Transformative Tears: Genesis’s Joseph and Mengzi’s Shun

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article compares Joseph in Genesis with Shun in Mencius, identifying their commonalities in relation to a reconciliatory process, transitioning from violence to reconciliation.

One comment is that, when discussing the method of Biblical narrative analysis cited in lines 84-85, it would be intellectually helpful to provide an additional explanation/discussion of the method. Specifically, it would be intellectually beneficial to address whether the Biblical narrative analysis applicable to Joseph in Genesis is also relevant to the story of Shun, as this relates to the meaning of the comparison. This may entail an appropriate revision of other relevant parts of discussions accordingly.

Author Response

Comments 1: One comment is that, when discussing the method of Biblical narrative analysis cited in lines 84-85, it would be intellectually helpful to provide an additional explanation/discussion of the method. Specifically, it would be intellectually beneficial to address whether the Biblical narrative analysis applicable to Joseph in Genesis is also relevant to the story of Shun, as this relates to the meaning of the comparison. This may entail an appropriate revision of other relevant parts of discussions accordingly.

Response 1: Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your valuable comments. I agree it would be helpful to provide an additional explanation of narrative analysis. I therefore extended footnote 5 on page 3, line 85, adding a) an explanation of the method of narrative analysis, b) further references and c) additional reasons (very brief already on page 1 lines 36-40) why narrative analysis is not applied to the Mencius the same way it is applied in the case of Genesis.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting paper that engages in a cross-religious examination of the phenomenon of crying and its features, context, and import in the Hebrew Bible and Mencius. I think the paper is of very high quality and can be accepted. I found one typo: in line 450, the period should precede the footnote number. There's one that may be a typo: line 492: the author says 'privatio' and I'm unsure whether they mean 'privation' or whether they are using a Latin term which then should be italicised. Other than that the article is very well written throughout and would be easy to follow even for someone who has only a passing familiarity with these texts.

Author Response

Comments 1: I found one typo: in line 450, the period should precede the footnote number.

Response 1: Thank you for taking the time to review this paper and for making me aware of the typo. I corrected the typo in line 450.

Comments 2: There's one that may be a typo: line 492: the author says 'privatio' and I'm unsure whether they mean 'privation' or whether they are using a Latin term which then should be italicised.

Response 2: Thank you, I was using the Latin term, switched to the English term though and hence changed to "privation" in line 492.