Conflict and Cooperation Between the Armenian and Byzantine Churches in the Late 9th and 10th Centuries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a thorough survey of correspondence and historical events which concern both the politics of the region, in the struggles and divisions within Armenia, and also the relations between two church - one Chalcedonian and the other Miaphysite.  It gives valuable insights into both subjects.

While the English language is accurate and fluent - the author seems to be an English speaker, some of the sentences are too complicated with several subordinate clauses for my taste.  

Author Response

Thank you very much!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comments

The author demonstrates expertise in medieval Armenian history as well as deep knowledge of the respective corpus of studies and sources. Given the shortage of studies on premodern Armenian church history in foreign languages, the proposed text may contribute to the internationalization of the knowledge on this particular subject. 

Critical Remarks

The proposed text suffers from serious weaknesses.

• The article fails to define/explain the doctrinal disparity between the discussed church and to analyze its impact in light of the doctrinal dispute between Monophysitism and Chalcedonism. The choice of the term "miaphysitism" is not explained (versus the use of "monophysitism").
• The intersection between politics and religion is not properly analyzed. The relations between the Armenian catholicoses and the Byzantine patriarchs are not discussed in the broader context of the interplay of religious doctrines and political interests. There is missing information about the lesser-known church-state relations in Armenia (in comparison with the well-studied Byzantine ones). What was the role of the Armenian kings in shaping the relations between the Armenian and Byzantine churches?
• The process of Chalcedonianization as well as the Calcedonian movement are not sufficiently discussed. Their historical, doctrinal, and ecclesio-political contexts are not properly explained, especially for an international audience like the readers of the journal Religions.
• The author mentions the tensions between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians in the Armenian borderlands near Byzantium (lines 120-122), but does not provide the respective context. How and when did this division appear among the Armenians? What role was played by Georgia in the relations between the Armenian Catholicos and the Patriarch of Constantinople?
• The article fails to provide a comprehensive description of the ecclesio-doctrinal structure of the Armenians during the 9^th and 10^th centuries. Without such an overview, the readers would fail to understand the link between the discussed developments and their association with particular regions (e.g., central Armenia versus the region of Tayk) or specific events.   
• There are also technical issues: a) Some expressions are not explained, e.g., Ashot’s “ministerial obedience” to the Byzantine emperor (line 250); b) The visit of Ashot II in Constantinople is unnecessarily repeated several times Lines 319-320; 365-371; 389-400; 420-421; 450-451; 493-498); c) The article contains ethnonyms and toponyms which might be confusing for the audience of an international journal, which scope is not limited to a particular geographical region or country. Therefore, clarifying footnotes should be added for Iberia (to distinguish it from Spain and to reveal its relationship to such toponyms as Virk and Georgia); Albanians (to distinguish this population from present-day citizens of Albania in the Balkan peninsula),  etc.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author lacks sufficient proficiency in English. The author's point is not always clearly explained due to his/her insufficient knowledge of English. Some sentences sound clumsy. Sometimes, the choice of words is incorrect, e.g., the use of the word "current" (line 620) for a social/religious movement.  There are also cases when the object and subject are not clearly identified. For example, the statement that “Basil I requested and received a crown from Ashot Bagratid” (Line 257) leaves the impression that it is the Byzantine emperor Basil who asked for a crown from the Armenian king. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an excellent paper, and I recommend it for publication. Here are a few points for consideration, but they do not undermine the value of this essay. They might just be useful for future studies and extensions of this work.

• Relies heavily on Armenian sources, which may introduce bias; broader inclusion of Byzantine and other regional perspectives would improve balance.

• Theological distinctions (e.g., Miaphysitism vs. Dyophysitism) are underexplained, limiting accessibility for non-specialists.

• Tends to downplay the sincerity of Byzantine union efforts, interpreting them largely as political strategy.

• Dense narrative with excessive detail can obscure the main argument; clearer structure and summaries would help.

• Chronological reconstructions are sometimes speculative and overconfident.

• Influence of other regional Christianities (Georgian, Syrian, Albanian) is acknowledged but insufficiently explored.

• Limited engagement with broader historiographical debates and recent Western scholarship on church diplomacy and imperialism.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

Thank you for the edited version. I appreciate the improvements made. 

I still consider that more historical context could be added about Armenia, but the article makes an important contribution to medieval church history. In this regard, I would like to recommend new keywords to be added, which will facilitate the discovery of the article by more scholars, e.g., Armenian-Byzantine relations, Chalcedonian-Miaphysite communication, and Medieval Armenian Studies.

Also, a footnote clarifying the difference between the terms "Monophysite" and "Miaphysite" (lines 249 and 250) could be added in the new text.  

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is improved. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf