Theosis in Soloviev and Berdyaev

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author, 

Several parts of the article need to be rewritten (please find attached the text with the relative comments).

The main point of improvement is author's clear statement of his/her own arguments. The author scatters his own views without philosophical elaboration. Most parts of the article are quite repetitive of Soloviev's and Berdyaev's philosophical thought. Moreover, the criticism on Pilch's argumentation is quite inadequate; it lacks philosophical analysis and it has a quite personal tone which does not fit to an academic article.

Best,

Reviewer 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are no grammar errors in the text. However, the text lacks of coherence and consistency related to the usage of the English language.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article makes a valuable contribution by re-evaluating German and patristic influences on Russian philosophy.
 
A minor critical observation: I noticed a very large number of footnotes (over 200). This clearly demonstrates erudition, but sometimes too much reference density can fragment the main argument, making the text seem more like a “bibliography debate” than a fluid presentation of your own ideas.

Author Response

Comments 1: A minor critical observation: I noticed a very large number of footnotes (over 200). This clearly demonstrates erudition, but sometimes too much reference density can fragment the main argument, making the text seem more like a “bibliography debate” than a fluid presentation of your own ideas.

Response: I am rewriting a large part of the article due to another reviewer. As I do so, I will see if I can reduce the number of quotations.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors "Theosis in Soloviev and Berdyaev" is a good scholarly attempt to bring Soloviev and Berdyaev together. It is written in a clear, though often aphoristic manner, and it has potential for publication. However, in my opinion, it needs some more reworking as follows:    1) In the abstract, the author helpfully explains that Coates and Pilch have conducted research on Berdyaev and Soloviev, respectively. The author also highlights the extent to which they agree with them. Yet the author does not explain why looking at Berdyaev's and Soloviev's deification concepts (i.e., the article's main topic) is significant. In other words, why does this article matter? Is it because Coates and Pilch have misread Berdyaev and Soloviev, and the purpose/value of the article is to offer a corrective from an intellectual history point of view? Or is there another reason? I think the purpose/value/significance should be clearly stated to give the reader a clear idea from the start. Also, apart from Coates, Katarzyna Stark has also written on Berdyaev's theosis in “Theosis and Life in Nicolai Berdyaev’s Philosophy,” in Analecta Husserliana: The Yearbook of Phenomenological Research: Volume CVI, ed. Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka (Berlin: Springer, 2011). The author, however, has not engaged with this work.    2) Interestingly, although the author observes (rightly) that both Berdyaev and Soloviev draw on Boehme, I could not find any references to Boehme's original work. There are, of course, references to secondary literature dealing with Boehme's influence on Berdyaev and Soloviev, but since Boehme is a key thinker for the protagonists of this article, I believe that a more in-depth exploration of Boehme's world, which will include a discussion of his works in the original, is necessary. A good way to start is: Jacob Boehme, ed. and trans. Robin Waterfield (North Atlantic Books, 2001).   3) Some clarifications: in lines 190-193, the author speaks of the church's role in the deification process for Soloviev, something that is also picked up later in lines 238-243, but some more unpacking is necessary here regarding why the church has a crucial role in deification. I say this because, if, as we read in line 378, through Christ's incarnation, Christ's divinity is present in humans, then why do humans need the church's sacraments to be deified? Is it the divinity of Christ (or its sperms) within them not enough?    4) In line 480, the author writes that: "For Berdyaev...the godhead emerged from the Ungrund." This, however, is Boehme's view, not Berdyaev's, especially given that in his "The metaphysical problem of freedom" (1928), Berdyaev says clearly that the Ungrund cannot be identified with “any sort of being, nature, or substance”. To avoid such inaccuracies, it is, I believe, worth looking at Boehme's work.   

 

