In the Beginning Was the Tao: Interreligious Paths Based on a Chinese Translation of John 1:1

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, I think this is an interesting, helpful discussion.  I do, though, have some suggestions.

 My primary set of suggestions relates to the structure of the essay. I see in the essay two major foci: (1) a historical overview of how we arrived at the differing translations of logos in John 1:1 we find today – Tao in Protestant Bibles and yan in Catholic Bibles and (2) the impact of using Tao on both Christianity and Taoism.

 I would, accordingly, suggest revising the Abstract to something like the following:

 There are two main options for translating logos in Chinese versions of John 1:1.  One is to use Tao, which in this context means (give a brief, clear definition); the other is to use yan, which in this context means (give a brief, clear definition).  Our goal is to (1) give a historical overview of the use of Tao in the Protestant Bible and yan in the Catholic Bible and (2) discuss what has been lost, modified, or acquired by using Tao, both for Christianity and Taoism.

 I would then suggest changing the last paragraph of the Introduction to read something like the following:

We don’t know who that “Missionary of the Romish Church” was –although we can hypothesize that he was a Jesuit, following Matteo Ricci’s tradition and insights –, nor can we know who the one who had already rendered Logos by 言 (yán) was; nevertheless, we can find in this letter almost all the fundamental elements on which this essay will focus:

1.      How Tao became the preferred translation for logos for Protestant Bibles.

2.      The potential impact of using Tao for both Christianity and Taoism.

 

Under the heading of how Tao became the preferred translation, I would discuss as subsections . . .

1.      Logos, yan and/or Tao

2.      Logos, davar and Tao

3.      Logos as an Untranslated Proper Name

 

Under the heading of the potential positive and negative impact of the use of Tao on both Christianity on Christianity and Taoism, I would discuss . .

1.      The Impact on Christianity

2.      The Impact on Taoism

 

 

I also have a textual suggestion: I would move “We must now see what has been lost by translating λόγος Logos with 道Tao, what has been modified, and what, if so, has been acquired” from the last sentence in the section on Logos, davar, and Tao to the first sentence in the section on  Logos as an Untranslated Proper Name and revise it as follows: “Before seeing what has been lost by translating λόγος Logos with 道Tao, what has been modified, and what, if so, has been acquired, let us examine briefly . . .”

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

thanks for your appreciation and suggestions. We accepted all of them, adding also another possible translation in the Catholic version: 聖言 (shèng yán, Holy Word), which is indeed the current one.

Thanks to your comments, all the structure is clearer now.

Bests

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The prominent shortcomings of this article are as follows: Firstly, it lacks a comprehensive review of the relevant research, which is crucial for situating the study within the existing academic context. Secondly, it fails to clearly articulate the innovation points of this work and its specific contributions to the corresponding research domain. It is reasonable to assume that there has been a substantial body of past research concerning the dialogue between "Tao" and "Logos" as well as the translation problems therein. Moreover, this article cites only seven references, with a portion being primary sources. Owing to the scarcity of commentaries on the Tao Te Ching and the Bible, along with an insufficient amount of secondary academic literature to buttress the arguments, numerous viewpoints presented in this work seem to be subjective and lack a solid academic foundation, resembling self-opinionated assertions rather than evidence-based claims.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

many thanks for your comment on our paper. Actually and surprisingly, the academic literature about this topic is very rare, despite some studies in Chinese (not translated in English) we decide not to consider under the references due to the linguistic gap.

There are many spiritual views, books and practices about Christianity and Taoism, but it lacks a proper scientific consideration of this relationship. In particular, few philosophical and theoretical studied are based on the actual historical process of the translation of Logos in John 1:1 with Tao. From this point of view, we think our approach really goes beyond the state-of-the-art.

Regarding the nature of our claims and the conclusions, we don't agree with you view: far from being self-opinionated, they are text-based and argument-based, since texts and arguments are the "evidences" of a scientific philosophical methodology.

Bests

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I still have one structural concern.  The authors state in the Introduction the following:

Under the heading of how Tao became the preferred translation, we would discuss as sub-sections: 

1. Logos, yán and/or Tào 

2. Logos, davar and Tào 

3. Logos as an untranslated Proper Name 

Under the heading of the potential positive and negative impact of the use of Tao on both 64 Christianity and Taoism, we would discuss: 

1. The impact on Taoism 

2. The impact on Christianity

But in the text that follows, we don't see these headings and sub-sections.  Rather we still see the original headings:

2.   Logos, yán and/or Tào

3.      Logos, davar and Tao

4.      Not translating and making unintelligible, or translating and risking misconception?

5.      Taoism receiving Christianity

6.      Christianity receiving Taoism: a hermeneutic interreligious proposal 270 for “Those of the Way” 

I think this needs to be rectified.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

sorry for the misconception. We fixed the subtitles, too. There is still the specification "an hermeneutic proposal..." under section 2.2, since we discuss a potential exegetical impact there, not the whole impact of the translation Logos-Tao on Christianity.

Bests

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your response and the revised manuscript. I have no further comments.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thanks for you kind reply.

Best regards