Mashhadis and Immigration: Redemptive Narratives and Practical Challenges

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article appears to report on a small ethnographic project, including four personal narratives of Jews who emigrated from Meshhed, Iran, to Israel and the United States, at various points between the late 19^th century and the 1970s. There is no methodological discussion of how and why these 4 narratives were selected; whether or to what extent the author believes them to be sufficiently representative as to support conclusions.

Of the four narratives, two are in a textual form (one, a ‘lament’ written or compiled within a family over at least two generations, and the other, a memoir written in contemporary times). The other two narratives are the result of interviews conducted by the article’s author. However, there is no documentation of the interviews (dates? number of encounters with each interviewee? language of the interviews? length of interviews?). Indeed, the interviewees’ ideas are conveyed for the most part through the filter of the interviewer’s perspective. There are briefly quoted statements or phrases, but other than that, we are left with the author’s own restatement of the informant’s recollection, with added commentary and interpretation. How much of what we are told is an accurate report, and how much is attributed to the interviewers by the author? We have no way of knowing. All in all, from the methodological point of view, there is much to be done to bring this material before the reader in a documented, professional manner.

There is also the matter of anonymization -- does the author have permission to use the respondents' names?The article appears to report on a small ethnographic project, including four personal narratives of Jews who emigrated from Meshhed, Iran, to Israel and the United States, at various points between the late 19^th century and the 1970s. There is no methodological discussion of how and why these 4 narratives were selected; whether or to what extent the author believes them to be sufficiently representative as to support conclusions.

 

Of the four narratives, two are in a textual form (one, a ‘lament’ written or compiled within a family over at least two generations, and the other, a memoir written in contemporary times). The other two narratives are the result of interviews conducted by the article’s author. However, there is no documentation of the interviews (dates? number of encounters with each interviewee? language of the interviews? length of interviews?). Indeed, the interviewees’ ideas are conveyed for the most part through the filter of the interviewer’s perspective. There are briefly quoted statements or phrases, but other than that, we are left with the author’s own restatement of the informant’s recollection, with added commentary and interpretation. How much of what we are told is an accurate report, and how much is attributed to the interviewers by the author? We have no way of knowing. All in all, from the methodological point of view, there is much to be done to bring this material before the reader in a more professional manner.

Editorial matters of language: the author’s English grammar and style is fairly good, for the most part, but there are some egregious lapses in word choice, syntax, or spelling. Here are a few examples:

“wanders” [sic] instead of wonders

“parent-home” [sic] instead of parental home

“European extract” [sic] instead of extraction

“deferent” [sic] instead of different

There are some oddities about references to Biblical texts. In one line, the author refers to the Torah as the Pentateuch (which may be considered a good English usage); however, in another line, Biblical literature is referred to as “Tanakhic.” The author ought to decide whether to use proper English terms consistently, or else to use Hebraic terms consistently.

One term (the name of an organization) is given only by an acronym (ASF), without further identification.

In sum, the article proposes two paradigmatic forms of immigrant narrative in the wake of migration and, to a large extent, in the wake of some form of trauma. These two forms are dubbed “redemptive” and “healing”, respectively. There is not enough discussion of why these two paradigmatic forms differ in any substantive way. The narratives appear to have been chosen nearly by the whim of the author (since there is no supportive discussion of their selection). Lastly, three of the four narratives appear to derive from people who belong to an educational and/or social elite (“intellectual,” “university education”) – although the article itself does not devote any discussion to how a relatively elite position may or may not have shaped the way that the narratives were rendered.

Editorial matters of language: the author’s English grammar and style is fairly good, for the most part, but there are some egregious lapses in word choice, syntax, or spelling. Here are a few examples:

“wanders” [sic] instead of wonders

“parent-home” [sic] instead of parental home

“European extract” [sic] instead of extraction

“deferent” [sic] instead of different

There are some oddities about references to Biblical texts. In one line, the author refers to the Torah as the Pentateuch (which may be considered a good English usage); however, in another line, Biblical literature is referred to as “Tanakhic.” The author ought to decide whether to use proper English terms consistently, or else to use Hebraic terms consistently.