Author Response

Comments 1: "Theosis in Soloviev and Berdyaev" is a good scholarly attempt to bring Soloviev and Berdyaev together. It is written in a clear, though often aphoristic manner, and it has potential for publication. However, in my opinion, it needs some more reworking as follows:    1) In the abstract, the author helpfully explains that Coates and Pilch have conducted research on Berdyaev and Soloviev, respectively. The author also highlights the extent to which they agree with them. Yet the author does not explain why looking at Berdyaev's and Soloviev's deification concepts (i.e., the article's main topic) is significant. In other words, why does this article matter? Is it because Coates and Pilch have misread Berdyaev and Soloviev, and the purpose/value of the article is to offer a corrective from an intellectual history point of view? Or is there another reason? I think the purpose/value/significance should be clearly stated to give the reader a clear idea from the start. Also, apart from Coates, Katarzyna Stark has also written on Berdyaev's theosis in “Theosis and Life in Nicolai Berdyaev’s Philosophy,” in Analecta Husserliana: The Yearbook of Phenomenological Research: Volume CVI, ed. Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka (Berlin: Springer, 2011). The author, however, has not engaged with this work.    2) Interestingly, although the author observes (rightly) that both Berdyaev and Soloviev draw on Boehme, I could not find any references to Boehme's original work. There are, of course, references to secondary literature dealing with Boehme's influence on Berdyaev and Soloviev, but since Boehme is a key thinker for the protagonists of this article, I believe that a more in-depth exploration of Boehme's world, which will include a discussion of his works in the original, is necessary. A good way to start is: Jacob Boehme, ed. and trans. Robin Waterfield (North Atlantic Books, 2001).   3) Some clarifications: in lines 190-193, the author speaks of the church's role in the deification process for Soloviev, something that is also picked up later in lines 238-243, but some more unpacking is necessary here regarding why the church has a crucial role in deification. I say this because, if, as we read in line 378, through Christ's incarnation, Christ's divinity is present in humans, then why do humans need the church's sacraments to be deified? Is it the divinity of Christ (or its sperms) within them not enough?    4) In line 480, the author writes that: "For Berdyaev...the godhead emerged from the Ungrund." This, however, is Boehme's view, not Berdyaev's, especially given that in his "The metaphysical problem of freedom" (1928), Berdyaev says clearly that the Ungrund cannot be identified with “any sort of being, nature, or substance”. To avoid such inaccuracies, it is, I believe, worth looking at Boehme's work. 

Response: I will provide some indication of why this research matters. I will get my hands on Stark’s article, and dive into Boehme’s own work. I will re-examine my possible inconsistency between lines 190-193 and line 378. I will also re-explore what Berdyaev says about the Ungrund. (I know he does not say that it is a being or a substance.)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

The text  has been significantly improved. There are a few minor changes that you could do in order to enhance the clarity of your text.

Kind regards,

The Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

My responses to the detailed comments of Reviewer #1.

ABSTRACT

Page 1: Reviewer:

What is the aim of section 2?

I respond: I have added a clause to cover this.

SOLOVIEV SECTION

Page 2: Reviewer:

Please rephrase here.

I respond: I’m not sure what’s wrong with the sentence about the patristic period, but I have rewritten it.

Page 3: Reviewer

Wants a reference to Schelling.

I respond: I have added a quote from Schelling and a comment from Coates. Schelling added to the bibliography.

Page 4: Reviewer (regarding my reference to The Sophia, only published in English in 2009):

“The publication by J. Kornblatt concerns some parts of La Sophia, not all of them. Please specify this.”

I respond: My new footnote cites Kornblatt’s remarks about the parts of The Sophia that she is publishing.

Page 7: Reviewer (regarding my remark that Soloviev doesn’t follow the Slavophiles into an anti-western stance): “And what about Solovyov's work 'The Crisis of Western Philosophy (Against the Positivists)'?”

I respond: I looked up that work, and I now have three footnotes to it. I’ve added 212 words to my comments here, including new quotes from Valliere, Berdyaev, and Kornblatt to speak to this point.

Page 13: Reviewer suggests changing my wording.

I respond: I have done so.

Page 13: Reviewer asks that I specify who is intended by “his.”

I respond: I have done so (“Origen’s”).

Page 14 Reviewer critiques my phrase “reacted against Soloviev’s last work”, saying “Last work is The Story of the Antichrist..”

I respond: Actually, that story is part of a whole book, War, Progress, and the End of History. It is that book that is the “last work” to which I refer. I see no need to change my wording.

CHRISTIAN HOPE SECTION

Page 26: Reviewer wants me to expand my short paragraph “Both emphasized that Christ.”

I respond. I have expanded that paragraph to 135 words.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is not completely without merit. The author has read widely in the work of Vladimir Soloviev and Nikolai Berdiaev (in English translation) and has composed an informed summary of their respective thinking on the topic of theosis/deification. This summary is supported to a degree from a selection of critical literature on the two philosophers. Nevertheless, in my view the article does not meet the standards of scholarship required for publication in a peer-reviewed journal like Religions. 

