I must point out one erroneous and at least two tendentious statements that misrepresent my work though I am grateful to Jan Bremmer for his review.
The erroneous declaration is the immediate following: вЂњRebillard has just eleven texts (in most situations, We have counted the many texts concerning the exact same martyr(s) as you Act), all dating from before 260, as вЂby 300 there clearly was a genre that both writers and visitors identify as martyr narrative (21)вЂ™, a declaration that’s not sustained by any argument.вЂќ I really do perhaps perhaps not contend that the texts that I selected for book date from before 260. Rather, the declaration excerpted by Bremmer from p. 21 describes why We selected just narratives about Christians executed before 260. It claims absolutely absolutely nothing in regards to the date of structure associated with the narratives by themselves.
The statements that are tendentious the immediate following:
вЂњUnfortunately, their requirements for selection are arbitrary, as he’s got accepted just вЂisolated, or narratives that are stand-alone about one or several martyrs, whoever presence is guaranteed in full by a mention by Eusebius or Augustine (21-22). [вЂ¦] And why would Augustine and Eusebius have actually mentioned all martyr Acts? But not only the choice is arbitrary; your order of book too makes no feeling.вЂќ
I actually do maybe perhaps not make use of tendentious gently: your reader of BremmerвЂ™s review cannot from the statements get yourself a reasonable sense of just what I attempted to accomplish.