One term (the name of an organization) is given only by an acronym (ASF), without further identification.

In sum, the article proposes two paradigmatic forms of immigrant narrative in the wake of migration and, to a large extent, in the wake of some form of trauma. These two forms are dubbed “redemptive” and “healing”, respectively. There is not enough discussion of why these two paradigmatic forms differ in any substantive way. The narratives appear to have been chosen nearly by the whim of the author (since there is no supportive discussion of their selection). Lastly, three of the four narratives appear to derive from people who belong to an educational and/or social elite (“intellectual,” “university education”) – although the article itself does not devote any discussion to how a relatively elite position may or may not have shaped the way that the narratives were rendered.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Editorial matters of language: the author’s English grammar and style is fairly good, for the most part, but there are some egregious lapses in word choice, syntax, or spelling. Here are a few examples:

“wanders” [sic] instead of wonders

“parent-home” [sic] instead of parental home

“European extract” [sic] instead of extraction

“deferent” [sic] instead of different

There are some oddities about references to Biblical texts. In one line, the author refers to the Torah as the Pentateuch (which may be considered a good English usage); however, in another line, Biblical literature is referred to as “Tanakhic.” The author ought to decide whether to use proper English terms consistently, or else to use Hebraic terms consistently.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review and insightful feedback on my article. I have made several revisions that I believe significantly strengthen the work. I am pleased to resubmit this improved version for your consideration.

In response to your comment regarding the lack of methodological discussion on narrative selection, I have added a detailed explanation of how the four narratives were chosen from the overall study, which analyzed a total of 78 oral history interviews conducted with American and Israeli Mashhadi Jewish community members between 2020 and 2024. The interviews averaged around 100 minutes each. I now discuss how the four narratives capture the major waves of Mashhadi migration throughout the 20th century, with two exploring intergenerational storytelling and two analyzing individual oral histories to provide a comprehensive collective portrait, while situated within the context of the broader analysis of all 78 interviews.

Addressing your concern about the documentation of oral history interviews, I have now included specifics on the number of interviews conducted, their average length, the dates, the language used, and the sampling approach. Additionally, I have identified quotes by their sources to give readers a clearer sense of each narrative's origin.

Regarding the matter of anonymization, I have obtained signed consent forms from all interview participants, granting permission to publish their names and stories.

I have also meticulously proofread the article to address issues of English language usage. Consistent terminology is now applied throughout, and all acronyms are fully spelled out upon their first occurrence.

In response to your feedback about the discussion of the two narrative paradigms, I have elaborated on how they differ in conceptualizing the challenges faced by the Mashhadi Jewish community. One paradigm views these challenges through a religious lens of redemption, while the other emphasizes individual experiences of adaptation.

Once again, thank you for your valuable comments, which have undoubtedly enhanced the quality and rigor of my work. I hope this revised version meets your expectations and addresses the review points you raised.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I left comments in the attached file but I would generally say there are three overarching issues that need to be addressed: 

1. The journal is a religious studies journal, how is this topic relevant to the study of religion? 

2. There is no clear research question. 

3. There needs to be an analytical section that deals with all four narratives. Once there is a clear research question that would be easier to do. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback. I have addressed each of the main points as follows:

1. Relevance to religious studies: The paper examines how religious identity and conceptions of redemption shaped the meaning-making processes of Jewish immigrants. It analyzes how redemptive narratives provided a framework for coping with migration challenges through lenses of religious promise, prophesy, or peoplehood. By tracing how religious themes converged with understandings of community and family, the paper contributes new qualitative insights into debates around the role of identity formation in immigrant communities.
2. Clear research question: The overarching research question is how conceptions of religion, family, and community converged for Mashhadi Jewish immigrants in processing the challenges of dispersal and resettlement. The paper aims to shed light on how redemptive narratives intersected with understandings of religious identity, communal ties, and gender roles to empower immigrants as they navigated new contexts.
3. Analytical section on all narratives: I have revised the paper to include a concluding section that analyzes patterns across the four case studies. This analyzes how they illustrate diverging yet redemptive pathways for grappling with migration challenges through lenses of both collective and individual redemption.

Regarding language quality, I have thoroughly reviewed and copyedited the paper per the reviewer's attached comments. I appreciate you taking the time to provide this feedback and help me improve my work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author, dear editors,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on this paper.

I am not an expert on the community discussed in the paper, so my points are more general. The main point I would like to make is that while the individual life stories are very interesting and well written, the theoretical framing of the article is underdeveloped. My suggestion is to replace the focus on trauma with some more substantial theory. "Trauma" in my opinion is an overused concept and as far as I can see, the article does not use the category of "trauma" beyond its current popular understanding. As such it is quite obvious that (involuntary) migration will for many people be traumatic, as well as that talking things through can have a therapeutic effect. This point deserves to be made, but it does in my opinion not suffice in its current form as the theoretical basis for a scholarly article. As stated, the biographical case study of this oral history project are indeed very interesting and nuanced. They deserve more theoretical engagement on issues of identity formation, the negotiation of memory, social roles and hybridity. Homi Bhabha would be an obvious starting point. All of these issues are touched in the article already, so this suggestion is about a reprioritizing, a redifinition of the lens, and a deeper engagement with existing scholarship.

Some minor points:
275: I think it should read "different" instead of "deferent"
337: The spelling is "Mumbai" not "Mumbay"
375: "Because, a lamentation of 44 verses that she wrote in the Persian-Jewish language focuses solely on the confiscation of the house." Sentence appears incomplete?
379: I find that singular use of bold letters a bit confusing.
467: I don't understand this sentence: " The second impetus was even more urgent and traumatic becoming narrative link connecting Esther’s story with that of her parents."
509: space appears missing after the comma

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not a native speaker but as far as I can tell quality of the English language is very good, except for the minor issues mentioned above

Author Response

Thank you for the thoughtful review and constructive feedback. I found the suggestions very helpful in strengthening the theoretical framing and analytical rigor of the paper.

In response to the comments, we have done the following:

1. I have reframed the conceptual lens from a focus on "trauma" to a deeper engagement with theories of identity formation, cultural translation, and hybridity. In particular, we draw more substantially on Bhabha's concepts of third space and cultural translation to analyze how the immigrants navigate cultural differences through narrative.
2. I have replaced the generic discussion of "trauma" with a clearer research question examining how religious identity, community ties and family shaped the redemptive narratives constructed by immigrants to find meaning and purpose in their migration experiences.
3. The life stories are now analyzed through this theoretical framework, with each section examining how the narratives demonstrate processes of cultural translation, hybridity formation, or negotiations of gender/cultural norms.
4. References have been strengthened and contextualized more fully within the relevant scholarship around immigrant experiences, oral history methodology, and theoretical frameworks.
5. The article was copyedited for correct English.

We hope these revisions address the concerns raised and strengthen the theoretical robustness and analytical rigor of the paper. Please let us know if any other aspects require further elaboration or clarification. We appreciate you taking the time to provide this feedback, as it has certainly helped improve the quality of our work.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions in the manuscript are adequate.

Author Response

Thank you again for your help in improving my research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the paper is ready for publication. 

Author Response

Thank you again for your help in improving my research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s), thank you for revising your article in line with my suggestions. I find that the paper has been strengthened by the changes. The life story narrations are now reflected in a suitable theoretical framework. The formatting needs some revisions, for example I was not quite sure what is going on in lines 631ff.

Author Response

Thank you again for your help in improving my research.