From Taso to Erke’ün: The Transformation of East Syriac Christian Designations in China (Tang to Yuan Periods)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a well-researched and insightful examination of the historical evolution of two key designations for Nestorian Christians in China—taso and erke’ün—from the Tang to the Yuan dynasty. The author demonstrates a deep familiarity with a wide range of sources, including Chinese historiographic records and Old Uighur Christian manuscripts, which allows for a nuanced analysis of the linguistic, social, and institutional transformations surrounding these terms.

The structure of the article is clear and methodically organized. The abstract effectively outlines the scope and significance of the study, and the introduction situates the research within a broader historical and scholarly context. The main body offers a thorough etymological and semantic exploration of both terms, while the conclusion successfully ties the findings together, highlighting the sociopolitical functions of terminology within the Mongol imperial system.

One of the article’s major strengths lies in its interdisciplinary approach. By combining historical linguistics, religious studies, and political history, the study transcends a purely philological focus and opens broader questions about identity formation, religious categorization, and imperial governance. The author makes especially strong use of secondary scholarship, integrating perspectives from Chinese, Western, and Central Asian sources, and engaging with the most recent academic debates in the field.

Stylistically, the English is mostly clear and appropriately academic, though some sentences could benefit from minor syntactical refinement to improve fluency. Nevertheless, the prose is consistent in tone and the technical terminology is well-handled. The use of original language terms (e.g., in Persian, Chinese, and Greek) is effective and helps maintain scholarly rigor.

It is recommended that the list of bibliographic references be reformatted using a hanging indent style for each entry, in order to improve visual clarity and consistency.

In sum, this article makes a meaningful contribution to the study of Christianity in premodern China and to Silk Road religious history more broadly. It will be of interest to scholars of religious transmission, intercultural exchange, and historical linguistics. With minimal stylistic polishing, it is well-suited for publication in a peer-reviewed journal focused on East Asian religions or global Christianity.

Author Response

We are deeply grateful to Reviewer 1 for their thorough and positive evaluation of our manuscript's structure, content, methodology, and style. Their professional and meticulous comments were highly appreciated. We have fully implemented their specific suggestion regarding the bibliography. The list of references has been reformatted using a hanging indent style for each entry, enhancing its visual clarity and consistency as recommended.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

it is a very good researched and interesting article with very rich bibliography, but very special for readers who are not from the field. Perhaps add some very small remarks on the different ethniae and important manuscript souces in footnotes. 

Author Response

We thank Reviewer 2 for their positive assessment and acknowledge their valid point regarding the article's specialized nature potentially posing challenges for readers outside the immediate field. We agree that greater consideration for a broader audience was warranted. To address this, we have added a brief contextual note in Footnote 32 concerning the Old Uighur Christian texts used as primary sources. We hope this provides helpful background. We remain open to any further specific suggestions Reviewer 2 might have to improve accessibility.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted article is of an exceptionally high calibre. It is philologically erudite and uses an authoritative spread of sources and most notably the Old Uighur Christian manuscripts to support its charting of the various terminology that designated Christians from the Tang to Yuan periods. It certainly does make an outstanding contribution to scholarship in the field and merits publication - but with one caveat.

Before publication, there is one serious desideratum that needs to be addressed, i.e. the use of the term Nestorian. Although older publications did employ the term, it is now considered inappropriate, unadvisable and unscholarly to do so. The modern, living communities of the Church of the East consider 'Nestorian' as derogatory, i.e. a term of oppobrium (as one would not today call African Americans by derogatory terms  e.g. n*gg*r that were formerly used).

I realise that 'Nestorian' is convenient but it should wherever possible, be replaced by 'East Syriac Christian/Christianity' which is more nuanced and accurate. At the very least, any usage of the term should be qualified in a footnote that it is deemed a term of oppobrium by the modern communities and it was a term which they never used to describe themselves, but was applied by their opponents and detractors to denigrate them as 'heretics'. See the erudite article by S.P. Brock, "The Nestorian Church: A lamentable misnomer" Bulletin of the John Rylands Library University of Manchester (1996).

Some other small points:

l.398-9: Re Sorkaktani Beki played a "pivotal role" in shaping Möngke's religious and political outlook. I am not sure about the extent of her influence, but at least reference should be made to Tang Li (2006) 353.

l.405 Jacobite - replace by West Syriac - again the living communities do not care for this term. 

l.617 primitive?? What is meant by primitive? Theologically? Its usage seems out of context and another more appropriate term should be employed.

There are some minor corrections:

l.10 'general Christians' replace by 'Christians in general'.

l.392 'old turkic' read Old Turkic

l.392, 544, 545 erke'ün should be italicised

l.405 (Nestorian, Armenian, Jacobite) recommend (Armenian, East Syriac and West Syriac).

l.411 Roman Church read Roman Catholic Church

l.556 Ä. rkägün read Ärkägün

I would advise a copy-editor to read through the revised article as there are some small corrections to the English text.

Author Response

We express our profound gratitude to Reviewer 3 for their exceptionally detailed and expert evaluation. Their scholarly rigor is deeply appreciated and has been invaluable in refining our work. We address their major concerns and minor corrections comprehensively:

1. Term "Nestorian": We sincerely thank the reviewer for raising this critical ethical and terminological issue. As a scholar less specialized in modern theological developments and terminology, we were previously unaware of the problematic nature and contemporary derogatory connotations of "Nestorian" for the living communities of the Church of the East. We fully acknowledge the importance of using respectful and accurate terminology. Consequently, we have replaced every instance of "Nestorian" throughout the manuscript with "East Syriac Christian/Christianity", as strongly recommended. These changes have been highlighted in the revised manuscript for ease of identification.
2. Sorkaktani Beki's Influence (l.398-9): We agree that providing a reference strengthens this point. We have added the suggested citation to Tang Li (2006, p. 353).
3. Term "Jacobite" (l.405): Following the reviewer's guidance on preferred terminology, "Jacobite" has been replaced with "West Syriac".
4. Term "primitive" (l.617): The reviewer rightly questioned the appropriateness and context of this term. We have revised the phrase to read: "an archaic yet pristine form of Christianity" to convey the intended meaning more precisely and avoid potential misinterpretation.
5. Minor Corrections: All six minor corrections listed by the reviewer have been implemented:
• l.10: 'general Christians' changed to 'Christians in general'.
• l.392: 'old turkic' corrected to 'Old Turkic'.
• l.392, 544, 545: 'erke'ün' italicized (erke'ün).
• l.405: Parenthetical listing changed from (Nestorian, Armenian, Jacobite) to (Armenian, East Syriac and West Syriac).
• l.411: 'Roman Church' changed to 'Roman Catholic Church'.
• l.556: 'Ä. rkägün' corrected to 'Ärkägün'.