Reaction: Rebillard on Bremmer on Rebillard, Greek and Latin Narratives in regards to the Ancient Martyrs

Reaction: Rebillard on Bremmer on Rebillard, Greek and Latin Narratives in regards to the Ancient Martyrs

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 radiometric dating of an igneous rock provides _____.

The statement that is erroneous the immediate following: “Rebillard has just eleven texts (in every instances, we have actually counted the many texts about the exact same martyr(s) as you Act), all dating from before 260, as ‘by 300 there was a genre that both writers and visitors identify as martyr narrative (21)’, a declaration that isn’t sustained by any argument.” I really do maybe not contend that the texts that I selected for book date from before 260. Alternatively, the declaration excerpted by Bremmer from p. 21 describes why We selected just narratives about Christians executed before 260. It states nothing concerning the date of structure regarding the narratives by themselves.

The tendentious statements are the immediate following:

“Unfortunately, their requirements for selection are arbitrary, as he’s got accepted only ‘isolated, or narratives that are stand-alone about one or a few martyrs, whoever presence is guaranteed in full by way of a mention by Eusebius or Augustine (21-22). […] And why would Augustine and Eusebius have actually mentioned all martyr Acts? but not just the choice is arbitrary; your order of book too makes no feeling.”

I actually do perhaps perhaps not make use of tendentious gently: your reader of Bremmer’s review cannot from all of these statements obtain a reasonable feeling of exactly what We attempted to accomplish.

We cannot accept that my “criteria for have a glimpse at this weblink selection are arbitrary.” One could disagree using them. Nonetheless, they’ve been very very very carefully defined and explained in the introduction.