Origen and Plato on the Superiority and Perfection of the Soul

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

> There are lots of places where the argument could be clearer. 

> Generally, the engagement with scholarship is not quite sufficient, even for a paper of this sort that paints with broad strokes. These are really well studied issues and the citations are relatively slim. Here's one place that's particularly a problem: There is a paragraph on Origen's understanding of the body. This is a fairly superficial discussion and, though it could be improved, it need not be elaborate or long. But I'd or any other scholar, I presume, would expect to see the writer demonstrate that he/she has read about and him/herself understood the issues, by citing some of the relevant scholarship, and there is lots on Origen's understanding of the body. And that's a MINOR issue in the paper. It's dealing with Plato and Origen on the soul. There is tons of published stuff relevant to this. The engagement with scholarship need not be exhaustive, but as of now it's a bit too arbitrarily selective and much of it needs to be made more explicit, not just in parenthetical references but in discussion in the body of the text or in footnotes. 

> I'd like to see more careful thought about how to present the similarities between Plato's myth of the soul's origin and Origen's theology/mythology. There are lots of nuanced similarities the author more gestures at than works hard to establish. But that kind of DETAILED point-by-point comparison would be where this article could be most helpful. As it stands, it paints in somewhat broad strokes a picture largely familiar to many readers. It reads like a good grad student paper more than a piece of original research and we need it to move to the latter category. This could be how. (Also required would be more careful reference to original languages.)

> The above is related to a broader problem. The paper reads like an exercise in comparison. I can see the author is trying to understand convergences, and this could be useful in his/her own teaching, for example. But for scholarly publication we need something more: a specific focus, a new insight, a clearer way or presenting or understanding a particular issue, a more discrete line of inquiry and analysis. The paper is very broad and, it seems to me, covers quite familiar ground, and doesn't get much further than introducing a subject that for many readers really needs no introduction, but instead needs analytical insight. I'd recommend picking a particular issue relevant to the broader topic, delving into it deeply, really working with relevant scholarship, reading the original texts in the original languages and figuring out where that provides useful insight, and presenting a more focused argument with more originality and a clear sense of what it has to say that's important. 

In the attached pdf, which has tons of comments. I focus on the first 6 pages or so. I don't include comments after that, relying on the author to continue revising in the same light if he/she wants to rework the paper into something else. Revision would not be just fixing discrete problems, but rethinking the article in terms of engagement with scholarship and how to present its findings and what findings to present. However, it may be that my line by line feedback is helpful, so I offer it for pages 1-6.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Lots of minor errors of syntax and diction that distract and in some cases impeed comprehension. 

Author Response

Comment 1: “There are lots of places where the argument could be clearer.”

Response 1:
I have reviewed the manuscript to improve the clarity of my arguments. Specific revisions include:

• Simplifying complex sentences to ensure better readability and logical flow.
• Providing additional explanations for key comparisons between Origen and Plato, particularly on the soul-body relationship and the tripartite division of the soul.
• Restructuring the introduction and conclusion to provide a more focused thesis and highlight the central contributions of the article.

Comment 2: “The engagement with scholarship is not quite sufficient, even for a paper of this sort that paints with broad strokes.”

Response 2:
The manuscript now includes a deeper engagement with existing scholarship. For instance:

• I have cited additional works by I. Ramelli, M.J. Edwards, P. Martens, and B. Blosser to provide a more comprehensive view of the key debates on Origen and Plato.
• A more nuanced discussion of secondary sources on Origen’s understanding of the body and resurrection has been added in the relevant section.
• Footnotes have been expanded to include commentary on specific scholarly perspectives.

Comment 3: “There is a paragraph on Origen's understanding of the body. This is a fairly superficial discussion and, though it could be improved, it need not be elaborate or long. But I'd or any other scholar, I presume, would expect to see the writer demonstrate that he/she has read about and him/herself understood the issues, by citing some of the relevant scholarship, and there is lots on Origen's understanding of the body.”

Response 3:
The section on Origen’s understanding of the body has been revised to address this concern. Changes include:

• Citing key works such as Blosser’s “Become Like the Angels”and M. Edwards’ “Origen Against Plato”, which discuss Origen’s views on the body and resurrection.
• Clarifying how Origen distinguishes between the body as a medium for virtue and as an occasion for sin, emphasizing the role of divine grace in transforming the body’s nature.

Comment 4: “I'd like to see more careful thought about how to present the similarities between Plato's myth of the soul's origin and Origen's theology/mythology. There are lots of nuanced similarities the author more gestures at than works hard to establish. But that kind of DETAILED point-by-point comparison would be where this article could be most helpful.”

