Blessing Precedes Cursing: Philosophical Reading of Genesis 3:16

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This can be edited to make it most suitable for publication with small but important adjustments.  The paper starts a little abruptly; I got into its cadence eventually, but there could be more specific clarity in the opening as to what you were aiming to do - and key to that is getting into the semantics of Hebraic as opposed to Western word etymology. Since that is a key pivot point as you establish the paper, it would be helpful in the abstract to see that more lucidly.  The feminist application toward the end is fair enough - though knowing earlier on that it would be the direction in which you would take this, again, could me made clearer to the reader. There is not a lot of literature being cited, and I am not sure whether that needs to be extended or simply reflects that you are working a point that has been neglected in the literature.  I will pass style editing recommendations to the editors.   All are minor, but important. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I have placed below, for the editors, what may be useful as well to the author with respect to my suggestions for adjusting the writing style and tech details. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

 

Reviewer 1

 

Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time to read my work and for your suggestions. I have taken great care to follow each one of them. I have:

 

--Rewritten the introduction as to clearly state what I am trying to do in this paper. And I have rewritten the abstract accordingly.

 

--I have taken out the section on the French and Latin etymologies of the words “blessing” and “cursing” and have focused on their Hebraic etymologies.

 

--I have also taken care to make the grammatical and syntactical corrections you suggested (the Hebrew words adam, tov, tohu bohu, etc are now italicized when not referring to the proper name, incomplete sentences have been edited, as well as spelling/punctuation mistakes).

 

Reviewer 2

 

Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time to read my work and for your suggestions. I have taken great care to follow each one of them. I have:

 

--I have made sure that my exegetical claims are more clearly developed, supported by the text and by secondary literature.

 

--I have had the paper further edited for English language (grammatical and spelling errors) and argumentative flow.

 

--I have added references to the secondary literature, notably quoting from the work of Carol Meyers, Phyllis Trible,  and André Lacocque.

 

Reviewer 3

 

Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time to read my work and for your suggestions. I have taken great care to follow each one of them. I have:

 

--Rewritten the introduction as to clearly state what I am trying to do in this paper. And I have rewritten the abstract accordingly.

 

--I have made sure to limit myself to the exploration of the Hebrew etymology of “blessing” and “cursing”, basing my interpretations on that etymology only.

 

--I have taken out the translation of tselem as “shadow” and kept to the more traditional translation as “image”.

 

--I have taken out the references of Adonai as representing the attribute of mercy and Elohim of justice, since that was not essential to my argument.

 

--I have developed more the reasons for my describing Adam as aspiring to be Elohim.

 

--I have taken out the references of the snake as pertaining to evil—again not essential to my argument.

 

-- I have added references to the secondary literature, notably quoting from the work of Carol Meyers, Phyllis Trible,  and André Lacocque.

 

--I have had the paper further edited for English language (grammatical and spelling errors) and argumentative flow.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article makes some important claims in line with a solid interpretation of Genesis 1-3 that refute some misogynistic ideas held by many in Christianity and Judaism. It aligns well with the objectives of this special issue. However, the article makes many unsupported claims, especially related to the biblical text and the meaning of Hebrew words. The flow of argumentation can be improved in some areas, and there are several grammatical errors throughout the article. It also does not interact with sources (especially contemporary ones) that explicitly deal with the core question, either in agreement with or opposition to the views held by this author. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are several punctuation, syntax, and other grammatical errors in the article, such as sentence fragments and inconsistent verb tense. Wording could flow more smoothly in several of the sentences. Most academic journals do not want to see exclamation points in the way they are used. Some parenthetical statements are unnecessarily evaluative and without support and also not likely appropriate for a journal submission.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

 

Reviewer 1

 

Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time to read my work and for your suggestions. I have taken great care to follow each one of them. I have:

 

--Rewritten the introduction as to clearly state what I am trying to do in this paper. And I have rewritten the abstract accordingly.

 

--I have taken out the section on the French and Latin etymologies of the words “blessing” and “cursing” and have focused on their Hebraic etymologies.

 

--I have also taken care to make the grammatical and syntactical corrections you suggested (the Hebrew words adam, tov, tohu bohu, etc are now italicized when not referring to the proper name, incomplete sentences have been edited, as well as spelling/punctuation mistakes).

 

Reviewer 2

 

Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time to read my work and for your suggestions. I have taken great care to follow each one of them. I have:

 

--I have made sure that my exegetical claims are more clearly developed, supported by the text and by secondary literature.