Argument 

Critically, the essay does not have an argument. There is neither an Introduction nor a Conclusion. There is no thesis statement in evidence anywhere, no claim about the nature of the author’s intervention or its originality, no justification for the choice of philosophers or attempt to connect them (by way of comparison or contrast) in any meaningful way, no indication of why the research matters. The author does not explain why s/he is writing about theosis, and why s/he is focussing on Soloviev and Berdiaev. Key terms are introduced without definition; it is assumed that readers will know that deification and theosis denote the same thing. Generally, a great deal of prior knowledge on the part of the reader is assumed. There is an absence of the most basic contextualisation: the full names, dates, and nationality of the two writers, their position within the Russian religious intellectual tradition, the religious context (Russian Orthodoxy) in which they were writing, what connects or separates them. The structure of the essay is not signposted, apart from in enumerated sub-headings that sometimes (but not always) indicate the focus of their respective sub-sections. 

Methodology 

The author’s approach to the topic is largely descriptive: the ideas of Soloviev and Berdiaev are generally presented through a collation of quotations taken from their work. In the case of Soloviev, there is some attempt to present the ideas as they develop over the course of his writing career, but not in Berdiaev’s case. Works are not introduced, with dates of publication, in the body of the article, and the reader cannot identify them from the very poorly presented footnotes, with their oddly abbreviated titles and absence of full details of publication even on first mention. There is almost no attempt to relate Soloviev’s and Berdiaev’s statements on deification to Eastern Christian (Orthodox) doctrine, which cannot be helpful to the reader. The resonance of central concepts such as ‘divine-human’, ‘cooperation with God’, ‘returning the mind to the heart’ with Eastern patristics is lost. Russell’s most recent book on deification is referenced, but not his 2010 The Doctrine of Deification in the Eastern Patristic Tradition. The Oxford Handbook of Deification, ed. Gavrilyuk et al, 2024 is another overlooked resource. 

On isolated occasions, the author does ask questions of her/his subjects (usually to regret a lack of clarity as to what they meant), but these are raised abruptly, not followed up, and are not integrated into a principled interrogation of the ideas as part of an overarching argument. 

Research context 

The author does not set her/his enquiry into any kind of research context. The essay does not engage critically with secondary sources: these tend rather to be used interchangeably with quotations from primary sources as part of the exposition of Soloviev’s and Berdiaev’s ideas. The author is not concerned to define her/his own intervention against the existing criticism, or to point out its merits or limitations. In fact, whilst the author can be credited with having a sound grasp of the subject matter, her/his treatment of it is unoriginal, certainly in the case of Soloviev. It is strange that Oliver Smith’s comprehensive discussion of deification in Soloviev (2011) is not acknowledged (apart from a couple of footnotes) or, more importantly, seriously engaged with. Jeremy Pilch’s 2018 monograph on Soloviev, Breathing the Spirit with Both Lungs, is not mentioned at all. I think the effort to draw together Berdiaev’s statements on deification from across his oeuvre has the potential for originality (I am not aware of anyone who has attempted this), and a development of this aspect of the submission is something the author might usefully pursue. But it is a shame that Ruth Coates’ study of Berdiaev’s Meaning of Creativity in her 2019 monograph Deification in Russian Religious Thought has been completely overlooked here.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article manuscript under review lacks an introduction that motivates the topic (why discuss theosis in Soloviev? Why Berdiaev? Why is this interesting? etc.) and, even more importantly, a research question. It starts “straight on” so to speak, that is with Soloviev, without telling us what it is more specially that this article wants to explore, beyond “theosis in Soloviev and Berdiaev.” And what is it that it eventually shows us. Having read the piece, I am afraid I have no idea. By the same token, I cannot see that the text has a proper conclusion. Hence, it fails with regard to some basic and essential components in scholarly writing: a good introduction, clear questions, convincing answers.

A proper introduction should for instance aim at placing the study in the field and explain what it offers in this regard. The thing is that theosis in modern Russian thought has been well researched recently. I have first and foremost in mind Ruth Coates 2019 monograph Deification in Russian thought (https://global.oup.com/academic/product/deification-in-russian-religious-thought-9780198836230?cc=no&lang=en&), which is not referenced by the author. While some important contributions figure in the reference list, it is not sufficiently up to date. (A detail in this regard: The author refers to Oliver Smith’s seminal monograph, which is good, but Smith’s reading should have involved more extensively in the passage where the author writes that “we never get much detail about what spiritualized matter really is”; a point that is for some reason even brought up in the abstract. The author needs to discuss more directly with other readings.)

