Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-organized and thoroughly researched essay on two seminal 20th c. figures in the history of contemporary religion. The thesis is clear and cogently argued. Overall, the author writes clearly and capably on their subjects with an impressive grasp of primary and secondary source material. With that said, there are a significant number of typos and line edits needed. Only a selection of which are highlighted below. This will need careful editing before acceptable for publication. Also, there are numerous occasions where statements are made without appropriate citations. Again, only a few instances are highlighted below. With minor edits the essay should be ready for publication and will make an important contribution to the vast literature on both of these prophetic figures.

typo line 21: should read: "bears"

22: "one WHO has..."; "out"?

24: one period end of sent.

25-27: "history of world religions" - perhaps tone this down a bit? that's a long history... 

29: "become" (typo)

33: "the"? not "their"? 

40-1: "The story of Merton’s conversion is fascinating" - delete commentary - let it speak for itself.

43: typo ("experience")

60: Merton did not describe this event as a "mystical vision" fyi

73: add: "His Holiness... the XIV Dalai Lama"

110: "aesthetics AND spirituality"? two separate words?

142-4: needs citation re: Merton discovering Heschel's writings - how did he?

148-9: "discovered the Jewish roots of the psalms" - again, needs citation.

166-7: citation for the letter referenced

179: capitalize Cardinal

243: delete "beautiful" 

328: delete "acclaimed" 

A lot of block quotes in section 4, esp. p. 10 - consider condensing or paraphrasing; more from the author's analysis and less from reliance on other authors

550-1: who is the "our" and "we" here? Qualify claims made on behalf of "all people"?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a significant number of typos and line edits needed. This will need careful editing before acceptable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for all your comments and for your recommendations! I corrected all of them and revised the whole document. Please see the attachment with all the highlighted texts.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is interesting because it deals with two fascinating figures. Its major shorthand lies in the fact that it is mostly descriptive, and at some points even hagiographic tone. There's not much of an argument behind the narrative.

The author presents a short biography of Merton and Heschel and concentrates on their mutual political-theological messages. It confronts both on the practical level, where Heschel stands for a more active path while Merton is for a type of isolated mystic. However, the author insists, and rightly so, that this cannot be reduced to a polarity between the prophet and the mystic (lines 487-9: "This does not mean that Heschel was just a prophet and Merton a mystic. In fact, they both were modern prophets and mystics"), that both figures share a lot in common in the way they turn to biblical prophetic models as a living paradigm for their activism.

It might be important to note that the conflict itself, as it is portrayed here, seems to reflect a non-critical adaptation of the Weberian definition of mysticism as an a-political if not anti-political position. Especially modern theo-politics is full of contrary examples of messianic mystical highly political attitudes (early Buber could be a good example).

Here the author could have supported his argument with another German Jewish political thinker, Hannah Arendt, and her insistence on the subversive and revolutionary role of free thought, i.e. on theory as a major form of resistance.

I believe that the author will profit if, beyond quoting his.her protagonists and a variety of scholars referring to them he would try to deepen the comparative analysis of both. Here is a deeper comparison of the Chasidic Cabbalistic principles used by Heschel (see especially the quotation in 543-9. The notion of tikun olam must be explicitly mentioned here - not only once in the next chapter) against Mertons's catholic and far eastern ideas could be most fruitful.

Karma Ben-Johanan's Jacob's Younger Brother can provide the author with an excellent critical background on the central event of Vatican II and its influence on both Jewish and Catholic intellectuals (see especially lines 270-280).

The author concludes with an optimistic credo in the power of the messages provided by both thinkers: "Their spiritual legacy still resonates with many people around the globe, and their inspiration serves us well in building a more lasting peaceful and just world in which to live" (625-6). Amid a global crisis, both within the USA and in places like Ukraine and the Middle East, a crisis in which religious voices are very dominant and not necessarily in the direction of peace and human rights, I would expect a somewhat more nuanced offer on how to translate such lofty religious ideas into political action and hope. Perhaps one or two present examples could help.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is decently well written but there is some editing still needed. Here few corrections:

Lines 22-4: "An authentic mystic is one has an immediate encounter with the divine, and out his or her personal revelation from God is called to participate in the political and religious struggles of their time" - sentence must be syntactically reformulated.

Line 434: for => from

Line 511: move left

line 579: legacy of

 

Author Response

Thank you for all your comments and for your recommendations! I corrected all of them and revised the whole document. I added parts to it following your recommendations. Please see the attachment with all the highlighted texts.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx