A Study of Korean Christianity from the Perspective of Chinese Religious Studies: Historical Evolution, Contributions, and Future Prospects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is a literature review primarily discussing the achievements and shortcomings of Chinese scholars' research on Korean Christianity in recent years, along with future prospects. Therefore, its main contribution lies in presenting the current state of Chinese scholarship on Korean Christianity, aiding readers in understanding the progress made within the Chinese academic community regarding this field. The study finds that in-depth interpretations of mechanisms underlying the indigenization of foreign religions, nuanced examinations of the complex interplay between religion and socio-cultural dynamics, and the construction of theoretical models for cross-cultural religious transmission also hold significant academic value.

1. This paper is a literature review, seemingly part of a thesis. Consequently, its focus lies in organizing existing research findings, with notable deficiencies in argumentation, conceptualization, and theoretical development.

2. Sections 1 and 2 provide background information that is largely irrelevant to the main body of the paper. Readers interested in this topic are likely already familiar with the relevant context; therefore, deletion is recommended.

3. Section 3 (erroneously labeled as Section 2 by the author) constitutes the core of the paper due to its extensive literature review. It is recommended to divide this section into distinct subsections while ensuring internal logical coherence.

4. The author has omitted several significant studies on Korean Christianity. Further supplementation is advised, including research by Professor Shu Jian of Shanghai University and the master's thesis supervised by him. Professor Shu Jian's work is titled The Cross and the Taegeukgi.

5. On page 2, the statement “Christianity was first introduced to China during the Tang dynasty in 635 CE, when Nestorian missionaries—most notably Alopen from Syria—arrived in Chang’an” is highly inaccurate. The term “Nestorian missionaries” should be replaced with “Eastern Church” or “Syrian Church.”

6. On page 3, “The Twelve Articles of Christianity”—what is the title of this work? The Chinese title should be specified.

7. Xu Zhengmin and Zhu Haiyan are scholars based in Japan and do not fundamentally belong to the category of Chinese religious studies scholars. Therefore, is it appropriate to include these two individuals within the scope of this paper's discussion?

8. The author frequently cites papers by scholars such as Zhang Zhigang but lacks necessary commentary. Are these scholars' investigations and critiques of Korean Christianity appropriate? Do they align with historical facts? What is the evaluation of their research findings within Korean and international academic circles? These points require further discussion.

9. In reality, Chinese scholars' attention toward Korean Christianity is declining. This trend aligns with the broader trajectory of Chinese religious studies and Christian research. Meanwhile, government religious management departments, state security agencies, and think tanks are increasing their focus on Korean Christianity, creating a divergence from scholarly research. Evaluating this shift and projecting the future of Chinese scholarship on Korean Christianity warrants discussion.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors 

This paper is a literature review primarily discussing the achievements and shortcomings of Chinese scholars' research on Korean Christianity in recent years, along with future prospects. Therefore, its main contribution lies in presenting the current state of Chinese scholarship on Korean Christianity, aiding readers in understanding the progress made within the Chinese academic community regarding this field. The study finds that in-depth interpretations of mechanisms underlying the indigenization of foreign religions, nuanced examinations of the complex interplay between religion and socio-cultural dynamics, and the construction of theoretical models for cross-cultural religious transmission also hold significant academic value.

1. This paper is a literature review, seemingly part of a thesis. Consequently, its focus lies in organizing existing research findings, with notable deficiencies in argumentation, conceptualization, and theoretical development.

   Response to Reviewer's Comments ：

   Thank you for your constructive criticism regarding the need to strengthen the paper's argumentation, conceptualization, and theoretical development. We have undertaken substantial revisions to address your concerns and transform the manuscript from a descriptive literature review into a study with clear theoretical contributions.

   Addressing Theoretical Development

   In response to your observation about theoretical deficiencies, we have explicitly articulated three distinct theoretical contributions in the revised introduction (Section 1):

   First, we have constructed a comprehensive theoretical model for cross-cultural religious transmission from the unique perspective of Chinese religious studies. This model integrates indigenous Chinese analytical frameworks with contemporary diffusion theories to elucidate how foreign religions navigate cultural negotiation, resistance, and accommodation in receiving societies, particularly within East Asian contexts where Confucian cultural substrates shape religious reception.

   Second, we have developed an innovative interpretive framework for understanding religious indigenization mechanisms that moves beyond surface-level adaptations. This framework reveals how Korean Christianity achieved successful indigenization through fundamental realignment with Korean cultural codes, nationalist aspirations, and indigenous religious sensibilities, rather than mere doctrinal adjustments.

   Third, we have advanced a sophisticated methodology for East Asian comparative religious studies that synthesizes historical analysis, sociological inquiry, and phenomenological investigation, enabling more nuanced comparisons between Chinese and Korean religious developments.

   Strengthening Conceptualization

   The revised manuscript significantly enhances conceptual development through several additions:

   In Section 3.1, we have added detailed analyses of representative scholars' academic trajectories, demonstrating how institutional contexts, disciplinary traditions, and methodological orientations shape research paradigms in Chinese scholarship on Korean Christianity.

