ABSTRACT
In the study of religion, authenticity is a value judgment that implies that someone or something is represented as the only, the essential, or the natural and thus inevitable option. Claims that something or someone is authentic necessarily implies that someone or something is inauthentic and thus secondary, polluted, or flawed. References to authenticity as if it simply named an obvious characteristic of religion appears just as easily in the work of scholars, both past and present. Contrary to how the term “authentic” is customarily used, it is best that critical scholars recall Spooner’s conclusion and avoid employing the term as if it innocently describes an actual or obvious quality inherent to either objects or people.
