I like how Castelli discussed the differences between history and collective/cultural memory. Collective/cultural memory is what builds history. History is general viewed to be objective, but what we know about the past we know largely through the memories of people- how they experienced it as individuals and as groups. Even as individuals, their perspectives were shaped by the common context in which they lived. As far as religious texts go, the authors were working with specific goals which were shaped by their context. Their writings dealt more with rhetoric and ethics, rather than historical accuracy. So writings on various martyrs would be written with a purpose, or bias. They would be interpreted and used in a way to reconfirm certain believes. Because of this, stories could become embellished, but Castelli says that that's not necessarily a bad thing. Even if the texts aren't objective in a historical sense, they still are meaningful because they speak to the context and believes of those doing the writing. Castelli writes that "One might even go so far as to argue that they did not simply preserve the story of persecution and martyrdom, but, in fact, created it" (25).