   In Section 4, we have incorporated critical discussions of divergent scholarly assessments, such as the contrasting perspectives between Su Hang's optimistic characterization of "Korean-style Christianity" and Zhang Yinge's more critical stance. This theoretical debate illuminates deeper tensions within Chinese religious studies regarding criteria for evaluating successful religious localization.

   Improving Argumentation Structure

   We have restructured the paper to create a clear argumentative progression from empirical observation to theoretical construction:

   Section 2 now provides not merely historical background but a structural analytical framework for understanding divergent Christian development trajectories in China and Korea.

   Section 3 demonstrates how each research phase progressively deepened theoretical understanding, showing the evolution from descriptive accounts to analytical frameworks.

   Section 4 systematically extracts theoretical insights from the accumulated scholarship, identifying patterns that challenge Western-centric secularization theories.

   Section 5 proposes future research directions that directly build upon the theoretical foundations established in previous sections.

   Adding Critical Reflexivity

   The revision incorporates substantial critical reflection on the limitations and biases within Chinese scholarship. For instance, we now acknowledge how Chinese scholars' emphasis on Korean Christianity's anti-colonial role often overlooks historical instances of accommodation with colonial authorities, revealing how contemporary anxieties about religion-state relations shape historical interpretation (Section 4).

   We have also acknowledged methodological constraints, including the predominant reliance on Chinese-language sources and limited access to Korean primary materials, which may affect the comprehensiveness of certain analyses.

   Moving Beyond Literature Review

   The revised manuscript transcends conventional literature review through several mechanisms:

   By revealing how Chinese religious studies perspectives challenge Western-centric theories of secularization and religious modernization, offering alternative theoretical models grounded in East Asian empirical realities.

   Through comparative analysis that constructs new frameworks for understanding religious transformation in non-Western contexts.

   By contributing theoretical innovations that emerge from, rather than merely describe, the Chinese scholarly tradition.

   The placement of theoretical contributions at the beginning of the paper, rather than as conclusions, demonstrates that this study uses literature analysis as a means to develop theory, not as an end in itself.

   We believe these revisions comprehensively address your concerns and establish the manuscript as a substantive theoretical contribution to the field of religious studies. The paper now offers not only a systematic review of Chinese scholarship but also original theoretical frameworks that advance our understanding of religious transformation in East Asian contexts.

   Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has significantly strengthened the manuscript. We look forward to your further comments.

2. Sections 1 and 2 provide background information that is largely irrelevant to the main body of the paper. Readers interested in this topic are likely already familiar with the relevant context; therefore, deletion is recommended.

   Response to Reviewer's Comments：

   We appreciate the reviewer's observation regarding Sections 1 and 2. We have carefully considered the suggestion and made the following minimal adjustments to address this concern while preserving the paper's structural integrity:

   • We have added a footnote to the first section heading that serves as a brief advisory note, indicating that readers familiar with the topic may proceed directly to the analytical sections (Section 3 onwards). This footnote approach maintains the formal academic structure while providing necessary guidance.
   • We have revised the section headings to more clearly indicate their contextual nature rather than analytical content:
   •      Section 1 has been retitled from "Introduction" to "Introduction and Contextual         Framework"
   •      Section 2 has been retitled from "The Transmission of Christianity in China and Korea: A Brief Review and Comparison" to "Historical Background: Essential Context for Comparative Analysis"
   • We have added a transitional sentence at the end of Section 2 to clearly demarcate the shift from contextual background to core analysis.
   • We believe retaining these sections, albeit with clearer framing, serves important functions:
   •        Provides necessary methodological positioning for international readers
   •        Establishes the specific theoretical lens of Chinese religious studies
   •       Ensures the paper remains accessible to scholars from diverse backgrounds

   These modifications acknowledge that specialized readers may find the background familiar while maintaining the scholarly completeness expected in academic publication. The footnote approach represents a standard academic convention that effectively balances reader guidance with maintaining the paper's formal structure and integrity.

3. Section 3 (erroneously labeled as Section 2 by the author) constitutes the core of the paper due to its extensive literature review. It is recommended to divide this section into distinct subsections while ensuring internal logical coherence.

