Participating in the New Creation in Ephesians

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached word doc for comments/suggestions

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: There are a non-trivial number of grammatical/spelling mistakes throughout the article. It should be proofread again to catch and detect these errors, but here are some examples I found: Line 8 – need something like ‘will be’ after the “whole earth” at the beginning of the line Line 15 – missing the c in “ethic” Line 168 – should be “Christ’s” instead of “Christ” Line 186 – “being excluded from the reign of…” Lines 232-235 – The wording/presentation is confusing  Line 265 – “have been gifted save”? 

Response: I have addressed all these.

Comment 2: There were points in the paper that felt like long stretches of summary statements of things already touched upon earlier in the paper. An example of this would be lines 378391 and 443-465. These summary/repeat paragraphs, in addition to not being needed, made the article tedious at times and took away from other main points in the article. 

Response: I have revised it seeking to remove as much of the repetition as possible without cutting the article itself.

Comment 3: There is inconsistent and the citing/inclusion of the text in the original Greek and there doesn’t seem to be a pattern behind when it is used and when it isn’t. For example, why include the Greek word for ‘fullness’ in line 168 but not any of the other words? There needs to be more structure and consistency in the usages employed in the paper 


Response: I have revised seeking more consistency. Where translations are concerned, there is no consistency as this is an academic paper not reliant on a translation. Therefore, I used my own and various translations which I feel are superior. Only in a popular level article would I use one translation not in a biblical academic paper.


Comment 4: There is also inconsistent usage of grammatical arguments in the paper. A lot of the key points of the paper are linked to the meaning and interpretation of a particular word or phrase, but very rarely are any grammatical issues or evidence raised in support of the translation or interpretive choice made (an example of this evidence being used to good effect is in lines 202-208). For example, in lines 652-659, the original Greek text is cited in full without a translation, and interpretive matters and decisions are discussed without any reference to a grammatical issue or supporting point. Adding these here and other places where issues of translation and interpretation are in focus (e.g. lines 118165) would greatly enhance the argumentative force of the paper and help the reader understand the thesis more clearly 

Response: I have revised these things as much as possible. I am surprised that a translation of every Greek notion is suggested considering this is written for an academic audience. Hence, I have changed what I feel is necessary but at times have left things.

Comment 5: The section “Imitation of Paul” (lines 530-536) doesn’t add anything new, so should be revised/expanded or not included 


Response: I have left the comments about imitation of Paul as I disagree with the reviewer. I have sought to nuance them for clarity and while it would be nice to add to them, I have not got the space to revise and expand. 

Comment 5: Where are you getting the number 7,500 in line 565? o What is the relation of lines 572-577 to the main point of the section? Would this have been common knowledge to the author of Ephesians? 

I have referenced this in the next sentence concerning 1.960 and think referencing Stark 1996 twice is unnecessary. So, I have left this as is.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a good article. In the attached PDF I have marked several typos that can be corrected; someone else should also go over it more closely in this regard.

Here are the points to strengthen:

*The introductory sections should be a bit more punchy. If the argument is that Paul does indeed speak of New Creation in Ephesians, explain more clearly why this is contradicted or underplayed in other scholarship. (In other words, why does this case need to be made?)

*§4 is rather long, and could be further organized in subsections.

*In §4, some more thoughts: does the author see in Eph 4:17-6:9: any connections to "New Creation" implied through the concept of imago Dei, original creation, now renewed and refurbished? Words, work, relationships, male-and-female, worship, light -- all are re-made in Eph 4-6. Some realization of "New Creation" in the church can be illumined by the ways that Paul references "Original Creation."

*Some of the examples given in §5 do not really strengthen the argument, and only make the article longer. Consider places to trim.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment: I went through the returned mss with suggested edits.
Response: I went through the returned mss with edits and have corrected.

Comment: The introductory sections should be a bit more punchy. If the argument is that Paul does indeed speak of New Creation in Ephesians, explain more clearly why this is contradicted or underplayed in other scholarship. (In other words, why does this case need to be made?)
Response: I have revised this with a little more clarity.

Comment: §4 is rather long, and could be further organized in subsections.
Response: I have gone through and revised it with subheadings.

Comment: In §4, some more thoughts: does the author see in Eph 4:17-6:9: any connections to "New Creation" implied through the concept of imago Dei, original creation, now renewed and refurbished? Words, work, relationships, male-and-female, worship, light -- all are re-made in Eph 4-6. Some realization of "New Creation" in the church can be illumined by the ways that Paul references "Original Creation."
Response: I have added a few comments heightening the contrast. I have also strengthened those points at which I did touch on the old versus the new to give more clarity to the transition.

Comment: Some of the examples given in §5 do not really strengthen the argument, and only make the article longer. Consider places to trim.

Response: I have read it through and sought to trim where I can; however, I did not find much that I could trim without diminishing the quality of the argument.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Above points have been addressed