Jewish Elements in the Ancient Chinese Christian Manuscript Yishen Lun (Discourse on God)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper requires further revision before it is ready for publication.

 

Firstly, the explanation of key terms such as Gentile conversion, messianic claims, references to Jerusalem, and synagogue-like imagery could be clearer. Since these terms are highlighted in the abstract, providing a more thorough explanation would strengthen the paper’s focus.

 

Additionally, there is a rich body of existing scholarship on the Discourse on God that could be more thoroughly engaged with. While some works are mentioned, offering a more detailed summary of these contributions would enhance the paper’s academic grounding.

 

Moreover, the section subtitles could benefit from further clarification within the text to improve the overall coherence of the argument.

 

Lastly, a few footnotes do not seem directly relevant to the main discussion and may need to be reconsidered or removed.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

More revision is needed.

Author Response

Comment 1: This paper requires further revision before it is ready for publication. 

Response 1: Noted. The paper has been duly revised.

Comment 2: Firstly, the explanation of key terms such as Gentile conversion, messianic claims, references to Jerusalem, and synagogue-like imagery could be clearer. Since these terms are highlighted in the abstract, providing a more thorough explanation would strengthen the paper’s focus. 

Response 2: These terms are indeed highlighted in the abstract, but their inconsistent use in the final paragraph of Section 1 (Introduction) and in the formulation of the subtitles may have contributed to some confusion. To address this, the final paragraph of Section 1 has been revised for consistent terminology, and the subtitles for Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 have also been updated accordingly. With these revisions, it is hoped that the clarity has improved, making it evident that the sections are thoroughly engaged in discussing these terms and concepts, offering comprehensive explanation and analysis.

Comment 3: Additionally, there is a rich body of existing scholarship on the Discourse on God that could be more thoroughly engaged with. While some works are mentioned, offering a more detailed summary of these contributions would enhance the paper’s academic grounding.

Response 3: The existing scholarship on YSL has been actively engaged throughout this study, as demonstrated by the citations and quotations in each section and in various footnotes. To further enhance this engagement, a discussion of David Tam’s 2022 and 2024 papers has been incorporated into Section 1 (Introduction).

Comment 4: Moreover, the section subtitles could benefit from further clarification within the text to improve the overall coherence of the argument. 

Response 4: See response to comment 2 above.

Comment 5: Lastly, a few footnotes do not seem directly relevant to the main discussion and may need to be reconsidered or removed. 

Response 5: Noted. They have thoroughly checked and the less significant ones have been removed.

Comment 6: Comments on the Quality of English Language: More revision is needed. 

Response 6: Noted. The text has been reviewed and revised where appropriate. Additionally, I acknowledge Reviewer 2's comment that "the article is an instructive, revealing, historical exploration presented in a clear, concise, and coherent fashion," as well as Reviewer 3's comment that "the article is well-written."

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author recontextualizes the seventh century CE Tang Christian document known as Yishen Lun or YSL (Discourse on God). Toru Haneda, in publications from 1918-1931, and P.Y. Saeki in a 1937 book, characterized the document as a Nestorian work. The author of the article, however, on the basis of distinctive themes such as the Sanctification of the Gentiles, persecution for Messianic self-identification, references to Jerusalem as the City of Judah, and references to the parochet curtain screening the Torah Shrine in synagogues, argues that the document is instead representative of Tang Christianity shaped by Jewish Christian heritage and influence.  The article is an instructive, revealing, historical exploration presented in a clear, concise, and coherent fashion.  It moreover introduces us to a linguistic-cultural world that is inaccessible to most western readers.  Other than some minor typesetting issues, I see nothing objectionable in this article.

Author Response

Comment 1: The author recontextualizes the seventh century CE Tang Christian document known as Yishen Lun or YSL (Discourse on God). Toru Haneda, in publications from 1918-1931, and P.Y. Saeki in a 1937 book, characterized the document as a Nestorian work. The author of the article, however, on the basis of distinctive themes such as the Sanctification of the Gentiles, persecution for Messianic self-identification, references to Jerusalem as the City of Judah, and references to the parochet curtain screening the Torah Shrine in synagogues, argues that the document is instead representative of Tang Christianity shaped by Jewish Christian heritage and influence. The article is an instructive, revealing, historical exploration presented in a clear, concise, and coherent fashion. It moreover introduces us to a linguistic-cultural world that is inaccessible to most western readers. Other than some minor typesetting issues, I see nothing objectionable in this article.

Response 1: Noted with thanks.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: In the article, the authors uncover Jewish elements in the manuscript Yishen Lun (Discourse on God) that relate to early Christianity in China. Their interpretation not only aims to offer a more accurate reading of the document but also questions the conventional understanding of early Christianity in China, which is generally linked to a Nestorian mission. The presence of these Jewish elements indicates the possibility of a Christian presence in China with direct Jewish influences.

Response 1: This paper indeed seeks to provide a more accurate interpretation of the document, and questioning its "Nestorian" connection arises naturally in the process. (See also response 6 below.)