Another problem, which in my view is connected to the lack of a clear focus and a research question, is that too much of the article is not about theosis at all. For instance, on pp. 5–6 s/he touches upon a series on Solovievian topics – ecumenism, progress, (critique of) antisemitism – but so what? In what way do all these themes relate to theosis? Likewise on p. 11: what is the relationship of Berdiaev’s ethics, vision of the future, critique of totalitarianism etc. to theosis? Why does the author bring in all this? How does it enable a better understanding of the philosophers' conceptions of theosis?

The author does demonstrate that s/he is well read in the works of Soloviev and Berdiaev, but this is not enough for the article to become enlightening for the reader. To the contrary, it suffers from a style that I would quotationist. The text is to a large extent made up of quotations that are typically introduced by a short sentence (and a colon), but which are too often left without an interpretative comment. As a result, too much of the text becomes a compilation of quotes instead of an analysis.

I acknowledge that at a few places interesting insights come about, for instance on p. 7 (third paragraph). However, I cannot recommend the publication of even a revised version of this text, because I think that author needs to start anew with his/her material. My recommendation to the author is to think through what s/he really has discovered, and formulate a research question that enables a proper discussion and an answer to it – in dialogue with recent research on the topic.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has an interesting focus -- theosis as social in Soloviev and Berdyaev -- but it needs significant improvement before it could be published.

In particular, there needs to be a clearer thesis. The abstract says, "These ideas are explored
and critiqued." It does not say how and on what basis.

Furthermore, the paper basically has no introduction (other than the abstract). It needs a survey of the relevant literature to situate its own contribution, and it needs to outline a clear argument and thesis for that contribution to be evaluated. It does not do this in its current form.

Additionally, by my count only ten authors are cited besides primary sources. The scholarship on Soloviev, Berdyaev, and deification in Christianity, even just in Eastern Christianity, perhaps even just in modern Russian Orthodox Christianity, is broader than just these ten authors' works. 

Last, it is not clear, other than them both being Russian, why these two authors -- Soloviev and Berdyaev, are considered in the same paper. I expected that the portion of the paper dedicated to Berdyaev would compare and contrast his views with those of Soloviev outlined in the first half of the paper, but other than a passing remark or two, Soloviev is barely even mentioned in the discussion of Berdyaev. Given Soloviev's influence on Berdyaev, and the latter's own references to the formers' works, one would the paper to put the two into dialogue at some point. 

In conclusion, this paper needs significant revision. It needs an introduction that surveys the state of scholarship and outlines a clear argument and thesis. Then, those secondary sources need to be cited, as relevant, throughout the rest of the paper. Either the section on Berdyaev needs more references to Soloviev, or a third section needs to be added to the paper, in which the views of each on social theosis are compared and contrasted. If the paper had done those things well, it would be clear what contribution it intends to make to the scholarship and would be a much better candidate for publication. I recommend the author(s) make those revisions before submitting to another journal.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations on your efforts in bringing Soloviev's and Berdiaev's ideas to what I suspect will be an audience largely made up of Western scholars and lay readers on Christianity. We need more of this.

To improve the article, I suggest here three issues to consider. First, your article does not have enough structure and ends up reading like a series of quotations from the two separate authors, even with your few references to Berdiaev's reactions to Soloviev. You suggest a good thesis in your abstract ("a strong social side to deification), but it is not followed through well enough in the body of the essay to help the reader feel that it has been proven, or even adequately explored. Why a social side? What was happening at the time in the Eastern (or maybe specifically Russian) Church that would cause this turn to community? Or is it something that was always there in Russian devotion? Or is it unique to these two individuals? How? Why? My sense is that this core should be developed.

Secondly, there are a number of irregularities in the footnotes and references that might make it difficult to follow-up on ideas and that would cause another expert in the field to question your thoroughness. You might want to have a third party go through them with you. On this same issue, you cite almost nothing in the original. Was this a requirement of the editors? I suspect there might be some Russian speakers among the readers of the volume.

Finally, and very easily corrected, you sometimes fall into diction that feels too colloquial: "Soloviev's 'take' on deification," "Soloviev never 'bought into' ...," and other examples. This point and the one above have an impact on the seriousness with which the essay will be read by other scholars.