   Response to Reviewer's Comments：

   Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the structure of Section 2 (we apologize for the numbering error and will correct it to Section 3 in the revised manuscript). We fully agree that this section, containing the extensive literature review, would benefit from clearer subdivision. We have restructured this section as follows:

   Revised Structure:

   Section 2: The Evolution and Development of Korean Christianity Research in Chinese Academia

   3.1 Historical Phases of Research Development

     3.1.1 Exploratory Period (1970s-1990s)

   3.1.2 Phase of Deepening Analysis (2000-2010)

   3.1.3 Stage of Diversified Perspectives (2010-present)

   3.2 Core Research Themes and Contributions

   3.2.1 Historical Development and Transmission Studies

   3.2.2 Indigenization and Cultural Adaptation

   3.2.3 Social Transformation and Political Movements

    3.2.4 Sino-Korean Christian Exchanges

   3.3 Methodological Evolution and Current Limitations

   Rationale and Additional Improvements:

   1. Logical progression: The new structure follows a clear analytical framework—from chronological development (3.1) to thematic analysis (3.2) to methodological reflection (3.3), ensuring the internal coherence you recommended.
   2. Enhanced clarity: Each subsection now has a specific focus with clear introductory statements, making it easier for readers to navigate the extensive literature review.
   3. Temporal consistency: We have carefully reviewed all citations to ensure that references align appropriately with the historical periods discussed. When using retrospective analyses, we now explicitly indicate this (e.g., "As later observed by Li Zaixin and Wang Deshuo in their 2020 retrospective analysis...").
   4. Smooth transitions: We have added transitional sentences between subsections to maintain narrative flow while preserving the distinct focus of each section.
   5. Balanced coverage: The restructuring ensures that each major aspect of Chinese scholarship on Korean Christianity receives appropriate attention and analysis.

   These modifications maintain the comprehensive nature of our literature review while significantly improving its organization and readability. The clearer structure now better demonstrates the evolution of Chinese scholarship in this field and makes our analysis more accessible to international readers.

4. The author has omitted several significant studies on Korean Christianity. Further supplementation is advised, including research by Professor Shu Jian of Shanghai University and the master's thesis supervised by him. Professor Shu Jian's work is titled The Cross and the Taegeukgi.

   Response to Reviewer's Comments：

   Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have carefully searched for Professor Shu Jian of Shanghai University and his work "The Cross and the Taegeukgi" as mentioned by the reviewer. However, after multiple searches (including CNKI, Shanghai University's official website, and other relevant academic databases), we were unable to locate the relevant materials. Therefore, I contacted Professor Shu Jian directly. According to Professor Shu, this manuscript is his postdoctoral research report. While a contract has been signed with a publisher, the book has not yet been published due to unforeseen circumstances. Given this situation, this book cannot be cited in the present paper.

   Additionally, we found a paper by Professor Shu Jian on CNKI titled "Multi-perspective Observation: New Changes in Religious Exchange between the Yuan Dynasty and Goryeo," which covers the period of the 13th-14th centuries. This does not align with our study of Korean Christianity (from the late 18th century onwards) in terms of both time period and research subject, and therefore cannot be incorporated into this paper.

5. On page 2, the statement “Christianity was first introduced to China during the Tang dynasty in 635 CE, when Nestorian missionaries—most notably Alopen from Syria—arrived in Chang’an” is highly inaccurate. The term “Nestorian missionaries” should be replaced with “Eastern Church” or “Syrian Church.”

   Response to Reviewer's Comments：

   Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We fully agree with your correction regarding the terminology used on page 3.

   We have revised the text from:

    "Christianity was first introduced to China during the Tang dynasty in 635 CE, when Nestorian missionaries—most notably Alopen from Syria—arrived in Chang'an"

   To: "Christianity was first introduced to China during the Tang dynasty in 635 CE, when missionaries from the Eastern Church—most notably Alopen from Syria—arrived in Chang'an"

   We appreciate this important correction. The term "Nestorian" is indeed a historically disputed external designation that the Church of the East never accepted. Modern scholarship has moved away from this terminology in favor of more neutral and accurate terms such as "Eastern Church" or "Church of the East," which better reflect the historical reality of these missionaries' ecclesiastical tradition. This revision aligns our manuscript with current academic standards in religious and church history studies. Thank you for helping us improve the accuracy and scholarly rigor of our work.

6. On page 3, “The Twelve Articles of Christianity”—what is the title of this work? The Chinese title should be specified.

   Response to Reviewer's Comments：

   Thank you for raising this important question about "The Twelve Articles of Christianity" mentioned on page 3.

   After careful consideration, we have decided to revise this passage to ensure greater historical accuracy. We will modify the text from:

   "Heo Gyun, a renowned Korean literatus who visited Ming China on a diplomatic mission, toured Catholic churches in Beijing and brought back texts such as The Twelve Articles of Christianity, playing a pivotal role in the early transmission of Catholicism to Korea"

   To:

   "Heo Gyun, a renowned Korean literatus who visited Ming China on a diplomatic mission, toured Catholic churches in Beijing and brought back Catholic doctrinal texts and catechisms, playing a pivotal role in the early transmission of Catholicism to Korea"

   This revision provides a more accurate description of the historical record. While it is well-documented that Heo Gyun brought Catholic texts from Beijing to Korea, the specific English title "The Twelve Articles of Christianity" cannot be definitively matched to a particular Chinese work without further verification. The revised wording maintains the historical accuracy of Heo Gyun's role in transmitting Catholic literature to Korea while avoiding potentially imprecise references to specific titles.

