Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T23:11:11.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Studying Comparative Religion

some Naive Reflections of a simple-minded non-philosopher

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

R. J. Zwi Werblowsky
R. J. Zwi Werblowsky
Affiliation:
Professor of Comparative Religion, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Dutch writer Menno ter Braak once observed that when there is no bacon in the larder you tend to spend your time sharpening your knives. In a different context a somewhat similar remark concerning his preoccupation with the sharpening of his analytical tools was made by the philosopher Husserl. Applying these remarks—without the least intent of facetiousness—to the comparative study of religions, we might say that concern with methodology should be an occasional pastime, in which we may indulge at moments when we take an occasional respite from our substantive labours—but with plenty of bacon, as it were, in the larder. The quinquennial congresses of the International Association for the History of Religions are undoubtedly an appropriate occasion for such critical and reflective introspection. In fact, some of the best methodological clarifications come not from a priori legislators but from active researchers stepping back for a moment, putting some distance between their nose and the grindstone, and asking themselves what exactly they and their colleagues have been and are doing, and how they should best proceed. (I am thinking, e.g., of J. Schwab's penetrating and profound essay ‘What do Scientists do?’ as an outstanding example of such reflection by a natural scientist.) Whilst the sterility of abstract discussions about the definition of religion is generally admitted, it should be acknowledged that some exceedingly helpful suggestions have been made by practising field-workers and historians of religion. I am thinking of e.g., C. Geertz, M. Spiro, and Th. van Baaren. Other examples of the theoretical clarifications resulting from the interaction—addicts of the currently fashionable jargon would say ‘feedback’—between attempts at definition and the actual praxis of historians of religion are H. Ch. Puech's short introduction and A. Brelich's major Prolégomènes in vol. i of the Pléiade Histoire des Religions (1970), as well as U. Bianchi's thoughtful and thought-provoking recent contribution. Clearly students of religion continue to be very much exercised by the double problem of the nature of their subject-matter and of the proper methods of studying it.

Type
Articles
Information
Religious Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1975 , pp. 145 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 145 note 1 In Behavioral Studies, vol. 5 (1960), pp. 1–27.Google Scholar

page 145 note 2 Geertz, C., ‘Religion as a Cultural System’, in Banton, M. (ed.), Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Religion, 1966.Google Scholar

page 145 note 3 M. Spiro, ‘Religion: Problems of Definition and Explanation’, in Banton, op. cit.

page 145 note 4 van Baaren, Th. P., ‘Science of Religion as a Systematic Discipline: Some Introductory Remarks’, in Th., Pe van Baaren and Drijvers, H. J. W. (eds.), Religion, Culture and Methodology, 1973.Google Scholar

page 146 note 1 Bianchi, U., ‘The Definition of Religion. On the Methodology of Historical-Comparative Research’, in Bianchi, , Bleeker, and Bausani, (eds.), Problems and Methods of the History of Religions, 1972.Google Scholar

page 146 note 2 ‘Depth Structures of Religious Expression’ was the theme of one of the sessions of the Symposium on the Methodology of the Study of Religions held in Turku (Finland) in August 1973.

page 146 note 3 In a paper presented to the Turku Symposium.

page 147 note 1 I have dealt with this subject at greater length elsewhere; see Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi, ‘Structure and Archetype,’ The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University, vol. 5 (1973) [=The Gaster Festschrift], pp. 435–42.Google Scholar

page 148 note 1 This point is elaborated in F. Sierksma's stimulating work De Religwuze Projectie, 1956.

page 150 note 1 Bellah, R., ‘Between Religion and Social Science’ in Beyond Belief: Essays on Religion in a Post Traditional World, 1970.Google Scholar

page 151 note 1 J. van Baal, Symbols of Communication.

page 152 note 1 The literature on theologia religionum is immense, and its growth shows no signs of abating. Some very sensible remarks on the subject, from the point of view of the Comparative Religionist, can be found in van Baaren, loc. cit.

page 153 note 1 Edited by Franz König (1951) in three volumes.

page 153 note 2 Temple, William, Readings in St John's Gospel, 1945, p. 10.Google Scholar

page 155 note 1 On the subject of the relation of philosophy and religion there is a particularly helpful and clarifying chapter in Rotenstreich, N., The Scope of Philosophy, 1972.Google Scholar

page 156 note 1 The nature of syncretism(s) as well as the ways in which historical change and historical encounter interact in the development of religions are discussed, among others, by Lanczkowski, G., Begegnung und Wandel tier Religionen, 1971.Google Scholar