4
A modern perspective on the History of
Religions
Georgios Gaitanos
Head of the Department of Theology & Culture, Lecturer of Religious
Studies, University College Logos, Tirana
Corespondence:
e-mail: gaitanosg@yahoo.gr
Abstract
The paper examines and comments
on the opinions concerning the sci-
entific study of religion and how
they were applied in the field of His-
tory of Religions. It is a report that
methodically deals with presenting,
analyzing and commenting on older
and modern positions of the sector.
Many of these positions can lead us
to conclude that many times there
is no valuable data for religion and
that religion is only the work of its
scholars. This mentality also reflects
the general attitude of the scholars
to the subject of “religion”. In many
cases we have to be strict about the
methodology followed by scholars of
religion, because in many cases there
was a construction of terms and con-
cepts, derived from the imagination
and personal comparisons made by
scholars in order to formulate their
arguments for analyzing a religious
phenomenon and to make general-
izations. On the contrary, religion is
57
a social phenomenon and we need
to see its role in shaping society and
culture. Religion is therefore asso-
ciated with a human activity essen-
tial to social life and is for the most
part a human construct. What is
being proposed is a historically en-
doscopic interpretation of the study
of religion, emphasizing that man is
a homo faber, a maker of worlds and
not a homo religiosus. Our methodol-
ogy is mainly anthropocentric, as the
concept of “religion” is understood
through our relationship with it and
not with anything other than it.
Keywords:
History of Religions, religion, scientific
study, social-cultural phenomenon.
Citation:
Gaitanos G. A modern perspective
on the History of Religions. Theology
& Culture. 2020; 1(1): 57-65.
Doi:
 A modern perspective on the History of Religions ©2020 Gaitanos
Introduction

T
he History of Religions examines the historical evolution of reli-
gions by studying their sources, their teaching, and their path in the
course of history. What characterizes this field of the Study of Reli-
gion is the dialectical relationship between the object and the methods of its
research. Thus, the historian of religions should know that the subject of his/
her study is purely historical and must constantly research the changes, alter-
ations and developments that occur in his/her research (Bianchi, 1987, p. 399-
407; Ziakas, 2002, p. 16-18). The historical process means exploring the ways
in which human societies acted in the environments in which they were found
and in the ways in which they sought to reshape these environments to meet
their needs. It refers to the exploration of the whole complex of geography,
technology, religion, social structures, and countless other historical factors. It
is about exploring the ways in which societies change in response to stimuli, as
well as the ways in which they resist this change. It is related to the exploration
of traditions that have been imprinted on different cultures and the ways in
which these traditions have been sustained over long periods of time.
We could say that the historian looks like a detective, a researcher1. Like
the detective, the historian examines the evidence in order to reconstruct the
facts. Nevertheless, the detective is primarily interested in finding out what
happened, who did it, and why, as the historian goes one step further and
asks what all this means. Addressing the question of significance, the historian
transfers the simple curiosity of events of the past to a humanities science. No
source in itself contains the unalterable truth or the complete picture. Each
one gives us only a glimpse of reality and it is the historian’s job to unite these
pieces of the past into one solid picture. Although many of the pieces are miss-
ing, it is possible to put most, if not all, of the remaining pieces in a logical
sequence to form a fairly accurate and compact image. The resulting image
may not be complete (it is never complete), but it is useful and valid. The key
to putting these pieces together is hard work and imagination2.

1 It is a theory that Robin Winks developed very successfully in his book The Historian
as Detective: Essays on Evidence (New York, 1969).
2 Imagination and redescription are main characteristics that a historian of religions
and in general an intellectual must possess.