7. Xu Zhengmin and Zhu Haiyan are scholars based in Japan and do not fundamentally belong to the category of Chinese religious studies scholars. Therefore, is it appropriate to include these two individuals within the scope of this paper's discussion?

   Response to Reviewer's Comments：

   Thank you for raising this important methodological question about the scope of our study regarding Xu Zhengmin and Zhu Haiyan.

   You correctly point out that these scholars are based at Japanese institutions, which requires clarification regarding their inclusion in a study of "Chinese religious studies scholarship." We acknowledge this important issue and will revise the manuscript to address it transparently.

   We have decided to retain their work in our analysis while adding necessary clarification. Our revisions will include:

   1. Adding a footnote at the first citation (page 5, lines 234-237) explaining that while Xu Zhengmin and Zhu Haiyan are based at Japanese institutions, they are included because they: (1) publish primarily in Chinese-language academic journals, (2) are active participants in Chinese scholarly discourse on Korean Christianity, and (3) represent the transnational nature of contemporary Chinese-language religious scholarship where institutional location does not necessarily determine scholarly community membership.
   2. Adding a methodological clarification in the Introduction section (after line 71) stating that our study adopts an inclusive approach to defining "Chinese religious studies scholarship," encompassing not only scholars in mainland Chinese institutions but also those who, while working abroad, remain integral participants in Chinese-language academic discourse.

   These revisions acknowledge the increasingly transnational nature of contemporary scholarship while maintaining analytical clarity by explicitly distinguishing between scholars based in mainland China and those contributing from overseas positions.

8. The author frequently cites papers by scholars such as Zhang Zhigang but lacks necessary commentary. Are these scholars' investigations and critiques of Korean Christianity appropriate? Do they align with historical facts? What is the evaluation of their research findings within Korean and international academic circles? These points require further discussion.

   Response to Reviewer's Comments：

   Thank you for raising this important point about the need for critical commentary on cited scholarship. You are correct that our manuscript would benefit from more substantive engagement with the sources referenced.

   We will address this concern through the following targeted revisions:

   1. Adding brief critical assessments after key citations:

   For Zhang Zhigang (2012: 37): We will add "While Zhang's call for quantitative methods marks an important methodological advancement, its practical implementation in Chinese scholarship remains limited." (page 11, lines 504-506)

   For Xu Zhixiao (2001: 33): We will add "This cultural determinism framework has been influential, though recent scholarship suggests the need to consider additional factors such as transnational networks and local agency."  (page6, lines 268-270)

   For Su Hang (2012: 4): We will add "Su's analysis provides valuable insights into indigenization processes, though it would benefit from more engagement with contemporary Korean theological discourse."  (page7, lines 295-296)

   For Wang Xiaochao (2011: 113): We will add "Wang's comparative framework offers useful insights, though his analysis would be strengthened by incorporating recent Korean scholarship on church-state relations."  (page8, lines 367-369)

    

   2. Adding a comprehensive methodological assessment paragraph( (page11, lines 518-524):

   At the end of Section 4 ("Contributions and Reflections"), we will add:

   "It should be acknowledged that Chinese scholarship on Korean Christianity faces certain methodological constraints. The predominant reliance on Chinese-language sources and limited access to Korean primary materials may affect the comprehensiveness of some analyses. Moreover, the reception of Chinese interpretations within Korean and international academic communities remains underexamined. Future research should engage more critically with primary sources and international scholarship to enhance analytical rigor and cross-cultural dialogue."

   These targeted additions provide the critical distance needed while maintaining the flow of the manuscript. Each assessment briefly evaluates the strengths and limitations of the cited work, addresses questions of historical accuracy and methodological soundness, and acknowledges the need for greater engagement with Korean and international scholarship. Thank you for this valuable feedback, which will strengthen the analytical rigor of our study.

9. In reality, Chinese scholars' attention toward Korean Christianity is declining. This trend aligns with the broader trajectory of Chinese religious studies and Christian research. Meanwhile, government religious management departments, state security agencies, and think tanks are increasing their focus on Korean Christianity, creating a divergence from scholarly research. Evaluating this shift and projecting the future of Chinese scholarship on Korean Christianity warrants discussion.

   Response to Reviewer's Comments：

   Thank you for raising this important observation about the shifting landscape of Korean Christianity studies in China.

   You are correct in noting the divergence between academic research and institutional attention to Korean Christianity. We acknowledge that this represents a significant contextual factor affecting the field's development.

   Given the sensitive nature of this topic, we propose to address it indirectly in our revised manuscript by adding the following to our conclusion: (page15, lines 721-727)

   "The future trajectory of Chinese academic research on Korean Christianity will inevitably be shaped by various institutional, disciplinary, and societal factors. As the field evolves, maintaining its scholarly character will require continued emphasis on theoretical innovation, methodological rigor, and international academic dialogue. The sustainability of this research area depends on its ability to contribute meaningful insights to the broader understanding of religious transformation in East Asia while navigating the complex dynamics of contemporary research environments." 

   This acknowledges the reality you've observed while maintaining appropriate academic focus. We believe this approach allows us to recognize the changing context without venturing beyond the scope of scholarly analysis.

    

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is a very precious overview of Chinese scholarship in Korean Christianity. It presents the context and evolution of this scholarship, its core topics, and proposes future directions. It is very well written, comprehensive, and clear.

However, I believe that the last section of the paper (Part 4, L448-552) is too ambitious and not very helpful. It should be reduced to a short paragraph. Instead of broad suggestions for future research, the paper will become stronger if the author could deepen the previous parts. Especially, it would be very helpful to

• not only list themes of research but also identify topics of debates and some scholarly conversations among the community of scholars that this paper introduces.
• describe the professional trajectory – and life journey – of some key scholars of this scholarship to show how specific contexts and constraints have shaped the field.

Additional comments:

• 90-90 How can Giovanni da Pian del Carpine and the establishment of a Roman Catholic structure in Beijing not mentioned?
• 101-106 – recent historiography from Pierre Emmanuel Roux – legal studies – argues that indeed there was a significant gap in the ways the Korean and Chinese states responded against Christianity. While Korean went for intense persecution, the Qing avoided confrontation and took only small legal actions in the early 19^th century – a response which was too small and too late. With the unequal treaties, the Qing went back to their earlier policy: ignore it. Thus, Korean and Chinese responses are very different, and we cannot put the two national dynamics at the same level.
• L 124: in the early 20^th century, the leadership of the Korean Catholic Church (French Missionaries) was advocating support and obedience to the Japanese empire (and not nationalist resistance).
• 150-156: specific schools of theology in Mudanjiang and Heilongjiang in general could be acknowledge. This region – and its Korean ethnic minority – has played a significant role in this dialogue. It has regional dimensions to be acknowledge.
• 173-175 – the periodization seems a bit arbitrary – every 10 or 20 years. But what are the criteria to say that a period ends or starts? What counts as a change?
• 201 & 208: name of authors to adjust.
• 248: the paper cannot claim that turning to social science research gives more “scientific rigor” to the Chinese study of Korean Christianity. Text based studies can be equally rigorous and scientific – please rephrase.
• 394-401: what happened to the scholars mentioned? Have they continued an academic career? Have they shift to other topics? What does their professional trajectory say about the emergence of this field of study?
• 424: “new” – maybe in Chinese context, but this seems today a rather “old” and “recycled” theory.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

already very clear but could be smoothen here and there

Author Response

Reviewer’s Overall Comments：

This article is a very precious overview of Chinese scholarship in Korean Christianity. It presents the context and evolution of this scholarship, its core topics, and proposes future directions. It is very well written, comprehensive, and clear.

However, I believe that the last section of the paper (Part 4, L448-552) is too ambitious and not very              helpful. It should be reduced to a short paragraph. Instead of broad suggestions for future research,             the paper will become stronger if the author could deepen the previous parts. Especially, it would be             very helpful to not only list themes of research but also identify topics of debates and some scholarly            conversations among the community of scholars that this paper introduces.

describe the professional trajectory – and life journey – of some key scholars of this scholarship to                show how specific contexts and constraints have shaped the field.

Response to Reviewer's Comments：

Thank you for your valuable feedback and positive assessment of our manuscript. We appreciate your suggestion that the paper would be stronger with a more analytical approach rather than extensive future projections. We will implement your recommendations as follows:

Regarding Section 5 (Future Directions)

We acknowledge that Section 5 is overly ambitious and detracts from the paper's core analytical contributions. We will:

Reduce Section 5 by approximately 50-60% , focusing on essential points rather than broad prescriptions. The revised section will briefly address:

     （1）The need for deeper comparative analysis beyond parallel descriptions

     （2）Contemporary challenges facing Korean Christianity that merit scholarly attention

     （3）Methodological considerations for strengthening empirical foundations

     （4）The importance of international scholarly dialogue

This reduction maintains structural balance while avoiding the excessive speculation you rightly identified.

Enhancing Analytical Depth in Previous Sections

To strengthen the analytical dimensions of the paper, we will add several critical discussions that reveal scholarly debates and institutional contexts shaping this field of study.

First, we will add discussion of scholarly debates on indigenization after line 482-488. This addition will highlight the divergence between Su Hang's optimistic view of "Korean-style Christianity" and Zhang Yinge's more critical perspective questioning whether surface adaptations conceal unchanged Western theological structures. This debate reveals broader tensions within Chinese religious studies regarding criteria for evaluating successful religious localization versus superficial cultural accommodation.

Second, we will incorporate analysis of overlooked historical complexities after line 509-517. We will note that the historical record reveals instances where certain church leaders pursued accommodation strategies with colonial authorities, a reality that has received comparatively less analytical attention in Chinese scholarship. This addition demonstrates how methodological frameworks within Chinese religious studies shape historical interpretations.

