The Feminine Sacred: An Ontosociology of Woman as a Symbol
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs an entry for an issue themed around a sociological perspective on religion, this article lacks any sociological perspective. As the article admits, this is a work of ontology, not sociology. This is a cosmological work, not a sociological one.
This piece is packed with information and dense with copious citations, but it lacks a direction to the argument. It is unclear what the argument is except that the article does succeed in presenting an ontology of the feminine. Sometimes it is unclear why these wide-ranging references are presented as evidence.
Often, as happens in studies of archetypes (as this partly is) broad universalist symbolic claims are made with little substantiation or explanation. a case in point occurs in lines 69-78.
It could be more clearly explained how the science cited exactly relates to the mythology, philosophy, and theology.
The article could stand a conclusion statement.
Corrections (and some recommendations):
8 contemporary > the contemporary
ftn 8 [consolidate line 3]
ftn 9, l. 3. 32(no. 3) > 32 (no. 3) [#]
19-21 [delete]
60 develop cosmology > develop a cosmology
118 Hokma > Chokma
128 [Genesis does not narrate the androgyne.]
165 exitus reditus > exitus reditus [italics]
182 regressus ad uterum >regressus ad uterum [ italics]
216-218 [This is the same as 219-221.]
ftn 12, l. 4 [eliminate underscores.]
ftn 12, l. 4 nitiation > Initiation
274 Luc > Luke
ftn 16, l. 2 [word space]
ftn 18, 2nd part on page 9) line 1 The > the
ftn 18 line 8 [word space]
324 Life > "Life"
313-326 [Is this a block quote?]
400 [close quotes]: spirit."
452 book > Book
459 Christian Old Testament > Hebrew Bible
475-493 {Is this a block quote?]
565 meh2ter > mehter
ftn 63 Cfr. > Cf.
916 sitios web > Web Sites
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article has an interesting abstract, which suggests that it will use a variety of sources to articulate a feminine ontology of difference, as part of a sociological special issue. The argument, however, gets lost for a few reasons.
The first is organization. The article jumps right into the content without any type of introduction or statement regarding why this topic is relevant. An introduction with a thesis would have been very helpful and expected in a scholarly article dealing with a number of abstract concepts. A paragraph repeats itself on the top of page 7. A point seems to be missing in footnote 18. And this note is repeated as footnote 64.
The second is the content itself. There were numerous assertions that needed explanation, beginning with the image on page 2. Who is Shu? Page 4 mentions the third form of representation. Where is the second form (the first appears on page 2)?
The interpretation of Genesis 3 relies too much on Eliade and not on biblical scholarship, because the snake is not a demonic or even a helper divine figure in the biblical text. Similarly, the Satan in Job is not Mephistopheles or the devil. I strongly recommend utilizing some biblical commentaries.
Also, reading the Magnificat through a Greek philosophical lens and only noting the Hebrew Bible parallels in a footnote is problematic. Mary is not passive in Luke 1. Her "yes" does mean something, and the use of handmaid language is not necessarily a sign of her being nothing. Also in lines 435-438, the idea that Mary is taking on everyone's impurity is an assertion that needs additional evidence. In section 6, the idea that Mary's yes is to traditional marriage does not work well either, since her yes is to being impregnated outside of marriage.
Footnote 21 is problematic as well. In the ancient world, women typically couldn't be betrothed until they were menstruating. The interpretation of menstruation as a scary and isolating event also needs reconsideration. Impurity was not solely a women's issue in the ancient world, and particularly that of the Hebrew Bible and early Judaism. Again, I think biblical commentaries would help here, along with Mary Douglas' work.
The use of Tipler as the primary physics source is less than ideal, since Tipler is an apologist for theism.
The concluding section relies heavily on common religious practices that "cannot be legally questioned" (line 729). What does this mean? Why is it important to make a distinction between popular religion and more formal forms, especially because the earlier parts of the paper are relying on the latter?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Throughout the article, and beginning on page 2, there were one-sentence paragraphs that were often several lines long. It was easy to lose the main point because of the number of clauses. Please check the pronoun use in lines 324-325. Lines 747-748 are in Spanish, which I read, but probably need to be translated. Line 794 unnecessarily repeats psychopomp.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting and compelling topic. However, this article is definitely not ready for publication. I am attaching a file with comments that show instances where author makes statements that require the citation of sources in support. This is a consistent problem throughout the article. Whenever you state something as if it is a fact, you must cite sources that support it. The only exception to this is knowledge that is so common that the average reader would be aware of it.
The consistent failure to cite sources in the article is a form of plagiarism.
In addition to needing citations, the article could benefit from including a discussion of Jewish and Islamic theologies related the sacred feminine. The article discusses only Greek, Roman, and some Christian thinking.
Here are some works that can help enrich the author's understanding and improve the article.
Alonso, Julia. “The Divine Feminine Presence in Ibn ‘Arabi and Moses de Leon.” Religions (Basel, Switzerland) 12, no. 3 (2021): 156.
Brach, Jean-Pierre. “Son of the Son of God: The Feminine Messiah and Her Progeny, According to Guillaume Postel (1510—1581).” Alternative Christs 2014: 113-130.
Boyce-Tillman, June. “Liberating Language and Concepts of the Divine in Contemporary Hymnody.” Verbum et Ecclesia 38, no. 2 (2017): 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/ve.v38i2.1614.
Kushner, Aviya. The Grammar of God : A Journey into the Words and Worlds of the Bible. First edition. New York: Spiegel & Grau, 2015.
Murata, Sachiko. The Tao of Islam : A Sourcebook on Gender Relationships in Islamic Thought. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992.
Shapiro, Rami M. “The Divine Feminine.” Juniata Voices 12 (2012): 37.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the revision. My concerns remain. The inclusion of "sociological" throughout the article does not make it a sociological analysis.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe language still needs work, right down to the repeated paragraph (which now has lines in Spanish (?).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI congratulate the author on taking the reviewers' concerns seriously and using them to improve the article for publication. It is an excellent topic and now meets the standards for publication. The formatting will benefit from perusal by a copy editor.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