58
 A modern perspective on the History of Religions ©2020 Gaitanos
1. Methodology

Essentially, history is the method and religion is the subject of the study
(Lincoln, 1969, σ. 225). It is always necessary to explore and analyze the cul-
tural and social context of each religious community in definite chronological
order in order to draw more correct conclusions. It is therefore necessary to
study all the interesting human dimensions of the rituals and institutions that
have been attributed to them, either by their followers and representatives or
by theologians and phenomenologists of the “divine”, “eternal”, “transcendent”
(Lincoln, 1969, p. 225; Arnal & Braun). Thus, the historian of religions is still
a social scientist who studies a different part of the perceptible world, religion,
but does not regard it as a sui generis phenomenon (Braun, 2003, p. 43).
Comparison was an important feature of the development of the sector of
History of Religions. However, the comparisons between religious systems
should be analogical. This historical comparison will be able to examine dif-
ferent religious systems without seeking to classify the various aspects into
one category, but rather to form a multidimensional field for religion, moving
in all directions (Bianchi, 1987, p. 399-407; Detienne, 2000, p. 63). After all,
the concept of “religion” itself enables the development of various intellectual
theories and interpretations that cover the interests of each researcher rather
than a one-dimensional perspective that is isolated from reality (Braun, 2003,
p. 41-43; McCutcheon, 2007, p. 71).
In many cases, however, we must be strict about the methodology fol-
lowed by scholars of religion, since religion was treated either as a sui gener-
is phenomenon or as a means of political classifications to the detriment of
non-Western societies. Indeed, the way it has been studied can lead us to the
conclusion that many times there is no data on religion and that religion is
only a creation of its scholars. This mentality, in my opinion, also reflects the
general attitude that the scholars had to the subject of “religion”. Through per-
sonal comparisons they formulated their arguments for analyzing a religious
phenomenon, but they eventually came to make vague generalizations (Smith,
1982, p. xi).
Indeed, the difficulty of the subject is that there may be elements and data
that could be considered and classified as religious, but in essence there is no
clear data for religion, a stable point from which the historian of religions can
precede with his/her research. Basically, it’s about making a story or a theory
that we generalize, so that we can integrate it into the realm of religion (Smith,

59
 A modern perspective on the History of Religions ©2020 Gaitanos
1978, p. 289-290; Smith, 1982, σ. xi; Smith, 2004, p. 193-194; McCutcheon,
2006, p. 292). That is, the historian constructs a category, religion, which is
his/her subject of knowledge, just as the language for linguistics and culture
for anthropology (Smith, 2004, p. 207, 369).
More generally, there has been and in some cases continues a persistence
to emphasize the sacred element, the sacredness of religious things, the hi-
erophanies as the main and perhaps the most important characteristic of
religion. This persistence reveals a purely theological approach to things, as
scholars of religion have shown particular indifference to the data collected
by anthropologists, and essentially present religion as something divine, not
human, as a gift only of revelation. Religion is a purely cultural product, as
it encompasses the classifications, acts, thoughts that make their appearance
daily in the public domain. Thus, the meaning of the signs and messages of ev-
eryday actions must not be separated when they appear in the religious realm,
as if they were a divine sign (Smith, 1982, p. 41-43).
The inability to specialize and new perspectives has led to the generaliza-
tion and, in essence, to a classification based on a prototype that usually was
Christianity. Thus, ontology was formed that aimed to present general char-
acteristics of the generalized category of “religion”. Of course, generalization
means hiding some features and showing only specific ones (Gill, 1998a, p.
300-301; Smith, 2004, p. 365, 367, 372, 377). So there is a need to connect the
gathered data with a theory that will motivate thinking and research.
2. Analogy and Redescription

Sorting, comparing, and describing data is the main task of the historian of
religions and its ability is shown in how capable it is of making the unknown
and the paradoxical, familiar (Smith, 2004, p. 383, 389). Analogy should be
the main methodological direction of his/her work, as the comparisons the
historian of religion makes should not only focus on two cases, but should
be compared with more so that they can be understood and answered in a
variety of subjects. In essence, the analogue mode of work is of interest to the
reader and the researcher, as it attempts to combine and explain situations,
rules, classifications and incidents in the daily lives of different cultures and
societies in a way that has some relevance to our own situations, rules, and
classifications. The common ground and the formation of a new category of
case classifications, which show that they are completely different or belong to
different eras gives interest and provokes the thinking of historians of religion,