Third, we will include biographical context for key scholars to demonstrate how institutional constraints have shaped this field. The additions will be inserted at lines 243-250. For Zhang Guangzhi, we will describe how his training in comparative history at Fudan University during the 1980s reform era, combined with limited access to Korean sources, directed his focus toward social-political rather than theological dimensions. His subsequent shift to broader East Asian studies reflects both personal interests and institutional pressures.

For Su Hang, we will explain in lines 306-315 how her 2012 doctoral dissertation at Central University for Nationalities benefited from new opportunities for Korean fieldwork, yet her subsequent expansion beyond Korean Christianity to broader research areas reflects the persistent challenges of sustaining specialized expertise given limited institutional support. This pattern of initial specialization followed by generalization characterizes many Chinese scholars in this field and helps explain why systematic long-term research programs remain underdeveloped.

These additions will transform the paper from a descriptive literature review into a critical analysis demonstrating how scholarly debates, institutional contexts, and methodological constraints have shaped Chinese scholarship on Korean Christianity. The revised manuscript will better illustrate the dynamic intellectual exchanges within Chinese academia while maintaining reasonable scope and avoiding excessive future speculation.

We believe these revisions directly address your concerns about balancing analytical depth with appropriate scope. The enhanced analysis of scholarly debates and institutional trajectories will provide readers with deeper insight into the field's development, while the streamlined future directions section will maintain focus on the paper's core contributions.

 

Additional comments:

1. 90-90 How can Giovanni da Pian del Carpine and the establishment of a Roman Catholic structure in Beijing not mentioned?

Response to Reviewer Comment 1 (Lines 90-90):

We thank the reviewer for this important observation regarding the omission of Giovanni da Pian del Carpine and the establishment of formal Catholic ecclesiastical structures in Yuan China. We fully agree that these early Franciscan missions and the institutional development of the Catholic Church in Beijing represent crucial historical context that was missing from our original manuscript.

We have revised the text at lines 90-94 to incorporate these significant historical developments. The revised passage now reads:

"During the Yuan dynasty, following earlier Franciscan missions such as Giovanni da Pian del Carpine's diplomatic journey to the Mongol court (1245-1247), the 'Ye-li-ko-wen' Church—aligned with the Papacy in Rome—rose to prominence. The establishment of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Khanbaliq (Beijing) in 1307 under John of Montecorvino marked the formal institutionalization of Catholic presence, opening another avenue for the expansion of Christianity. As Goryeo was a tributary state of the Yuan Empire, Christian elements likely entered the Korean court through royal diplomatic channels, contributing to religious and cultural exchange."

This revision accomplishes two important objectives. First, it acknowledges the pioneering role of early Franciscan diplomatic missions to the Mongol court, which laid the groundwork for subsequent Catholic presence in China. Second, it highlights the formal establishment of Catholic ecclesiastical structures in Beijing, demonstrating the institutional development of Christianity beyond mere missionary presence. These additions provide essential historical context for understanding the channels through which Christianity may have reached Korea during the Yuan period, thereby strengthening our analysis of early Sino-Korean Christian exchanges.

We believe this revision addresses the reviewer's concern comprehensively while maintaining the narrative flow of our historical overview.

 

2. 101-106 – recent historiography from Pierre Emmanuel Roux – legal studies – argues that indeed there was a significant gap in the ways the Korean and Chinese states responded against Christianity. While Korean went for intense persecution, the Qing avoided confrontation and took only small legal actions in the early 19thcentury – a response which was too small and too late. With the unequal treaties, the Qing went back to their earlier policy: ignore it. Thus, Korean and Chinese responses are very different, and we cannot put the two national dynamics at the same level.

Response to Reviewer's Comments:

Thank you for your valuable comments. You are absolutely correct in pointing out the significant differences between Korean and Chinese state responses to Christianity during the late eighteenth to mid-nineteenth century. I greatly appreciate you bringing the recent historiographical scholarship to my attention, particularly the legal-historical studies regarding the divergent approaches of the two countries.

Revisions Made:

I have substantially revised this section to accurately reflect the fundamental differences between the two countries' responses to Christianity. The original text has been modified as follows:

The revised paragraph now clearly distinguishes between: (Revision located on page 4, lines 238-254)

Korea's approach: Systematic and violent persecution, including the 1801 Sinyu Persecution and subsequent waves of suppression (1839, 1846, 1866), reflecting a consistent policy of eradication.

China's approach: Avoidance of direct confrontation, limited legal actions that were "too small and too late," and eventual reversion to a policy of neglect following the unequal treaties.

Rationale for Revisions:

• The original text's characterization of "parallel struggles" and "similar repression" was indeed misleading and failed to capture the fundamentally different state policies and their implications.
• The revised manuscript now accurately reflects the asymmetrical nature of state persecution, acknowledging that the Qing's reluctance to directly confront Christianity created a fundamentally different environment from Korea's intense persecution.
• While emphasizing these state-level differences, I have retained the discussion of transnational Catholic connections to maintain the paper's broader argument about cross-border religious networks, but have now properly contextualized it within "vastly different political contexts."

