Dr Meynell calls the two traditions he is writing about ‘Anglo-Saxon’ and ‘Continental’ instead of ‘Analytic’ and ‘Hermeneutic’. His main argument for this choice is that ‘Continental’ philosophers also practice some kind of analysis. But if we use ‘Analytic’ in its terminological meaning for that kind of philosophy (of religion) which is aiming at sharp and clear distinctions between concepts (including their uses), then we can well differentiate an analytic tradition from a hermeneutic one which has fundamental objections to present to that kind of ‘language-dissection’ (or better: ‘vivisection’) and which tries to understand religion in its irreducibly individual forms as a whole by means of empathy and description. (By the way: I do not affirm that this distinction between analytic and hermeneutic tradition is a complete one.)