 

--I have had the paper further edited for English language (grammatical and spelling errors) and argumentative flow.

 

--I have added references to the secondary literature, notably quoting from the work of Carol Meyers, Phyllis Trible,  and André Lacocque.

 

Reviewer 3

 

Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time to read my work and for your suggestions. I have taken great care to follow each one of them. I have:

 

--Rewritten the introduction as to clearly state what I am trying to do in this paper. And I have rewritten the abstract accordingly.

 

--I have made sure to limit myself to the exploration of the Hebrew etymology of “blessing” and “cursing”, basing my interpretations on that etymology only.

 

--I have taken out the translation of tselem as “shadow” and kept to the more traditional translation as “image”.

 

--I have taken out the references of Adonai as representing the attribute of mercy and Elohim of justice, since that was not essential to my argument.

 

--I have developed more the reasons for my describing Adam as aspiring to be Elohim.

 

--I have taken out the references of the snake as pertaining to evil—again not essential to my argument.

 

-- I have added references to the secondary literature, notably quoting from the work of Carol Meyers, Phyllis Trible,  and André Lacocque.

 

--I have had the paper further edited for English language (grammatical and spelling errors) and argumentative flow.

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is an imaginative reflection on Genesis 1-3. It does not offer support for its interpretations. It thus makes many statements that might be true or might not be true, and others that seem quite questiionable. This includes the statements about what blessing means and what cursing means, the reference to shadow, the idea that Adonai suggests mercy and Elohim suggests justice, that Adam had carried the feminine within him, that Adam wanted to be Elohim, that the serpent means evil and evil may grow within all human beings, that the tunics are to protect them from attack, the comments about hatred and fear. All these are interesting ideas but they are stated rather than argued and they do not clearly link with the text of Genesis or with scholarly study of Genesis. In addition, the abstract seems to relate only to sections 3and 4 not to sections 1 and 2.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

 

Reviewer 1

 

Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time to read my work and for your suggestions. I have taken great care to follow each one of them. I have:

 

--Rewritten the introduction as to clearly state what I am trying to do in this paper. And I have rewritten the abstract accordingly.

 

--I have taken out the section on the French and Latin etymologies of the words “blessing” and “cursing” and have focused on their Hebraic etymologies.

 

--I have also taken care to make the grammatical and syntactical corrections you suggested (the Hebrew words adam, tov, tohu bohu, etc are now italicized when not referring to the proper name, incomplete sentences have been edited, as well as spelling/punctuation mistakes).

 

Reviewer 2

 

Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time to read my work and for your suggestions. I have taken great care to follow each one of them. I have:

 

--I have made sure that my exegetical claims are more clearly developed, supported by the text and by secondary literature.

 

--I have had the paper further edited for English language (grammatical and spelling errors) and argumentative flow.

 

--I have added references to the secondary literature, notably quoting from the work of Carol Meyers, Phyllis Trible,  and André Lacocque.

 

Reviewer 3

 

Dear reviewer, thank you for taking the time to read my work and for your suggestions. I have taken great care to follow each one of them. I have:

 

--Rewritten the introduction as to clearly state what I am trying to do in this paper. And I have rewritten the abstract accordingly.

 

--I have made sure to limit myself to the exploration of the Hebrew etymology of “blessing” and “cursing”, basing my interpretations on that etymology only.

 

--I have taken out the translation of tselem as “shadow” and kept to the more traditional translation as “image”.

 

--I have taken out the references of Adonai as representing the attribute of mercy and Elohim of justice, since that was not essential to my argument.

 

--I have developed more the reasons for my describing Adam as aspiring to be Elohim.

 

--I have taken out the references of the snake as pertaining to evil—again not essential to my argument.

 

-- I have added references to the secondary literature, notably quoting from the work of Carol Meyers, Phyllis Trible,  and André Lacocque.

 

--I have had the paper further edited for English language (grammatical and spelling errors) and argumentative flow.

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author made some good improvements to the article and added some important sources for its stated objective, although these could have been more directly and authoritatively related to the argument. The overall thesis and reasoning are clear. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Writing has improved, but there are still several grammar and punctuation errors. For example, a few incomplete sentences beginning with the word, "Meaning," should be part of the preceding sentences and separated only with a comma. 

Author Response

Please find attached the article,  entirely proofread for English! 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

There are lots of imaginative studies of Gen 1-3 and the openness of the text makes it hard to prove that any one study is true or untrue. This study is interesting but no more convincing than lots of studies of the chapters

Author Response

Please find attached the article,  entirely proofread for English! 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf