This bibliographical note is the second draft of a biography of the distinguished scholar of religion, Nikolai L. Muskhelishvili (1945–2022). Based on work with professor Muskhelishvili’s archive, transcriptions of his work book, memories of his friends and colleagues, and supplemented with information about projects in which he was a key participant, it does not claim to be more than a guide for future research.

On October 13, 2023, within the framework of the VI Congress of the Russian Religious Studies Society, an international round table in memory of professor Nikolai Lvovich Muskhelishvili was held at the Orthodox St. Tikhon‘s University for the Humanities in Moscow. Due to the hybrid format of presentations, the round table was attended by former colleagues of Nikolai L. Muskhelishvili from Russia, Italy, Great Britain, Canada and Ukraine. The roundtable was moderated by Mikhail Maksimovich Bazlev and Alexey Viktorovich Yudin. The article contains edited materials presented by the participants of the round table, restored and edited from the record. Their purpose is to attempt to restore the image of professor Muskhelishvili, the tasks he set and the meanings that unfolded around him and thanks to him.

The first published introductory lecture to the course “Psychology of Religion”, written by Professor N.L. Muskhelishvili, announces a monograph that is planned to be published soon. It is based on the lecture materials of two courses he wrote in the late 1990s and early 2000s to train specialists in the field of religious studies in Russia. For many years, this course has been part of the basic part of the training of religious studies at the Center for the Study of Religions at RSUH.

The article reconstructs and critically analyzes the ideas about faith expressed by one of the key Soviet psychologists of religion, K.K. Platonov (1906–1984). It is told that initially the scientist interpreted faith as belief in the supernatural (later he changed his opinion), and considered it as a special religious feeling that creates an illusion of cognition and reality of what is created by fantasy. He defined the psychological nature of faith on the basis of the opposition between faith and knowledge, behind which he antagonized religion and science. Openly speaking from atheistic and Marxist positions, K.K. Platonov argued that (religious) faith is harmful and leads a person into the world of illusion. As non-religious analogs of faith, he proposed to call similar states “conviction”, “confidence”, “trust” and argued that all of them are absolutely different psychological phenomena. In this article, the author proves the opposite and argues that contrasting faith and knowledge within psychology is inapplicable. It is argued that K.K. Platonov’s ideas about faith reflect the conceptual apparatus, the peculiarities of scientific thinking and the ethos of Soviet science in the 1960–1980s. Despite the scientist’s engagement in the tasks of anti-religious propaganda, the author believes that K.K. Platonov’s lack of objectivity is partially compensated by his cognitive attitude to the phenomenon of faith. The author emphasizes the contribution of the scientist who introduced the concept of faith into the thesaurus of Soviet psychology and stimulated further studies of the phenomenon.

This article explores the emergence of Digital Theology within the context of Digital Humanities and Digital Religion. It identifies typological similarities in their development, from early instrumental use of digital technologies to the recognition of their unique disciplinary characteristics. The importance of an interdisciplinary “Big Tent” approach is emphasized for understanding the development, specificity, and vocation of Digital Theology. The article also discusses alternative terms, particularly “Cybertheology”, which emerged in the 2000s within the Roman Catholic Church’s discussions about the opportunities and threats posed by digital media and technologies. It suggests that outside the Catholic context, “Cybertheology” did not gain traction due to its association with the early Internet, whereas “digital” is more universal, encompassing a broader range of technologies. The article summarizes four “waves” in the formation of digital theology, from the use of digital methods in education and research to rethinking it as “Theology in the Digital age”, serving as an ethical and value guide for the modern world.

The article poses a seemingly strange problem: is it possible to conceive of the interchangeability of religious studies and theology? It is demonstrated, however, that modern discussions within each discipline tend to displace and marginalize the other. The author believes that the interdisciplinary war between religious studies and theology, which began in the 1990s within the framework of the discussion on the recognition of the latter as an educational and scientific discipline at the state level, is not over at present. It is shown that the argumentation of the parties is built in such a way that leads to the fall of prestige of scientific knowledge about religion in general. To address this problem, the author analyzes and correlates the focus of cognitive interest, subject areas, disciplinary structures, and traditions of both disciplines, and – through correlating the focus of cognitive interest, the community of authors, and the community-audience – their functions for society and the church. The author believes that in the face of the problematic status of scientific humanities knowledge in society and in the church, representatives of both disciplines need to abandon the rhetoric of substitutability and jointly try to present an understandable and academically correct response to the existential, social, and cultural demands associated with religion.

The article draws a comparison of sources on Kryashen selfidentification from the early twentieth and early twenty-first century. I use R. Jenkins’ theory on self-identification and categorization as inside and outside descriptions of groups to understand the specificity of Kryashen self-perception. While there is a variety of works on the topic of Kryashen identity, the factor of an “external gaze” at their community is less studied. Drawing upon a thematic analysis of texts by Kryashen activist intellectuals D.G. Grigoryev (1906) and N.V. Mamakov (2018), I make it clear that these authors consider Kryashens to be a separate Orthodox Christian people that faces institutional imposition of “Tatar-ness”, so they appeal to the state and the Russian Church in defense of their own identity. They also highlight the role of intelligentsia in consolidation of Kryashen identity and point that Kryashens are not a well-known people in Russia. Existent differences between the texts are generally explained as historical and genre particularities. Expressions of Kryashen social activity on the topic of their identity represent a unique field of research for today’s Russia, a detailed study of which facilitates deepening of theoretical comprehension of self-identification vs. categorization clashes, the role of rejection of expected social roles in identity.