Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text is very interesting, well integrated into previous research, and interdisciplinary.

A few comments on the text that could help improve it:

1. Analyzing John's Prologue, the author translates the phrase "pros thon theon" using the idea of the Logos being with God. In fact, this phrase should be translated as "Logos was towards God." Interestingly, the author proposes this translation later, on page 7. Unification would be welcome.

2. On page 7 (140-141), the following sentence appears: "The bridge established in John's Prologue—from divine pre-existence “in the beginning” to the Incarnational “pitching of the tent”—is, in the liturgy, reversed." I would suggest using a verb other than reversed. In the liturgy, there is no reversal of the order established in the incarnation.

3. I wonder if it's really necessary to cite patristic authors—the author hasn't provided any in-depth analyses of their positions. We're presented with generalizations, which always introduces the possibility of significant interpretative errors. Indeed, if Guardini's solution is crucial to addressing the problem identified by Craig, why not make Guardini the main character of the second part?
4. The quotes and footnotes on pp. 11-12 are difficult to understand. More references appear within the highlighted quotes. I'm not sure if these larger, highlighted quotes are concatenations of smaller ones?

Author Response

Thank you for your time in reviewing my article. I have made the edits you suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper demonstrates impressive scholarly ambition and methodological innovation in tackling one of theology's most challenging questions: how time and eternity intersect in Christian worship and scripture. The author's "thesis-thesis" approach, bringing biblical exegesis and liturgical theology into genuine dialogue, represents exactly the kind of interdisciplinary work that advances understanding in both fields. The research foundation is remarkably comprehensive, spanning from patristic sources like Pseudo-Dionysius to contemporary scholars like Raymond Brown, while the identification of the exitus/reditus pattern as the key difference between biblical and liturgical approaches offers genuinely original insight. Most importantly, this isn't merely abstract speculation but addresses the practical pastoral question of what actually happens in the Mass, culminating in the theologically sound conclusion that Christ serves as the ultimate bridge between temporal and eternal realms. With refinement in presentation, this represents the kind of sustained, serious theological reflection that could make a significant contribution to our understanding of fundamental Christian mysteries.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While the content is substantive and the research appears thorough, the writing would benefit from significant editing for:

• Sentence clarity and concision
• Consistent terminology
• Better transitions between ideas
• More accessible explanations of technical concepts

The paper reads like a first draft that needs professional editing before publication. The ideas are valuable, but the presentation undermines their impact.

Also some spelling mistakes ("red hearing" rather than "red herring" -- though that may not even be the best term here anyway).

Author Response

Thank you for the time you have taken to review my article.