Comment 2: This is an ambitious and complex article that deserves special attention from the reviewer. First of all, I must confess that I am not an expert in Chinese Christianity. Secondly, the article is well-written, citing the most important sources related to both the document and the interpretive framework being proposed. As I will demonstrate shortly, some aspects of the interpretation appear more robust than others. Overall, however, the interpretive framework is solid.

Response 2: Thanks.

Comment 3. After a brief introduction that situates the document within the relevant literature, the authors present their arguments and outline the elements of their interpretation. In the following four sections, they introduce and discuss four key elements: the conversion of the Gentiles, the accusation of messianic self-claim, the designation of Jerusalem, and the Curtain of the Synagogue.

Response 3: Thanks.

Comment 4: I found the second section to be brilliant, while the first and third sections are quite convincing. For reasons that would take too long to explain, I consider the fourth section to be the weakest. That said, the interpretive framework is solid.

Response 4: Thanks.

Comment 5: I recommend the publication of this article as it contributes significantly to the interpretation of the document in question. However, whether this interpretation has the potential to reshape our scholarly understanding of early Christianity in China is another matter.

Response 5: Thanks. The goal of the paper is not to reshape our scholarly understanding of early Christianity in China. It simply, as previously noted, seeks to provide a more accurate interpretation of the document.

Comment 6: If I understand correctly, the authors argue that the document cannot be considered part of the Nestorian mission because it lacks the traditional elements of Nestorian theology. Instead, it includes Christian elements that are connected to a form of Christianity with direct ties to Judaism. However, the first point is merely stated; to substantiate it, a discussion in dialogue with the existing literature is necessary.

Response 6: The authors point out that the document lacks the traditional features of "Nestorian theology" and instead contains Jewish elements. Their approach is primarily hermeneutical rather than historical, and thus the question of the document’s connection to the "Nestorian" mission is not the central focus. However, they note that Saeki assumes such a connection and, based on this assumption, characterizes the document as "Nestorian" and associated with "Aluoben." In Section 1 (Introduction), the authors, from the standpoint of the text itself (rather than Saeki’s assumption), challenge the "Nestorian" (and consequently "Aluoben") characterization, as key terminologies fundamental to "Nestorian" doctrines—such as qnoma, parsopa, and kyana in Syriac, or hypostasis, prosopon, and physis in Greek—are absent from the text. Additionally, they highlight significant differences between YSL and authentic "Nestorian" texts, particularly those titled "Daqin Jingjiao," especially in the usage of divine appellations. This discussion in the Introduction primarily serves to set the stage for presenting the hermeneutical findings, namely the observation of Jewish elements within the document.

Comment 7: Furthermore, while it is one thing to claim that the document contains Jewish-Christian elements, it is another to assert that these elements are incompatible with the Nestorian tradition, and by extension, with the Nestorian mission in China. The question of whether these Jewish-Christian elements align with or contradict the Nestorian tradition warrants a thorough analysis, engaging critically with the existing scholarship.

Response 7: The authors are silent on the question whether the Jewish-Christian elements are compatible with the "Nestorian" tradition or not. Rather, they argue that the case for the document being "Nestorian" and linked to the "Nestorian" mission has not been sufficiently argued or established. As mentioned in the Introduction, Haneda and Saeki draw this connection solely based on temporal proximity. While this proximity could serve as a premise for a theory of connection, further arguments are required to substantiate it. However, neither Haneda, Saeki, nor subsequent scholarship have provided such arguments. If one were to assume that temporal proximity alone substantiates the premise, they would be engaging in circular reasoning. If future scholars present arguments to establish a "Nestorian" and "Aluoben" connection, or indeed a whole new alternative theory of origin, they would need to account for the presence of Jewish elements in the text.

Comment 8: In conclusion, I commend the quality and depth of the document's interpretation and defer the discussion of its implications to other articles that address these issues more extensively and in dialogue with the relevant scholarly literature.

Response 8: Thanks.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has spared great effort in revising the article, resulting in significant improvements. The argument presented in the abstract is compelling, particularly in challenging the “Nestorian” characterization of YSL and instead highlighting Jewish elements such as Gentile conversion, messianic claims, and the curtain-splitting at Jesus’ death. This fresh perspective, grounded in a hermeneutical approach and building upon the author’s previous 2024 work, provides new insights into the debate surrounding YSL’s origins.

 

In sum, the article has been improved greatly, and with these minor revisions, it will be ready for publication. I recommend minor revisions, with special attention to adding recent Western academic contributions and addressing the points mentioned above.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Improved greatly.

Author Response

Comment 1: The author has spared great effort in revising the article, resulting in significant improvements. The argument presented in the abstract is compelling, particularly in challenging the “Nestorian” characterization of YSL and instead highlighting Jewish elements such as Gentile conversion, messianic claims, and the curtain-splitting at Jesus’ death. This fresh perspective, grounded in a hermeneutical approach and building upon the author’s previous 2024 work, provides new insights into the debate surrounding YSL’s origins.

In sum, the article has been improved greatly, and with these minor revisions, it will be ready for publication. I recommend minor revisions, with special attention to adding recent Western academic contributions and addressing the points mentioned above.

Response 1: Revisions have been further made, by highlighting recent Western academic contributions such as Nicolini-Zani and Tam’s recent books and articles.