The Struggle for Apostolic Authority: The Easter Controversy in the Late Second Century

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I propose to rework the abstract, which should have included the hypothesis as well as the method of proceeding in the work. I also suggest to use current literature, especially regarding primary sources. the article in this form is essentially an overview study, which largely informs about long-known facts from manuals.

Author Response

1.Summary

Thank you sincerely for dedicating your time to reviewing my manuscript. Below, you will find my detailed responses along with the corresponding revisions and corrections, which have been highlighted in the re-submitted files. I appreciate your valuable insights and feedback, and have endeavored to address each point meticulously.

2.Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: I propose to rework the abstract, which should have included the hypothesis as well as the method of proceeding in the work.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your suggestion, and I have incorporated it into the revised abstract: “This paper primarily employs a method of documentary analysis. It analyzes the accounts provided by the fourth-century historian Eusebius of Caesarea in his work The History of the Church. It is also cross-referenced with the works of second-century Christian writers. Through this process, this paper seeks to reconstruct the situation of this Easter controversy. Furthermore, it aims to uncover the contest for apostolic authority concealed beneath the surface of this debate over dates.” (You may find it on the first page of the revised manuscript.)

Comments 2: I also suggest to use current literature, especially regarding primary sources.

Response 2: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. In the submitted manuscript, I did not explicitly outline the primary references utilized. Given the absence of contemporaneous historical sources from the second century regarding the Easter controversy, the material primarily relies on the fourth-century account by Eusebius, who cites a great deal of relevant sources in his writings. To ensure the reliability of Eusebius’ treatise, I have referenced some texts from second-century writers for cross-reference. To enhance clarity in my manuscript, I have added a description in the abstract and included a note of sources: “The primary sources used in this paper include The History of the Church written by Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century, in which he provides a detailed account of the Easter controversy in the second century. To ensure the reliability of the argumentation, I sought works by second-century Christian writers, which were contemporaneous with the Easter controversy, including those of Irenaeus, the martyr Justin, and Tertullian. The texts utilized are English translations published by the Catholic University of America Press, which are more readily accessible and widely used in contemporary academia.” (You may find it on the last page of the revised manuscript.)

Comments 3: the article in this form is essentially an overview study, which largely informs about long-known facts from manuals.

Response 3: Thank you for your thorough evaluation of this manuscript. I recognize that the shortcomings you pointed out are largely attributable to my failure to adequately clarify the hypothesis and methodology, and the use of primary sources in the abstract. I am grateful for your insightful feedback, and I am committed to addressing these deficiencies. With the revision outlined above, I am confident that the manuscript will greatly benefit in terms of clarity and comprehensibility. I recognize the importance of thoroughly reading and citing more contemporary authoritative studies in my next research endeavor. Your guidance is invaluable, and I am appreciative of the opportunity to refine this work under your expertise.

Reviewer 2 Report

the article provides a good reconstruction of a well kmown episode and offers some interesting insights from a theological perspective

Author Response

Comment 1: The article provides a good reconstruction of a well kmown episode and offers some interesting insights from a theological perspective.

Response 1: I want to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review my manuscript. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. Recognizing that this manuscript represents a small case study and acknowledging its areas for improvement, I have made some revisions and corrections, which have been highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Reviewer 3 Report

First of all, I would like to comment on the chosen title. Clearly the study is talking about the Easter Controversy, but at the same time it is also very insistent on the issue of papal authority, in relation to the authority of apostolic succession. Also, I don't think the phrase "created festival" resonates very much with the theological perspective.

Secondly, I would like the author to present in the introduction the confessional perspective from the position from which he presents things. From a non-Catholic perspective, the study places far too much emphasis on papal authority and presents it in accordance with today's confessional concepts. It very nicely connects to the context of Rome and the need for a single authority to demonstrate unity.

Structurally, the study is well proportioned. I felt the need for more authority quotes, but it can stay as it is for now. Fix the layout in lines 90-91.

Author Response

1.Summary

Thank you sincerely for dedicating your time to reviewing my manuscript. Below, you will find my detailed responses along with the corresponding revisions and corrections, which have been highlighted in the re-submitted files. I appreciate your valuable insights and feedback, and have endeavored to address each point meticulously.

2.Point-by-point Response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: First of all, I would like to comment on the chosen title. Clearly the study is talking about the Easter Controversy, but at the same time it is also very insistent on the issue of papal authority, in relation to the authority of apostolic succession. Also, I don't think the phrase "created festival" resonates very much with the theological perspective.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with your suggestion. The main point of my manuscript centers around the discussion of the authority struggle between the two churches. Therefore, I have amended the title of the paper to “The Struggle for Apostolic Authority”. Additionally, I have revised certain passages in the introduction and conclusion of the paper concerning the “created festival”. (You may find it in lines 33-36, 469-470.)

Comments 2: Secondly, I would like the author to present in the introduction the confessional perspective from the position from which he presents things. From a non-Catholic perspective, the study places far too much emphasis on papal authority and presents it in accordance with today's confessional concepts. It very nicely connects to the context of Rome and the need for a single authority to demonstrate unity.

Response 2: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. In fact, I was approaching this paper from a non-Catholic perspective. I am not advocating for the papacy or any particular confessional stance. The primary aim of my paper is to delve into the authority struggles underlying the religious and cultural controversy surrounding the date of Easter. Through this case study, I seek to illuminate the development of Christian theology amidst the backdrop of cultural transformation. As you correctly point out, I failed to articulate this clearly in the introduction to this paper. And I have incorporated it into the revised introduction and conclusion: “It also reflects the theological development of Christianity during this period., which is evident in the arguments presented by both sides of the debate. It illustrates the nascent formation of the papacy and also reflects the development process of apostolic succession…From this, the formation of the papacy may not necessarily have a clear biblical or traditional basis. Rather, it represents a theological concept that emerged within the specific cultural and religious context of the Roman Church.” (You may find it in lines 44-46, 485-487.)

Comments 3: Structurally, the study is well proportioned. I felt the need for more authority quotes, but it can stay as it is for now. Fix the layout in lines 90-91.

Response 3: Your feedback is greatly appreciated. In the submitted manuscript, I did not explicitly outline the primary references utilized. Given the absence of contemporaneous historical sources from the second century regarding the Easter controversy, the material primarily relies on the fourth-century account by Eusebius, who cites a great deal of relevant sources in his writings. To ensure the reliability of Eusebius’ treatise, I have referenced some texts from second-century writers for cross-reference. To enhance clarity in my manuscript, I have added a description in the abstract and included a note of sources. (You may find it on the first and last page of the revised manuscript.) As for more contemporary authoritative studies, I recognize the importance of thoroughly reading and citing more of them in my next research endeavor. About the layout in lines 90-91, I acknowledge that this was an oversight on my part, and I have already requested the editor to fix it in the resubmitted manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

can it be as it is