Comparative Religion: A History

by Eric J. Sharpe

This book is now firmly established as the standard treatment of its subject. The history of comparative religion is traced in detail from its beginnings in the nineteenth century, in the work of scholars such as Max Muller and anthropologists - such as Tylor, Lang, Robertson-Smith and Frazer - through the American psychologists of religion - such as Starbuck, Leuba, William James - to the period after the First World War, when the evolutionary approach was seriously called into question. It also examines the relevance of religion to Freud and Jung; the 'phenomenology of religion'; the tensions between comparative religion and theology; and the work of such outstanding personalities as Nathan Söderblom and Rudolf Otto. The last two chapters review the main issues raised since the Second World War.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction

341 pages, Paperback

First published July 28, 1986

Reviews

[Zeynep K.]

Kitabın Türkçe çevirisini okudum. O burada bulunmadığı için ve goodreads artık kitap eklemeye izin vermediği için yorumu buraya yazacağım. Sakarya üniversitesi yayınlarından çıkmış olan Türkçesi bir çeviriden ziyade bir taslak gibi yazım hatalarını cümle düşüklüklerini geçtim arada cümle düşük/cümle problemli gibi notlar da var öylece maille düzeltmeye gönderil iş hali yayınlanmış sanki. Ancak çeviriden bağımsız olarak da kitap iyi planlanmamış dağınık bir çalışma olmuş.

[Wakil Marandi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I like this book. Grt book on religion.

[Mz · Rating 3 out of 5]

https://bookpress.gr/kritikes/idees/1...

[Tiffany · Rating 2 out of 5]

A history of the study of comparative religion. Sharpe talks about different thinkers/analysts in the genre of "comparative religion" or "religious studies," as well as what the study is and what the studiers (theologians, anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, historians, and other scholars) are looking at and comparing.

It was interesting to read about who considered non-Christian religions as fake or mere curiosities (or trying to copy Christianity [p. 149]) and who actually saw each religion's value for its culture. Also of note were mentions of Max Muller considering religion(s) to be a solution to/result of "man's apprehension of natural phenomena" (Sharpe's words; p. 41); Adalbert Kuhn + Max Muller's thoughts on the personification of nature leading to "gods" or myths (p. 41-43, 67); the “phenomenology of religion," P.D. Chantepie de la Saussaye’s “cross-cultural comparison of the constituent elements of religious belief and practice, as opposed to their treatment in cultural isolation” (Sharpe’s words; p. 223); valuing the faith of the believer, rather than judging them according to the studier’s views (Kristensen, p. 228-229); the view, like that of Jabez T. Sunderland, that “there is one God over all the world, and that all religions contain truths that are of vital and permanent importance to men” (p. 253) and the similar view of Rammohun Roy, Sri Ramakrishna, Keshub Chunder Sen and Swami Vivekananda in the equality of religion (p. 254), as described by Ramakrishnam, who Sharpe says “claimed that the differences between the spiritual disciplines were of no real significance; the Bengali, Urdu and English languages have different words to describe water, he once said, but the substance itself is one, not three. In the same way competing and apparently contradictory views of religion refer to one attainable spiritual vision of reality” (p. 254); others who believed in “tolerance” and how close different religions are to one another, especially when analyzing them scientifically (e.g., p. 272); the evolution in the mid-20th century that studying religions / the history of religions is a form of the humanities, not theology or politics (p. 278); and the change from calling it (especially in universities) “comparative religion” to “religious studies” (p. 298).

The book definitely has some interesting parts, but is also very dry in parts. Sharpe also seems to go off on tangents and sidetracks ... or maybe I just don't understand his points.