60
 A modern perspective on the History of Religions ©2020 Gaitanos
as through the differences that identifies can form a new way of approaching
of their material. It is important to emphasize that the material and example
analyzed by the researcher can come from any field or discipline, only the
choice, the theoretical background and the relation to the subject of the histo-
ry of religions need to be clarified.
So what is being proposed is that the historian of religions should not look
at the data he/she records as something exotic, but stand up to his/her object,
approaching it as something that happens in everyday life, even in the West.
Clearly, this process is not particularly easy, as scholars have always come
across and will encounter incidents from other people and cultures that will
find them extremely strange and unthinkable, always in line with Western
society stereotypes. If we borrow Victor Shklovsky’s term “defamiliarization”,
that is, the process of viewing the familiar as strange in order to promote our
understanding of the familiar, it may be suggested as a different way of ap-
proaching certain issues from the history of religions (Smith, 1982, p. xiii;
Smith, 2004, p. 163). In this way, it is possible to select examples that can
support the theory of any researcher to make comparisons of events and situ-
ations between Western and non-Western cultures.
We could say that the motto of the research of the study of religion is to ex-
amine the differences and not so much the similarities between religions and
in particular their religious perceptions, traditions and activities, as it gives
rise to thought, reflection and research (Smith, 1987, p. 13-14; Smith, 1990,
p. 49; Smith, 2004, p. 246). We borrow the view of the French poet Francis
Ponge (Méthodes, 1948), who considers that the study of differences is leading
to progress (Smith, 1982, p. 1). Of course, this position is not just a slogan, as
it also involves significant difficulties. What we should really be interested in
when comparing is not so much the connection and resemblance of the phe-
nomena we study, but rather the connection and comparison of the situations
and problems observed (Smith, 1990, p. viii; Gill, 1998b, p. 283-284; Smith,
2004, p. 197). According to J. Z. Smith, “The difference must be negotiated, but
never be overcome” (Smith, 2004, p. 389).
3. Comparison

Particular emphasis should therefore be placed on descriptions and com-

parisons, as the conditions under which they are to be made will be of interest
to thought and research (Smith, 1982, p. 20). Because precisely the historian
of religions has often dealt with issues of the past, he is essentially responsible

61
 A modern perspective on the History of Religions ©2020 Gaitanos
for bringing to life memories and experiences of the past by shaping his “own”
story. As we have mentioned, comparison alone does not tell us anything if
the data we collect are not analyzed in order to feed our gaps in theory and
vice versa.
The process of comparative work has four stages: the description, the com-
parison, the redescription and the correction. The description is a dual pro-
cess that highlights the historical and anthropological aspect of the work. Ini-
tially, the scholar should choose his/her own example, which will contain a
complete analysis of society, history, cultural meanings given by the “native’s”
side. The second process of description involves the analysis of the example we
present by the researchers who have so far dealt with the same topic. Once this
double process has been completed, then the researcher can proceed to the
description of a second example, which will be analyzed in exactly the same
way. Having presented two examples, we can proceed to compare themes and
relationships that seem to be important by following either a theory or a ques-
tion that concerns us. The purpose of this comparison is to describe the ex-
amples we have presented, each based on the data we have identified from the
other, and of course to correct the taxonomic categories to which the cases we
are considering are included (Smith, 2004, p. 10, 24, 106).
What is being proposed is essentially a reciprocal exchange of data and
structural features that prevail in western societies with societies following
a different way of life in order to be understood in our own vocabulary. So,
following Max Black and Mary Hesse’s view that our models cause us to con-
struct something in terms of the other, the scholar of religion should choose
a new description of religious experiences and expressions (redescription)
associated with the West, and on this basis to approach similar situations in
non-western societies (Smith, 2004, p. 29, 197-198, 371-372; Heever, 2005, p.
118). Precisely because comparison is a mental process, the researcher of reli-
gion has to divide his data into categories and reconstitute them by modifying
specific variables related to the phenomenon he/she is examining so that they
can be compared according to certain rules (Smith, 1982, p. 36; Smith, 1990,
p. 52; Heever, 2005, p. 117).
The process of comparison is therefore an indispensable theoretical tool
for the study of religion and for the promotion of human thought in gen-
eral (Mack, 1992, p. 227). However, what is important is the effort that the
researcher must take every time to correct the categories. That is, when a cat-
egory is formed, it should not merely be descriptive and include some obser-

62
 A modern perspective on the History of Religions ©2020 Gaitanos
vations that present some general elements of social behavior, but should set out a set
of phenomena that have some similarity but may differ in their particular cultural en-
vironment. A category is therefore successful when it comes to managing similarities
and differences in intercultural comparisons (Mack, 1992, p. 227-228).
Therefore, the corrected categories or outlined generalizations can be considered
as the foundations for the development of a general theory of religion that examines
religion as part of the intellectual process of human societies that construct and shape
their world in order to be sustainable and look interesting. For example, for the ritual
sacrifice, which is a category, one should not seek a universal structure and function,
but certainly it is necessary to analyze it to contribute to human activity for social con-
struction (Mack, 1992, p. 228).
Conclusion

