This article explores issues related to the worldviews of Friedrich Max Müller and Monier Monier-Williams, and contemporary critique of their work. Their indebtedness to their own age is explored, especially fulfilment theology and the missionary imperative, noting similarities and differences in their agendas. The conclusion considers how post-colonial critique can be applied. While accepting the validity of such critique, it is suggested that it makes vast and sweeping judgments, engaging in a totalising narrative. It is argued that, applied too harshly, such critiques can ignore the positive contributions to understanding other faiths and cultures made by such figures. It ends with some reflections upon both their and our place within the evolving tradition of the study of religion, and the need for both understanding and critical judgment.In this paper I will explore the interaction between certain aspects of nineteenth-century theological thought and the origins of the modern discipline of Religious Studies, or, as it was then known, the science of the comparative study of religion. Specifically, I will focus upon the issue of how two of Religious Studies' founding figures, Monier Monier-Williams and Friedrich Max Müller, were influenced by their Christian theological presuppositions, especially the contemporary missionary imperative. In this, I will suggest that while both men were influenced by different theological traditions, nevertheless, both were influenced by some common features of a contemporary worldview, though interpreted in different ways. These similarities saw them both using some form of the increasingly prevalent paradigm of fulfilment theology. In the conclusion, I will relate the insights gained to contemporary concerns in post-colonial criticism. In particular, I will suggest that some trends in post-colonialism take too caustic a perspective, disregarding what were, for their times, progressive views, and judging by a yardstick not necessarily suited to figures of a previous age. I will also, in this, take note of some recent work suggesting the need to nuance blanket writing about 'orientalism' as if it were a monolithic entity. 56 journal of religious history