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: “Rebillard 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 ‘by 300 there clearly was a genre that both writers and visitors identify as martyr narrative (21)’, a declaration that’s not sustained by any argument.” 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 babel regards to the date of structure associated with the narratives by themselves.

The statements that are tendentious the immediate following:

“Unfortunately, their requirements for selection are arbitrary, as he’s got accepted just ‘isolated, 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). […] 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.”

I actually do maybe perhaps not make use of tendentious gently: your reader of Bremmer’s review cannot from the statements get yourself a reasonable sense of just what I attempted to accomplish.

I cannot accept that my “criteria for selection are arbitrary.” It’s possible to disagree together with them. Nonetheless, they’ve been very carefully explained and defined in the introduction. I dispense with all the presssing problem of authenticity and I also resist dating the texts based on interior elements. We look, therefore, for the attestation that is external the existence of the texts. Bremmer’s question that is rhetorical why would Augustine and Eusebius have mentioned all martyr Acts?” shows that we claim this may be or perhaps is the truth. Nevertheless, I explain quite demonstrably that we just consist of texts which is why Eusebius and Augustine supply a terminus ante quem. This doesn’t assume that no other martyr text was in fact written beyond those mentioned by Eusebius and Augustine, just that individuals do not have evidence that is external those other texts. The Acts of Justin, mentioned by Bremmer, is an example that is good. Bremmer contends that in variation A, which he calls the earliest, “nothing points up to a post- Eusebian age.” Here is the sort of judgement call with that we make an effort to dispense. No agreement could be settled on this kind of basis, since is obvious from the past reputation for scholarship in the Acts of Justin. Having said that, Eusebius, who shows a knowledge that is extensive Justin, just knows the circumstances of his martyrdom through Tatian and will not point out any narrative. This isn’t good proof that variation A is post-Eusebian. It will be the lack of positive, external proof that this variation had been composed before Eusebius leading us to exclude it from my collection.

Once again, it’s possible to disagree utilizing the purchase where the texts in my own edition are published. I would personally argue, but, so it makes great deal of feeling. The texts are presented in alphabetical purchase, after the numberings associated with the Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeca therefore the Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina. All of the collections mentioned by Bremmer at the start of their review list texts within the order that is chronological of executions they report. This kind of presentation operates the possibility of making the audience believe the texts had been composed in the right period of the execution and they may be used to report the “persecutions.” Few historians would accept that’s the instance. The intertextual relations between the texts are noted within the records so your audience will maybe not miss them. Bremmer writes “ Polycarp influenced Pionius.” I suppose the Martyrdom is meant by him of Polycarp influenced The Martyrdom of Pionius. This can be inexact or at debatable that is least: The Martyrdom of Pionius describes the martyrdom of Polycarp, certainly not into the Martyrdom of Polycarp. These distinctions are essential.

I’m perhaps not certain to exactly just just what Bremmer relates as he writes: “It appears consequently perhaps maybe not beneficial to talk about the authenticity associated with previous functions.” This is often my point: the thought of authenticity must be abandoned. But, authenticity must not be mistaken for historic dependability. a reading that is close of introduction will show that we don’t talk about the historic dependability associated with narratives.

The decision I made was to use the best available critical editions, and not to provide randomly emendated texts for the Greek and Latin texts. Bremmer himself repeatedly criticized Musurillo for this type of training inside the Notiunculae that is invaluable martyrologicae. Van Beek (1936) continues to be the edition that is best readily available for the Passion of Perpetua. I suggest in a number of footnotes the way the Greek text can offer interesting readings (305n62, 307n68, 307n74, 309n75313n86, 319n100, 321n106, 321n107). I disagree with Bremmer that we must correct the Latin text using the Greek one.

I thank Bremmer for noting that my guide “is progress compared to earlier in the day editions.” I really do perhaps maybe not need to change them, not really Musurillo. The collection ended up being conceived and commissioned initially as being a “new Musurillo.” We quickly noticed, nevertheless, that if i desired to create something brand new, I needed radically various requirements of selection and company. I am hoping that my reaction shall offer an improved feeling of just exactly what they are than Bremmer’s review and enable your reader to concur or disagree using them.