Thank you for this important correction, which has significantly improved the historical accuracy of my analysis. The revised content better aligns with current scholarship on comparative religious policies in East Asia.

 

3. L 124: in the early 20thcentury, the leadership of the Korean Catholic Church (French Missionaries) was advocating support and obedience to the Japanese empire (and not nationalist resistance).

Response to Reviewer's Comments:

Thank you for your important correction. You are absolutely right in pointing out that the Korean Catholic Church leadership (French missionaries) advocated obedience to the Japanese empire rather than supporting nationalist resistance in the early 20th century.

Revision Made:

I have revised lines 172-176 to accurately reflect the denominational differences in Korean Christianity's response to Japanese colonialism:

"In the early twentieth century, Korean Christianity's relationship with nationalism varied by denomination. Protestant leaders actively participated in the 1919 March First Movement, while the Catholic hierarchy, led by French missionaries, generally advocated obedience to Japanese authorities. Chinese Christians, in contrast, more uniformly engaged in anti-imperialist and patriotic campaigns."

Rationale for Revision:

Historical accuracy: The revised text now correctly distinguishes between Protestant activism in the independence movement and Catholic advocacy for obedience to colonial authorities.

Denominational differences: The correction addresses the original text's overgeneralization about "Korean Christian leaders," reflecting the significant split between Protestant and Catholic positions.

Conciseness: The revision incorporates this crucial distinction while maintaining the paragraph's flow and proportion within the broader narrative.

Contextual coherence: The revised text still connects smoothly with the subsequent discussion of Japanese colonial isolation policies that affected both denominations.

Thank you for this correction, which adds essential historical precision to my analysis of Christianity's complex relationship with Korean nationalism.

 

4. 150-156: specific schools of theology in Mudanjiang and Heilongjiang in general could be acknowledge. This region – and its Korean ethnic minority – has played a significant role in this dialogue. It has regional dimensions to be acknowledge.

Response to Reviewer's Comments:

Thank you for drawing attention to the significant role of the Mudanjiang and Heilongjiang regions, particularly the Korean ethnic communities, in Sino-Korean Christian dialogue.

Revision Made:

I have revised lines 200-205, acknowledging this important regional dimension while maintaining the paragraph's flow within the broader narrative:

"In the twenty-first century, Sino-Korean Christian exchanges have become increasingly diversified and institutionalized. Theological scholars from both nations have participated in joint conferences and collaborative research, addressing themes such as indigenization, modernization, and the contextualization of Christianity in East Asia. Notably, China's northeastern provinces, particularly theological institutions in Heilongjiang where Korean ethnic communities serve as cultural bridges, have played a significant regional role in facilitating these exchanges. Student exchanges and pastoral training programs have deepened mutual understanding and facilitated ecclesial cooperation (Jin Zhixi 2015: 16-18; Qiu Guangjun 2008: 121-123)."

Rationale for Revision:

• Regional acknowledgment: The revised text now explicitly recognizes the unique contribution of northeastern China's theological institutions and Korean ethnic communities as cultural bridges.
• Balanced integration: The addition is incorporated concisely to maintain paragraph coherence while highlighting this important regional dimension.
• Contextual significance: The Korean ethnic minority's role as intermediaries in religious dialogue represents a crucial but often overlooked aspect of Sino-Korean Christian exchanges.

Thank you for this valuable suggestion, which adds important regional specificity to the analysis without disrupting the narrative flow.

 

5. 173-175 – the periodization seems a bit arbitrary – every 10 or 20 years. But what are the criteria to say that a period ends or starts? What counts as a change?

Response to Reviewer's Comments:

Thank you for raising this important methodological question about the periodization criteria. You are absolutely right that the division into decades could appear arbitrary without clear justification for what constitutes meaningful change between periods.

Revision Made:

I have substantially revised Section 3.1 "Historical Phases of Research Development" to clarify the criteria for periodization. The three phases are now defined not merely by temporal boundaries but by substantive shifts in:

• Methodological approaches: From descriptive historical narratives (1970s-1990s) to analytical frameworks (2000-2010) to interdisciplinary integration (2010-present)
• Institutional contexts: From politically constrained research environments to normalized diplomatic relations enabling academic exchanges, and finally to globalized scholarly networks
• Thematic scope: From basic historical reconstruction to socio-political analysis to transnational and digital dimensions
• Theoretical sophistication: From introductory surveys to indigenization theories to complex comparative frameworks

Rationale for Periodization:

The revised text now explicitly states that these periods reflect "broader shifts in China's academic landscape and international engagement" rather than arbitrary temporal divisions. Each transition point corresponds to identifiable changes:

• 1990s→2000: Normalization of Sino-Korean relations (1992) fundamentally altered research possibilities
• 2010→present: Emergence of digital humanities, increased fieldwork opportunities, and integration with global academic discourse

The periodization thus reflects qualitative transformations in research paradigms rather than simple chronological progression. As I note in the revision, these phases represent "both the increasing sophistication of Chinese scholars' understanding of Korean Christianity and the gradual refinement of their methodological approaches."

