ScholarGate
Assistant
Process / pipelineHistory and comparison of religions

Comparative Method in Religion

The comparative method in religion is the systematic comparison of two or more religious traditions to identify similarities, differences, and patterns, and through them to understand religion more broadly. Founded as a discipline by F. Max Müller in the nineteenth century - who borrowed Goethe's dictum that to know one religion is to know none - the comparative project was sharply rethought in the twentieth, above all by Jonathan Z. Smith. In Imagining Religion (1982) and later work, Smith insisted that comparison is not a natural perception of objective resemblance but a scholarly act: the comparativist must specify the respect in which things are being compared (the tertium comparationis), choose comparanda for a reason, and remain answerable for the differences as much as the similarities. The method thus combines disciplined juxtaposition with explicit theory about why and how a comparison is made.

Open in MethodMindSoonApply, compare, get guidance
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore
VideoSoon

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

Sources

  1. Smith, J. Z. (1982). Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN: 9780226763606

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 23). Comparative Method in Religion (Cross-Traditional Comparison). ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/religious-studies/comparative-method-religion

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

Compare side by side

Referenced by

ScholarGateComparative Method in Religion (Comparative Method in Religion (Cross-Traditional Comparison)). Retrieved 2026-06-24 from https://scholargate.app/en/religious-studies/comparative-method-religion · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026