A Patristic Synthesis of the Word Enfleshed: The Christology of Maximus the Confessor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The essay is very good as an exposition of St. Maximus the Confessor. I think it would be strengthened by bringing out more clearly the author's contributions, for example, perhaps on the way St. Maximus treats the patristics in a way similar to Scripture by indicating an evaluation of how it weakens--or perhaps strengthens--St. Maximus' value. Another example could be an evaluation of how well St. Maximus' dyotheletism, given its context at the time, stands up to contemporary Christological reflection. 

Author Response

Thank you for your evaluation and comments. While I have more to say about the Fathers as Scriptures, it will have to wait for another essay where I am developing these methods in more detail. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall this paper is a competent summary of Maximus' Christology, with references to current and appropriate scholarship. There are a few areas, particularly with respect to qualifying some quite bold statements on the part of the author, where the piece could be improved to better serve as an introduction to Maximus' Christology that does not mislead readers. There is also at least one serious misunderstanding or misrepresentation that will require correction.

If one is going to make a claim that “recalcitrance and doctrinal intractability” on Maximus’ part are the cause of his torture and martyrdom is a view seriously forwarded by contemporary scholarship then that will at least require some evidence. Ln 25 “they argue” is hardly appropriate language for a serious piece of scholarship when no citation is produced. Similarly, on ln 28 “undoubtedly” and on ln 38 – again, “authors”. Is there no cause to have a citation on who these authors are? Or at least a sample of contemporary thinkers? Presumably this is intended to be in some way introductory so this would be a minimal thing to do.

On ln 236-7 the author claims that Maximus, following Leontius, held that “even though Christ was not a human person, his human nature was not without subsistence” The author minimally needs to clarify their understanding of Maximus' language of human personhood here to ensure a casual reader does not misunderstand what they are articulating. This can be difficult to do clearly in a short introductory piece but it is worth the work to prevent the proliferation of misunderstanding. At least some sort of qualifying language - separate, pre-existing, and so on - is needed. It may be that the author has a more fundamental misunderstanding, but I suspect this is primarily a failure of expression.

I note the misspelling on ln 62 – apopthegmata PARTUM – this requires correction to Patrum. It should also generally take capitals.

On ln 228 the use of “whipping boy” is certainly inappropriate language for a piece of public scholarship.

On ln 338 – it is not merely for “his Christological doctrine”. It is insufficient not to at least mention Monothelitism in the context of Maximus’ martyrdom.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is a formatting error on ln 260.

Ln 312-313 has a quotation standing as a sentence, which is poor form in serious academic writing.

Serious formatting error after ln 331.

Author Response

Thank you for your evaluation and critical review of the essay. I offer the following responses:

comment 1: If one is going to make a claim that “recalcitrance and doctrinal intractability” on Maximus’ part are the cause of his torture and martyrdom is a view seriously forwarded by contemporary scholarship then that will at least require some evidence. Ln 25 “they argue” is hardly appropriate language for a serious piece of scholarship when no citation is produced. Similarly, on ln 28 “undoubtedly” and on ln 38 – again, “authors”. Is there no cause to have a citation on who these authors are? Or at least a sample of contemporary thinkers? Presumably this is intended to be in some way introductory so this would be a minimal thing to do.

Response: I have modified the introduction accordingly and introduced a couple of sources I had in mind. However, I have no difficulty saying that glossal mutilation and brachial amputation "undoubtedly" caused the death of the 82-year-old monk three months after the penalty, particularly in light of Anastasius's letter to Theodosius wherein he describes Maximus as a "martyr" numerous times and who said the other Anastasius, who suffered the same penalty, was already "half dead" in July 662 by the time they arrived at the fort in exile (Allen and Neil, 2002, pp. 132-37).

comment 2: On ln 236-7 the author claims that Maximus, following Leontius, held that “even though Christ was not a human person, his human nature was not without subsistence” The author minimally needs to clarify their understanding of Maximus' language of human personhood here to ensure a casual reader does not misunderstand what they are articulating. This can be difficult to do clearly in a short introductory piece but it is worth the work to prevent the proliferation of misunderstanding. At least some sort of qualifying language - separate, pre-existing, and so on - is needed. It may be that the author has a more fundamental misunderstanding, but I suspect this is primarily a failure of expression.

response 2: I do not agree that a misunderstanding is likely here. Nevertheless, I have minimally clarified per the suggestion.

comment 3: I note the misspelling on ln 62 – apopthegmata PARTUM – this requires correction to Patrum. It should also generally take capitals.

response 3: Great catch! I have adjusted my autocorrect settings on Microsoft Word so that Apophthegmata Patrum is never again changed to Apophthegmata Partum. 

comment 4: On ln 228 the use of “whipping boy” is certainly inappropriate language for a piece of public scholarship.

response 4: I disagree. This idiom is well understood and appropriate. I did not, however, provide enough details for the metaphor to be understood, which I have remedied.

comment 5: On ln 338 – it is not merely for “his Christological doctrine”. It is insufficient not to at least mention Monothelitism in the context of Maximus’ martyrdom.

response 5: I disagree with the suggestion of a reductionist account here. At the same time, there's no way around the fact that he was mutilated for his Christology.

comment 6: There is a formatting error on ln 260.
Ln 312-313 has a quotation standing as a sentence, which is poor form in serious academic writing.
Serious formatting error after ln 331.

response 6: Thanks for these observations. The text has been remedied.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-argued essay in which the author discusses Maxim's Christology and summarizes its four main features. The thesis is clear and well supported. However, it is also important to be aware of the journal's formatting requirements when writing a manuscript, and I would like the author to make formatting changes in this manuscript.

1. Notes in this article should be placed before the references, not below the content of each page.
2. Please follow the Religions format for citations in the main text section.
3. The reference section as well as the body of the text should also be formatted accordingly for the Religions.

Author Response

Thank you for your evaluation and comments. I have taken great care to ensure that the essay better conforms to Religions' unique style and in consideration of other published essays in this issue.