234 
Berichte und Kommentare 
Anthropos 105.2010 
University in Moscow, where he had worked since 
1983. His scholarly interests included Catholic the 
ology, especially the methodology of contemporary 
neo-Thomism. Of his particular interests were his 
tory, theory, and methodology of religious studies 
as knowledge of the world’s religions (meta-reli- 
gious studies). Among his many publications, ma 
jor relevant works include Islam (1993); Antropo- 
ligiceskye spory o suscnosti religii (Anthropologi 
cal Disputes over the Essence of Religion; 1997); 
Ekologia religii (Ecology of religion; 1999a); Sov- 
remiennaya fenomenologya religii (Contemporary 
Phenomenology of Religion; 1999b; Proiskhozde- 
nie religii (The Origin of Religion; 2000); Reli- 
giovedceskiy slovar (Dictionary of Religious Stud 
ies; 2007); Teoreticeskye i empiriceskye predpasyl- 
ki religioviedenia [Theoretical and Empirical Foun 
dations of Religious Studies; 2001); Problema proi- 
shozdienia religii. Rannye formy vierovanii i kulta 
(Problems of the Origin of Religion. Early Forms 
of Belief and Worship; 2002); Metodologia klasi- 
ceskovo religioviedenia (Methodology of Classical 
Religious Studies; 2004). 
The reviewed book consists of a foreword (3-8), 
three parts, each with an itemized summary, and 
a conclusion (231-232). Part I: “The Source of 
Religious Studies. Forming a Religious Paradigm” 
(9-67) is divided into two sections: “The Basis 
of Scholarly Study of Religion” (9-31) and “Re 
ligious Studies Methodology in the Second Half of 
the 19th to the Early 20th Centuries” (31-65). 
Part II, “Review of Early Religious Studies 
Methods of the First Half of the 20th Century” (68- 
149) consists of three sections; 1. “From Evolution 
ism to Diffusionism and the Theory of Primeval 
Monotheism” (68-95); 2. “The Methodology of 
Classical Phenomenology of Religion” (96-125); 
3. “The Rise of the Hermeneutical Approach to 
Studying Religion” (125-147). 
Part III, “Religious Studies in the Second Half 
of the 20th Century. In Search of a New Paradigm” 
(150-230), includes five sections: 1. “Trends in 
Religious Studies in the Second Half of the 20th 
Century” (150-165); 2. “The Crisis of Classi 
cal Phenomenology or Religion. Neophenomenol 
ogy of Religion” (165-179); 3. “Methodological 
Problems in the History of Religion” (179-198); 
4. “Structuralism in Religious Studies” (198-215); 
and 5. “The Ecology of Religion” (215-228). 
In his book Krasnikov draws largely, among oth 
ers, on known works of such authors as J. Waarden- 
burg (1973-1974) and F. Whaling (1984-1985). 
Krasnikov’s book is interesting, for he also refers 
to the valuable works on religion by Russian schol 
ars, such as M. A. Pylayev (2000), A. P. Zabiyako 
(1998), J. A. Kimielyev (1998), and the collective 
work “Klassiki mirovovo religioviedienia” (Clas 
sics of the World Religion Studies; Krasnikov 
1996). 
In discussing the methodology of religious stud 
ies, A. N. Krasnikov distinguishes its three forma 
tive periods. The first period lasted from the second 
half of the 19th century to the early 20th century; 
the second and third, respectively, cover the first 
and second halves of the 20th century. Thus the 
author dates contemporary religious studies from 
the late 1950s until the present. 
Describing in part 1 the early period of religious 
studies becoming emancipated as a field of study, 
the author asserts that; 
1) Religious studies as a branch of knowledge be 
gan in the 1860s in Western Europe and North 
America. At that time, university chairs of religion 
began to be formed as did publications, symposia, 
etc., all conducive to a new paradigm being created 
in the study of world religions. 
2) The rise of religious studies was supported 
by an accumulation of empirical and theoreti 
cal material concerning religion of various human 
groups, resulting in the emancipation of many dis 
ciplines and approaches in studies on religion, such 
as sociology of religion, psychology of religion, an 
thropological and ethnological analysis of religious 
phenomena, etc. 
3) Religious studies, created at an intersection 
of various sciences, did not stop at the achieved 
ideas but went on to develop their own theories 
and research methods. In accordance with the then 
accepted research standards, religious studies, at its 
point of departure in research procedures, referred 
to empirical data and their rational interpretations 
and generalizations, permitting a formulation of 
generalized laws of the development and function 
ing of religion. 
4) An analysis of early religious studies’ meth 
odology permits the conclusion that at that time 
the understanding of scholarly inquiry into religion 
was based on such tenets as comparatism, classifi 
cation, objectivism, evolutionism, historism, reduc- 
tionism, aposteriorism, and causality. 
5) The rise of studies of religion met with a 
negative response from most Christian theologians. 
As a principal objection, they questioned the pos 
sibility of learning about an irrational phenomenon 
like religion via rational methods. Moreover, they 
feared that a comparative study of religious phe 
nomena might result in a relativism and blurring of 
the Christian truths, and consequently in collapse 
of morality.