Plato’s Shadow: The Encroaching Doctrine of the Soul’s Immortality in the Early Church

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author of the study bases his approach on his confessional belief. He tries to prove it with help of concrete biblical and patristic views selected by him. As a result, his article tends to be more confessional and generally popularizing than scientific. He neither succeeds in bringing something new regarding the issue. It is based on a well-known theological controversy of the 20th century between one-phase eschatology, which emphasized the inseparable unity of human person in life and death, and two-phase eschatology, which held the opposite position. In the study, the author offers abbreviated summarizing position of general nature, the width of which does not allow an in-depth scientific exploration. The author's views of the Bible, Plato and selected early church authors are not sufficiently interconnected. They tend to form self-contained abbreviated units, which I see as shortcoming in regard to conditions that any scientific article is supposed to meet. The use of translations of early church authors without stating primary sources detracts from scientific value of the article, moreover, the method of selection of early church authors is not sufficiently justified. The article contains several homiletic expressions (for example, "in his flagship work" 514 etc.), the use of which is not appropriate in any scientific treatise.

Methodologically, I would recommend one of two possible approaches: focusing on biblical analysis and using relevant primary and secondary literature to offer a scientific analysis of the issue with definition and documentation of anything new the author would like to bring, or chosing any individual early church author and offering relevant analysis of his texts from the point of view of the debated topic. 

 

Author Response

Hello and thank you kindly for your review and suggestions! It was an honor to have you review my paper submission. I don't agree with many points of your review, however, I will try to see what suggestions I can apply. My paper is not intended to be scientific since I am a historian and I do not consider history a scientific discipline (I am aware there are various schools of thought on this topic). I also do not approach the topic based on any confessional belief of my own, nor do I wish to assert any confessional belief in the paper, rather simply an historical investigation of the influence of Plato on various early church fathers' views of the soul. My paper is never intended to be a scientific treatise in any way, it is a historical paper. Lastly, this is not a theology paper, therefore, I don't use biblical analysis as a primary method. Your expertise is likely in a different area of the humanities than my own. However, your feedback is enormously appreciated, and I intend to see what I can change in my paper in regard to your thoughtful feedback. I thank you very much for your time and insights here! 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an intriguing argument. The use of Greco-Roman and church historical sources sheds important light on this subject.

It would be good to add John Chrysostom's thoughts to this article. He is a major Eastern thinker and his ideas should be easily accessed through his homilies. The article has Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Augustine who are strong voices from the Western tradition. Origen is a major Eastern voice, but he would not be accepted by some from the Eastern church because of his heretical condemnation. Chrysostom would be on par as an influential church father on the level of Augustine.

He may not deserve a full section, but it would be good to mention him somewhere in this paper. Basil is mentioned briefly. At least a brief reference to Chrysostom would be good.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your review and suggestions! You're pointing out that I could benefit from adding another Eastern Church Father is invaluable and something I clearly overlooked. I will try to add Chrysostom's views to the paper and balance things out. 

Once again, I greatly appreciate the review and feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the paper’s thesis but the author does not show a grasp of the basic issues in the parts in which I am competent (specifically, the Old Testament) and his secondary references are thin and come more from old sources than from recent ones. You could say that the basic need is for the author to explain what he or she means by soul, then to clarify what the OT means by soul, which is different from what it means by nephesh, and to clarify what the NT means by soul, which is different from what it means by psuche, and to make reference to scholarly writing on these subjects over recent decades.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Thank you so much for reviewing my paper submission and for the greatly helpful feedback! It is an honor to have your suggestions. Regarding a precise definition of the soul, I view the Old and New Testament as regarding the soul as the totality of the human being (body, mind, and spirit ruach) Am I too far off to say that the Bible speaks of the soul in this way primarily? I seek your guidance here honestly, since I have often had a difficult time to precisely determine one singular meaning for the soul in the Bible. I have in fact studied this quite thoroughly, yet it presents difficulties that seem to be showing themselves here. I am glad your expertise can help me to recognize a need to sharpen this definition.

I need to more clearly state that I don't believe the Bible asserts that humans have 'souls,' if we are talking about a disembodied aspect of the human person. In other words, I don't think the Bible holds a view on this at all. My paper needs better clarification...I appreciate it. 

Thank you again very much for your time. 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

... the author tried to incorporate comments, so I agree to publish. however, I suggest in the section on Chrysostom that the author does not rely on the article, but on Chrysostom's works...

for the future, I recommend that you also look at the "academia.edu" database, where high-quality studies from other authors are available, which will help you better orientate yourself in how current research on a specific topic is going.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The references are still thin and inclined to be old

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a few slips