only happen if there was major controversy about the origin of the relics. A good example of this would be the bones attributed to the Apostle Peter found buried under the altar of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The area was used as a pre-Christian burial site and later by Christians. So there were a lot of bodies buried in this area and some dispute about whether the body directly under the altar was actually Peter.
I am not sure there is enough push to do this for St. James. There was a lot of history that contributed to there being a fair certainty about Peter. So the gamble was not so improbable. For St. James, I think there is a lot more to lose and less to gain by doing this.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think you are right. This would only happen if there was major controversy about the origin of the relics. A good example of this would be the bones attributed to the Apostle Peter found buried under the altar of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The area was used as a pre-Christian burial site and later by Christians. So there were a lot of bodies buried in this area and some dispute about whether the body directly under the altar was actually Peter.
I am not sure there is enough push to do this for St. James. There was a lot of history that contributed to there being a fair certainty about Peter. So the gamble was not so improbable. For St. James, I think there is a lot more to lose and less to gain by doing this.

Regarding Peter, it is said that witnesses followed the executioner to the gravesite and marked it, so the likelihood is more that this is Peter. St. James, easy to not know.

 

[The Liturgist]

This illustrates the difference between Tradition and tradition. This is a legend, which has been in effect since the 800's. But there is no evidence, just the claim of a miracle.
The tradition asserting that James the Greater preached the Gospel in Spain, and that his body was translated to Compostela, claims more serious consideration.

According to this tradition St. James the Greater, having preached Christianity in Spain, returned to Judea and was put to death by order of Herod; his body was miraculously translated to Iria Flavia in the northwest of Spain, and later to Compostela, which town, especially during the Middle Ages, became one of the most famous places of pilgrimage in the world. The vow of making a pilgrimage to Compostela to honour the sepulchre of St. James is still reserved to the pope, who alone of his own or ordinary right can dispense from it. In the twelfth century was founded the Order of Knights of St. James of Compostela.

With regard to the preaching of the Gospel in Spain by St. James the greater, several difficulties have been raised:

• St. James suffered martyrdom A.D. 44 (Acts 12:2), and, according to the tradition of the early Church, he had not yet left Jerusalem at this time (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata VI; Apollonius, quoted by Eusebius, Church History VI.18).
• St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans (A.D. 58) expressed the intention to visit Spain (Romans 15:24) just after he had mentioned (15:20) that he did not "build upon another man's foundation."
• The argument ex silentio: although the tradition that James founded an Apostolic see in Spain was current in the year 700, no certain mention of such tradition is to be found in the genuine writings of early writers nor in the early councils; the first certain mention we find in the ninth century, in Notker, a monk of St. Gall (Martyrol., 25 July), Walafried Strabo (Poema de XII Apost.), and others.
• The tradition was not unanimously admitted afterwards, while numerous scholars reject it. The Bollandists however defended it (see Acta Sanctorum, July, VI and VII, where other sources are given).

The authenticity of the sacred relic of Compostela has been questioned and is still doubted. Even if St. James the Greater did not preach the Christian religion in Spain, his body may have been brought to Compostela, and this was already the opinion of Notker. According to another tradition, the relics of the Apostle are kept in the church of St-Saturnin at Toulouse (France), but it is not improbable that such sacred relics should have been divided between two churches. A strong argument in favour of the authenticity of the sacred relics of Compostela is the Bull of Leo XIII, "Omnipotens Deus," of 1 November, 1884.

Regarding pilgrimages, a pilgrimage is a journey with a purpose. The purpose of each person's trek to Santiago is very personal, but everyone does it with some purpose, as it is an arduous journey from various points. If you go there from Barcelona, there's Monserrat to climb, for one. It is believed that St. James' relics are at home in the minor basilica, at least some of them.

Regarding Priscillian, in researching him, it doesn't look to me like he was a heretic. He was controversial, and many other bishops were opposed to him, but he was executed by the secular government.

Lastly, it should be noted that most of Hispania at the time was being over-run by Islam.

St. Ambrose of Milan was extremely upset about the execution of Priscillian, regarding it as an unlawful intrusion into ecclesiastical affairs by the Empire.

 

[The Liturgist]

I guess my point is that the true person buried in the tomb of "St. James" is obscured because of all those people you mentioned, and yes, not merely Islam. So we don't really know, but even so, we believe it's a legend, certainly not something the Church believes, but something the populace might. I have thought about walking the Via Santiago, myself, but I don't think my knees could take it anymore. I have FLOWN the Way over the Pyrenees and visited the small Basilica from Barcelona, but given to life circumstances, I probably won't be there again. It might be ironic if it was Pricillian, but we might never know.

I would love to visit that basillica myself because of the awesome thurible. Santiago de Compostela has the largest thurible in the world. As someone who loves incense as part of the traditional Christian liturgy, and particularly exciting displays of it (I love the way that some Coptic Orthodox priests fling their thurible 360 degrees, vertically, while censing the altar), it excites me a great deal.