Markan Spirituality of the Way
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI feel that the topic of blindness warrants further discussion within the paper.
I feel that the paper could be improved by reference to papers which:
Define blindness (in the UK, for example, a visually impaired person can be classified blind when they have very poor vision)
Discuss blindness in terms of religion and spirituality
I attach a file of potentially relevant literature which the authors may wish to consider as potential additional reference material
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: I feel that the topic of blindness warrants further discussion within the paper. I feel that the paper could be improved by reference to papers which: Define blindness (in the UK, for example, a visually impaired person can be classified blind when they have very poor vision) Discuss blindness in terms of religion and spirituality. I attach a file of potentially relevant literature which the authors may wish to consider as potential additional reference material.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this idea. Therefore, I have emphasized the meaning of blindness and added the definition of blindness in Mark. See lines 136-138 in page 3: “The meaning of blindness in the Gospel of Mark is not limited to its physical aspects. Rather, it relates to the capability for recognizing the Messiah and following the right path. In other words, blindness in the Gospel represents not only a physical handicap, but also a spiritual obstacle to the recognition of Jesus.”
Not only that, I supplemented potential additional reference material provided by you. See Note 4 in page 10. Again, thanks for your comment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorssee attachment
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: The first issue is that it isn't immediately clear what belongs to the author(s) and what comes from other sources. It is clear that the author(s) are progressively using the work of other scholars as building blocks to develop their argument. Call me old-fashioned, but a dedicated section outlining the work of other scholars would help to clearly differentiate between them and the other scholars. Additionally, this would further support the author(s)' claim that their paper offers "a new angle in terms of the way and following."
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this idea. So I added a dedicated section to differentiate between the author of this article and the other scholars. Please see lines 78-89 in page 2 : “Markan scholars have indeed paid attention to this theme of ὁδός. However, to date much of their research tends to explore the theme in relation to Mark’s theological ideas about discipleship (Kelber 1974, pp. 67–85; Marcus 2000, p. 765; France 2002, pp. 421–25; Stein 2008, pp. 493–98; Strauss 2014, pp. 472). As a result, the spiritual aspect of the way is overlooked. Accordingly, the current study focuses on the spirituality of the way, which is not to say it is the first attempt to do so. Scholars of spirituality have also explored the significance of the way over time. However, thus far their work mostly concerns identifying Markan passages as the basis for spiritual practices such as contemplative walking or pilgrimage. For a more comprehensive understanding of the way, this essay explores the spirituality of the way through biblical exegesis and thus provides a bridge between biblical studies and spirituality. In so doing, it shows how such a biblical study can lead to spiritual transformation.”
Comment 2: The second issue is that I found section 3 lacking in its attempt to draw out the specific meaning the author(s) aim to attribute to the spirituality of the way. Theoretically, the argument should already be embedded in the first two sections, waiting to be fully revealed in the third. However, there seems to be a gap between these sections. I would suggest that the author(s) be more detailed and precise in bridging their biblical hermeneutics with their theological claim. In other words, the argument needs to be strengthened.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this idea. So, I added two paragraphs to bridge my biblical hermeneutics with this theological claim. Please see lines 99-103 in pages 3, 4: “Spirituality in Mark can be characterized as participation in the passion of Jesus by following His path and His life. In other words, it is about Jesus followers sharing His destiny in their daily lives. To establish this spirituality, Mark induces his audiences to learn from Jesus and absorb his way of life, which he illustrates through two tales of healing from blindness.”
Furthermore, see lines 327-332 in page 7: “Mark’s spirituality of the way can be characterized as the sharing of Jesus’ destiny. Indeed, it is unconditional participation in the destiny of Jesus. Mark’s portrayal of the blind man in 10:52 presents the author’s characteristic understanding of spirituality, i.e., that Jesus-followers should be willing to participate in the passion of crucifixion, and even martyrdom. Mark’s employment of the term ὁδός can thus be seen as the epitome of his own spirituality.”
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsNo further comments
