In his book Why Study Religion? ethicist and philosopher Richard B. Miller criticizes the discipline of religious studies for being negligent about the fundamental goal of its academic pursuits. In this review essay, the authors challenge Miller’s diagnosis by arguing that scholars of religion do share a common goal and that the state of affairs bemoaned by Miller is healthier than he admits. The essay raises doubts concerning his selection of six “methodologies” that supposedly represent the field and it challenges Miller’s interpretation of Jonathan Z. Smith’s famous comparative analysis of the Jonestown massacre. The essay proposes a different distinction between goals and values in research and critically reviews the four goals/values proposed by Miller, three of which appear to represent business as usual. The essay argues that Miller’s proposed teleology is suspicious, not as innovative as he seems to think, and maybe even a retrogression. Finally, the essay faults Miller’s undertheorized conception of religion.

The alchemist Zosimus of Panopolis, writing around 300ce, is our only source for a series of treatises by Hermes called the Physica, which reportedly spoke about angels who had intercourse with women, as in 1 Enoch, and which credited the revelation of alchemy to an enigmatic figure called Chemeu. The present contribution aims to show that Zosimus has in fact harmonized the account of 1 Enoch with the Physica of Hermes, identifying the Watchers of the former treatise with wicked angels who perverted the authentic art of alchemy, originally revealed to Hermes by Chemeu, who should be identified with Agathodaimon. It is further argued that the Physica likely served as a source for the Hermetic treatises the Perfect Discourse (Ascl. =nhcvi,8) and Kore Kosmou (Stob. herm. 23). This indicates that the literary relationship between the technical and theoretical Hermetica is tighter than hitherto assumed.

No abstract

No abstract