To conclude, two points should be made regarding the examination of various his-
torical texts and ethnographies. The first one relates to human’s tendency to produce
symbols, to form ways and means of classifying and delimiting his environment. Thus,
Eliade’s homo religiosus is probably a homo symbolicus, as the human interprets and
signifies the place, the people involved, and the objects in it. An anthropological di-
mension needs to be given to the study of the texts being evaluated and compared, as
the differences of cultural systems are essentially compared and examined. Symbols
and classifications do not remain unchanged forever, but alter meaning and renegotiate
with change in social status, political and economic life in one place (Mack, 1987, p.
39-40).
The second point concerns the attempt to conceal an inappropriate situation be-
tween the text and the reality attempted by the particular group or community. The in-
appropriate situation gives rise to thinking, questioning and developing new positions.
It is typical that when people say that they are doing something, in reality they are do-
ing something else; so they are looking for ways to fill the gap in their statements each
time (Mack, 1987, p. 46, 49). It is interesting to look for the reaction of human societies
to situations of inappropriate situation, when it is necessary to develop a strategy and
create new traditions based on older institutions. Essentially, what is interesting is the
scholar to find the meaning behind people’s words and behaviors (McCutcheon, 2007,
p. 11-12).

63
 A modern perspective on the History of Religions ©2020 Gaitanos
References

Arnal, W. E. & Braun, W. Does Theology belong in Religious Studies?. in B.

Verter – J. C. Wolfart (eds), Rethinking Religion 101: Praxis, Pedagogy and the
‘Religion Question’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bianchi, U. (1987). History of Religions. in M. Eliade (ed.), Encyclopedia of
Religion, vol. 6 (p. 399-407). New York: MacMillan.
Braun, W. (2003). Thriskeia. in W. Braun & R. T. McCutcheon (eds), Eghir-
ideio Thriskeiologias (trans. in Greek D. Xygalatas, ed. P. Pachis) (p. 28-51).
Thessaloniki: Vanias.
Detienne, M. (2000). Sygkrinontas ta mi sygrisima (trans. in Greek P. Marke-
tou). Athens: Metaichmio/Epistimes.
Ziakas, G. (2002). Thriskeia kai Politismos ton Proistorikon koinonion kai ton
arxaion laon. Thessaloniki: Kornelia Sfakianaki.
Gill, S. (1998a). Territory. in Mark C. Taylor (ed.), Critical Terms for Religious
Studies (p. 298-313). Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.
-------- (1998b). No Place to Stand: Jonathan Z. Smith as Homo Ludens, The
Academic Study of Religion Sub Specie Ludi, Journal of the American Acade-
my of Religion, 66.2, 283-312.
Heever van den, G. A. (2005). “Loose Fictions and Frivolous Fabrications”: An-
cient Fiction and the Mystery Religions of the Early Imperial Era (dissertation
at the University of South Africa).
Lincoln, B. (1996). Theses on method, Method & Theory in the Study of Reli-
gion, 8, 225-227.
Mack, B. (1987). Introduction: Religion and Ritual. in R. G. Hamerton-Kelly
(ed.), Violent Origins: Walter Burkert, Rene Girard, and Jonathan Z. Smith on
Ritual Killing and Cultural Formation (p. 1-70). Stanford, Stanford University
Press.
-------- (1992). After Drudgery Divine, Numen, 39.2, 225-233.
McCutcheon, R. T. (2006). Relating Smith, Journal of Religion, 86.2, 287-297.
-------- (2007). Studying Religion: An Introduction. London: Equinox.
Smith, J. Z. (1978). Map is not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

64
 A modern perspective on the History of Religions ©2020 Gaitanos
-------- (1982). Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago: Chi-
cago University Press.
-------- (1987). To Take Place: Toward Theory in Ritual. Chicago; London: The
University of Chicago Press.
-------- (1990). Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities
and the Religions of Late Antiquity. London: University of London.
-------- (2004). Relating Religion: Essays in the Study of Religion. Chicago; Lon-
don: University of Chicago.
Winks, R. (1969). The Historian as Detective: Essays on Evidence. New York:
Harpercollins College.

65
View publication stats