Anthropos: Anthropos, 105.2010

Anthropos, 105.2010

Bibliographische Daten

Zeitschrift

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschrift

Werks-URN (URL):: https://digi.evifa.de/viewer/resolver?urn=urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-714820

URN:: urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-714820

Persistenter Identifier:: BV043334262

Titel:: Anthropos

Untertitel:: internationale Zeitschrift für Völker- u. Sprachenkunde

Erscheinungsort:: Fribourg

Verlag:: Ed. St. Paul

Erscheinungsjahr:: 1906

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

Wissensgebiet:: Sozial- und Kulturanthropologie > Allgemeines

Zeitschriftenband

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschriftenband

Werks-URN (URL):: https://digi.evifa.de/viewer/resolver?urn=urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-711764

URN:: urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-711764

Persistenter Identifier:: 1510228825472

Titel:: Anthropos, 105.2010

Erscheinungsjahr:: 2010

Signatur:: LA 1118

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

Zeitschriftenheft

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschriftenheft

Titel:: Bd. 105, 2010, Heft 1

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

Zeitschriftenartikel

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschriftenartikel

Titel:: The Methodology of Classical Religious Studies. A. N. Krasnikov's Evaluation

Sonstige Person:: Hoffmann, Henryk

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

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.

Zugriffsbeschränkung

Nutzungslizenz

fullscreen: Anthropos, 105.2010

Zeitschrift

Zeitschriftenband

Zeitschriftenheft

Zeitschriftenartikel

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Downloads

Ganzer Datensatz

Diese Seite

Bildfragment

Formate und Verlinkungen

Formate

Links

Zitieren

Ganzer Datensatz

Diese Seite

Zitierempfehlung