Berichte und Kommentare 
235 
Anthropos 105.2010 
6) In its pioneering period, religious studies 
were formed in the atmosphere of never-ending 
polemic with theology and was openly in opposi 
tion to it. To a greater or lesser degree, all signifi 
cant works in religious studies at that time, empha 
sized differences in the theological study of religion 
and that of other secular sciences. 
7) Many similarities existed between religious 
studies and liberal Protestant theology. This is es 
pecially apparent in works of those liberal Protes 
tant theologians who employed scholarly methods 
of inquiry. Religious studies were taking shape by 
distinguishing itself from Christian theology, and 
this was most visible in the sphere of methodology 
(65-67). 
As he examines in part 2 the developmental 
stage of religious studies in the first half of the 20th 
century, A. N. Krasnikov concludes; 
1) The chief effect of religious studies developing 
in the first half of the 20th century was to invalidate 
the then existing paradigm under which it was pur 
sued. What remained untouched was the method of 
comparative study of religion. All other methods of 
early religious studies underwent dramatic modifi 
cation. Revision extended to many theoretical state 
ments widely accepted in religious studies in the 
latter half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. 
2) The critique of the previous paradigm was 
the result of new information becoming available 
about beliefs of primitive peoples, in that it could 
not be made fit in with the evolutionist patterns of 
the mid-19th and early 20th centuries. Evolutionist 
views began to be superseded by diffusionist con 
cepts and the theory of cultural circles leading to 
the theory of “primeval monotheism.” Its unpopu 
larity in academic circles led to the question of ori 
gins of religion and its early forms being relegated 
to a periphery of religious inquiry. 
3) The fall of the previous paradigm in reli 
gious studies was helped by changes in the spir 
itual life of the West, especially in philosophy. 
Trends like “philosophy of life,” hermeneutics, and 
phenomenology gained currency, resulting in se 
rious shifts in religious studies. While previously 
the study of religion developed along the lines of 
philosophical rationalism, often of materialistic or 
positivist provenance, the first half of the 20th cen 
tury saw many religious scholars leaning instead 
toward philosophical idealism, subjectivism, and ir 
rationalism. It was this shift in religious studies’ 
underlying philosophy that brought about a revi 
sion of preexisting methods and theoretical con 
structs. 
4) The prevailing paradigm in religious stud 
ies was exploded from within by so-called “Chris 
tian religious scholars.” Realizing that theologians’ 
open fight against religious studies (an attitude 
characteristic for theologians in the late 19th and 
early 20th centuries) was ineffective, religious phi 
losophers and theologians adopted a different tactic 
and actively began to introduce theological ideas to 
the academic study of religion. Using recent philo 
sophical thought, Protestant and Catholic thinkers 
proposed to capitalize on scholarly research of re 
ligion to serve Christianity. They began to treat re 
ligious studies as an introduction to Christian the 
ology. While this approach benefited theology, it 
greatly hampered religious studies. 
5) In the first half of the 20th century, many 
religious scholars preferred a scientific approach to 
studying religion. Research methods of early reli 
gious studies were used to a greater or lesser extent 
by outstanding historians, anthropologists, sociolo 
gists, psychologists, and philosophers of religion. 
But it was not they who set the pace in West 
ern religious studies at the time. Having demol 
ished the previous paradigm in religious studies, 
diffusionists, phenomenologists, and hermeneutists 
were still unable to propose a new approach to re 
ligious inquiry. Their unquestionable contribution 
was in amassing a great amount of empirical data 
and creating the various classifications and typolo 
gies of religious phenomena. Yet many scholars, 
including contemporary phenomenologists of re 
ligion, point to the methodological contradictions 
and theoretical helplessness of early 20th-century 
religious studies. It became obvious then that the 
scholarly treatment of religion was in deep crisis. 
Solutions to the problem were sought in the second 
half of the same century (147-149). 
In Part 3 of his book, A. N. Krasnikov tries to 
show that contemporary (beginning from the mid- 
20th century) religious studies, without disowning 
its previous attainments, were attempting to find a 
new paradigm for its inquiry. To prove his point, 
Krasnikov analyzes the views of the chief personae 
and world centers of religious studies, also consid 
ering the current state of research in Russia. He 
concludes as follows; 
1) The search for a paradigm in religious studies in 
the second half of the 20th century was not success 
ful. This is made evident by aggravating method 
ological pluralism, use of not well-defined cate 
gorization, absence of generally recognized find 
ings. Needless to say, respective empirical facts, 
when carefully verified, can be recognized by a