Thank you for this critique, which has led to a more rigorous and theoretically grounded periodization framework.

 

6. 201 & 208: name of authors to adjust.

Response to Reviewer's Comments:

Thank you for your careful attention to the author name issues on lines 201 and 208.

Revision Made:

I have rewritten this entire section in the revised version of the manuscript, which has resolved this issue.

Thank you for identifying these important details, which have enhanced the professional quality of the manuscript.

 

7. 248: the paper cannot claim that turning to social science research gives more “scientific rigor” to the Chinese study of Korean Christianity. Text based studies can be equally rigorous and scientific – please rephrase.

Response to Reviewer's Comments:

Thank you for this important methodological clarification. You are absolutely correct that text-based studies can be equally rigorous and scientific, and I apologize for the misleading implication in my original phrasing.

Revision Made:

I have revised the problematic phrasing in the revised manuscript (pages 329-338). The text now reads:

"This methodological diversification enriched the analytical depth and expanded the evidential base of their findings."

Thank you for this correction, which has improved the methodological precision of the manuscript.

 

8. 394-401: what happened to the scholars mentioned? Have they continued an academic career? Have they shift to other topics? What does their professional trajectory say about the emergence of this field of study?

Response to Reviewer's Comments:

Thank you for your important inquiry regarding the scholarly trajectories of the researchers mentioned in lines 394-401. Following your suggestion, I have incorporated relevant content into the revised manuscript to address this concern.

Revisions Made:

In Section 3.1.1 "Exploratory Period (1970s-1990s)," I have added a specific analysis of Zhang Guangzhi's scholarly trajectory (see revised manuscript lines 263-270):

"Zhang Guangzhi exemplifies this generation's trajectory. Trained in comparative history at Fudan University during the 1980s reform era, Zhang approached Korean Christianity through secular historical methods rather than religious studies. His institutional context—a state university emphasizing social scientific approaches—shaped his focus on Christianity's political and social dimensions rather than theological aspects. After establishing the field's foundations in the 1990s, Zhang shifted to broader East Asian religious studies, a pattern reflecting both personal interests and institutional pressures for wider teaching portfolios."

In Section 3.1.3 "Stage of Diversified Perspectives (2010-present)," I have added an analysis of Su Hang's scholarly trajectory (see revised manuscript lines 326-335):

"Su Hang's academic trajectory exemplifies the opportunities and limitations facing young Chinese scholars studying Korean Christianity at that time. Her 2012 doctoral dissertation at Central University for Nationalities benefited from newly available fieldwork opportunities in Korea and institutional support for empirical research. However, her subsequent expansion from Korean Christianity to general religious studies reflects persistent structural challenges: limited academic positions for Korea specialists, minimal funding for sustained field research, and institutional pressure to pursue topics with broader appeal. This pattern—initial specialization followed by generalization—is prevalent among many Chinese scholars in this field and helps explain why systematic, long-term research programs remain underdeveloped."

These revisions not only answer your specific question but also strengthen the paper's sociological analysis of knowledge production in Chinese scholarship on Korean Christianity, enhancing both its explanatory power and academic rigor.

 

9. 424: “new” – maybe in Chinese context, but this seems today a rather “old” and “recycled” theory.

 Response to Reviewer's Comments:

Thank you for your astute observation regarding line 424's use of "new" in reference to religious market theory. You are absolutely correct that this theory is well-established rather than new in the international academic context.

Revision Made:

We have rewritten this section in lines 562-564 as follows:

"Additionally, while religious market theory is well-established in Western scholarship, its application to Chinese religious studies offers fresh analytical perspectives for understanding how Christianity competes, attracts adherents, and innovates organizationally in modern society. This perspective enhances our understanding of how religion adapts and evolves under conditions of globalization."

Thank you for helping us improve the precision of our academic expression.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper has been thoroughly revised according to the reviewers' comments and is ready for minor revisions prior to publication.

References to be added: 舒健：艰难的开端：李朝末期朝鲜半岛的医疗传教 https://ccspub.cc/jrcc/article/download/344/485/967

 

舒健：太极旗与十字架：基督教在近代朝鲜半岛的传播（结项成果）

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments:

In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, I have made the necessary revisions to the manuscript. Specifically, I have added the following reference in lines 164–167 on page 4:

“These early missionary endeavors often included social services such as medical care and education, which served as crucial means to reach the populace and build trust, a strategy identified by Chinese scholars as a key measure for Protestantism to gain a foothold on the peninsula (Shu Jian, 2014, p. 22).”

Additionally, I have updated the references section on lines 751-752 to include:

“10. Shu, J. (2014). 艰难的开端：李朝末期朝鲜半岛的医疗传教 [A difficult beginning: Medical missionary work in the late Yi Dynasty of the Korean Peninsula]. 中国基督教研究 [Research for Christianity in China], No. 3, 22–36. [In Chinese]”

Thank you for your valuable feedback.