Grounding the Theory of Discursive Resistance: Language, Semiotics and New Testament Theology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There are interesting ideas in this text (especially in the last pages) which, with further work, could possibly be developed into a publishable journal article.  I would recommend that the author go back to the drawing board and start over.

The central problem is that the paper does not achieve what the title claims. Rather, it consists largely of an uneven historical survey of ideas regarding semiotics and the nature of signs. It does not, as the title would lead one to believe, provide a developed explanation of a “theory of discursive resistance”, nor does it explain beyond superficial assertions how these concepts are relevant to “New Testament theology”.  While there are certainly some theological ideas in this paper that are thought-provoking, they are not elaborated sufficiently to merit publication in a religious studies journal such as Religions. I would recommend that the author work harder to write a text that actually makes an argument for the thesis contained in the title, making clear how that thesis is tenable and coherent, if indeed it is.

The paper also shows signs of “cutting and pasting” from previous work. Some sections appear in a different font. More significantly, ideas are introduced without explanation and out of sequence, suggesting that sections of this text have simply been recycled from elsewhere without editing. Above all, the central idea of “discursive resistance” is never explained for the reader in any way. The author does not, therefore, make any successful argument for the thesis contained in the title. It is simply asserted, repeatedly. Other terms that require an explanation in order to construct an argument include (what the author means by) “semiosis” and “metanarrative of enthronement”.

Finally, note that in the abstract, only the last sentence contains any reference to religion. This accurately reflects the content of paper that will follow: after the opening sentence, the next reference to theology comes only on page 9 of 13.5 pages of text.

Author Response

Thank you for the review. I will work in order to make the article more consistent and make my point concerning 'discursive resistance' more comprehensible. As the article is part of a project discussing the theory of writing New Testament theology, it is no possible to change the subject, though, and work more on the theme of religion in general. I am convinced that the article will become better with corrections. 

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a strong piece of scholarship. The introduction was clear and even had some humor. Although it took me a minute to follow the dyadic / bipartite distinction, you made it clear. One of the highlights of the article was the ability to explain some challenging theoretical concepts clearly and with good humor.

Content-wise, I have only one suggestion, and it is regarding the use of Leviticus 25. While the text does argue that Israelites should not be enslaved, that specifically applies to the enslavement of Israelites by other Israelites. Non-Israelites can be perpetual slaves. The only reason I am pointing this out is because the article goes on to talk about the significance of freedom and jubilee for the New Testament. In line 620, the phrase "it is obvious that" stood out to me, because perhaps things are not as obvious. Freedom in both testaments has not been universal. 

This was a pleasure to read. Thank you. 

Author Response

Thank you for the review. I am happy that the main purpose of the article appears to be comprehensible. I will work on your comment concerning slavery. 

Reviewer 3 Report

• I still recommend a non-lacunary expression in the abstract.
• Besides the use of signs and 'discursive resistance' [DS] for hermeneutics and implicitly for Semiotics, it is always unclear on all of 11 uses of DS to what the author makes DS refer to [at least for the Bible theology - the main point of view this paper speaks of, or at least as it stated in the title] - although the question is asked in cpt. 7. Can it be about the resistance to belief, to acceptance, to obedience, to change, etc, or what else? it never tells straightforward.

Author Response

Thank you for your review. You made good points, and I will happily work in order to find a clearer definition of my crucial term 'discursive resistance'. Thank you for bringing that point up. It would be a real mistake if my main point would remain vague. I will also redefine the term's relevance in respect of the examples I have provided.