Response 4:
I have significantly expanded the discussion on the similarities and differences between Plato’s myth of the soul’s origin and Origen’s theology. Specific additions include:

• A detailed point-by-point comparison of Plato’s Timaeusand Phaedrus with Origen’s On First Principles and Contra Celsum.
• An analysis of how Origen reinterprets Plato’s cosmic soul as the Holy Spirit and aligns the soul’s fall and redemption with Christian eschatology.
• Additional references to passages in the original Greek and Latin texts to support these comparisons.

Comment 5: “The paper reads like an exercise in comparison...for scholarly publication we need something more: a specific focus, a new insight, a clearer way of presenting or understanding a particular issue, a more discrete line of inquiry and analysis.”

Response 5:
The manuscript has been revised to sharpen its focus and highlight its original contributions. Key changes include:

• Narrowing the scope to focus specifically on the theological implications of Origen’s reinterpretation of Platonic ideas, particularly on the soul’s intermediary nature and its path to perfection.
• Clearly articulating the central argument that Origen bridges Platonic philosophy and early Christian theology to provide a unique synthesis, neither fully Platonic nor anti-Platonic.
• Strengthening the conclusion to summarize the new insights offered by the article.

Comment 6: “Revision would not be just fixing discrete problems, but rethinking the article in terms of engagement with scholarship and how to present its findings and what findings to present.”

Response 6:
I have restructured the article to reflect a more cohesive and scholarly presentation of findings. This includes:

• A clearer methodological framework in the introduction, outlining how the comparison between Origen and Plato is conducted and its significance.
• A more balanced integration of primary texts and secondary scholarship, with explicit references to the original languages where relevant.
• Highlighting specific analytical insights, such as Origen’s adaptation of Plato’s tripartite division of the soul to align with Christian doctrines of sin and grace.

I hope these revisions adequately address the reviewer’s concerns and enhance the manuscript’s clarity, depth, and scholarly contribution. Thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit. I look forward to your feedback and am happy to make further improvements if necessary.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article entitled Soul, Knowledge and Allegorical Exegesis: Origen’s Platonism explores in three parts Origen’s philosophy and theology, mainly his relation to platonism, and the way he integrated selected Plato’s concepts into Christian theology. The study is skilfully divided into three parts: introduction, the concept of soul and body, knowledge and virtue, allegorical exegesis and dual teaching and conclusion. It is actually a comparative study, in which the author compares what of Plato‘s view influenced Origen. In the first part the author writes that Origen‘s perception of soul and body is based on Platon‘s theory, while at the same time Origen adopts the concept of three parts of man – spirit, soul and body. He considers soul to be an intermediary element between spirit and body with tendency to succumb to body, however, with possibility of turning to spirit. In the second part, Origen agrees with Plato’s opinion that virtue is associated with knowledge, but emphasizes that true knowledge and virtue are not a mere result of human effort, they come through God’s mercy. While Plato holds that virtue is a natural result of education and philosophical search for truth, Origen states that human knowledge must be supplemented with mercy in order to achieve perfection and true knowledge of God. In the third part – according to the author – Origen affirms that Scripture contains three layers of meaning – body (literal), soul (moral) and spirit (spiritual), whereby the deepest meaning is approachable only by those who are willing to seaarch for and understand hidden truths. This approach is similar to Plato’s technique of hiding the truth behind myths and symbols, dedicated to the elite pihilosophers.

The author uses appropriate and current literary sources. I suggest he could rewrite the abstract that should clearly state it is a comparative study. One of the main shortcomings od the article is the absence of clarification why the author selected these concrete topics – soul, body, knowledge, virtue and allegorical exegesis – for comparation between Origen and Plato. There is missing any methodological explanation that would demonstrate why these topics are revevant for comparation of their philosophical-theological approaches and why other aspect, e. g. Origen’s approach to creation, sin or salvation have not been included: i. e. what he wants to do, how he wants to do it and why he wants or does not want to do it in his study.

Lack of explanation of the author’s choce can provoke the impression of a selective approach based more on personal preferences of the author than on clearly defined criteria or scientific methodology. This problem weakens an overall credibility and system of the work. I suggest that author explicitly states according to which criteria he selected the analysed topics. He should underline their significance for Origen’s theology and their potential to point to crucial differences or parallels with Plato. Such a substantiation would at the same time help widen the discussion about the topics that might have been overlooked but are equally important for understanding of Origen’s work. The abstract altered this way should appear in the conclusion of the study as well, where the author should mention whether he succeeded in reaching his aim as he defined it in the introduction to his study. Within the framework of methodology I suggest to integrate also a brief historical and contextual background of the study. Historical context of Origen’s thoughts, mainly their impact on early Christian community and his controversies in the environment of the Church, is omitted. This shortcoming weakens the ability of the article to show how Origen’s teaching really influenced Christian doctrine and theology. There are also several typing errors in the study that need to be corrected, e. g.: „Oligine deeply agrees“ instead of correct „Origen deeply agrees“; „Chalmides“ instead of correct „Charmides“; „it may inserts these elements“ should be „insert these elements“... After the changes are made, I suggest the study should be published. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are also several typing errors in the study that need to be corrected, e. g.: „Oligine deeply agrees“ instead of correct „Origen deeply agrees“; „Chalmides“ instead of correct „Charmides“; „it may inserts these elements“ should be „insert these elements“... 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise my manuscript, “Soul, Knowledge, and Allegorical Exegesis: Origen’s Platonism”. I am grateful for the thoughtful and constructive feedback provided by the reviewer. Below, I outline the revisions made in response to the comments, addressing each point systematically.

Reviewer’s Comments and Author’s Responses

Comment 1: “The abstract should clearly state it is a comparative study.”

Response 1:

The abstract has been rewritten to explicitly state that this is a comparative study examining Origen’s engagement with Plato’s ideas. The revised abstract emphasizes the focus on how Origen adapted and transformed Platonic concepts within Christian theology and highlights the specific topics analyzed, such as the soul, body, knowledge, virtue, and allegorical exegesis.

 

Comment 2: “The absence of clarification why the author selected these concrete topics for comparison between Origen and Plato (soul, body, knowledge, virtue, and allegorical exegesis).”

Response 2:

I have added a methodological explanation in the introduction to justify the selection of these topics. The revised section:

Explains the relevance of these topics to both Origen’s theological framework and Plato’s philosophical system.

Demonstrates their centrality to understanding the parallels and divergences between Origen’s Christian theology and Platonic philosophy.

Acknowledges other potential topics, such as Origen’s approach to creation, sin, and salvation, and briefly explains why these were not included in this study to maintain focus and depth.

 

Comment 3: “Lack of explanation of the author’s choice can provoke the impression of a selective approach based on personal preferences rather than on clearly defined criteria or scientific methodology.”

Response 3:

To address this concern, I have explicitly stated the criteria used to select the analyzed topics. These criteria include:

The central role of these themes in both Origen’s and Plato’s works.

Their relevance to broader theological and philosophical debates in early Christian and Greco-Roman contexts.

Their potential to illuminate crucial differences and parallels between Origen and Plato.

This explanation has been integrated into the introduction and conclusion to strengthen the methodological transparency and overall coherence of the article.

 

Comment 4: “The abstract altered this way should appear in the conclusion of the study, where the author should mention whether he succeeded in reaching his aim as defined in the introduction.”

Response 4:

The conclusion has been revised to align with the updated abstract and introduction. It now explicitly evaluates the extent to which the study achieved its aim of providing a nuanced understanding of Origen’s synthesis of Platonic philosophy and Christian theology. The conclusion also reflects on the implications of the findings for the broader scholarly discourse on Origen’s Platonism.

 

Comment 5: “Historical and contextual background is omitted, particularly the historical context of Origen’s thoughts, their impact on the early Christian community, and controversies within the Church.”

Response 5:

I have added a brief historical and contextual background to the introduction and relevant sections of the manuscript. This background includes:

A discussion of Origen’s education in Alexandria under Clement of Alexandria and his exposure to Greek philosophy.

An outline of Origen’s role in addressing heresies such as Gnosticism and Marcionism and his influence on early Christian theology.

A mention of the controversies surrounding Origen’s teachings and their reception within the early Church.

 

Comment 6: “There are several typing errors in the study that need to be corrected, e.g., ‘Oligine deeply agrees’ should be ‘Origen deeply agrees,’ ‘Chalmides’ instead of ‘Charmides,’ etc.”

Response 6:

The manuscript has been thoroughly proofread to correct typographical errors and improve overall readability. Specific corrections include:

Replacing “Oligine deeply agrees” with “Origen deeply agrees.”

Correcting “Chalmides” to “Charmides.”

Revising “it may inserts these elements” to “insert these elements.”

 

Additionally, the manuscript has been reviewed for consistency in terminology and formatting.

I am grateful for the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which has greatly improved the clarity, coherence, and scholarly rigor of the manuscript. I hope these revisions address the concerns raised and that the revised manuscript will now meet the journal’s standards. I look forward to your feedback and am happy to make further improvements if needed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Origen said that man is composed of soul (ψυχή), body (σῶμα) and the spirit 49 (πνεῦμα). Insert "α" at the end of "πνεῦμ" on p. 2. This is an egregious spelling mistake!

Author Response

Thank you for pointing out this mistake. I sincerely apologize for the oversight in spelling "πνεῦμα" on page 2. I will correct this error immediately in the revised version of the manuscript to ensure accuracy and consistency. I appreciate your careful attention to detail and your feedback.