New Entry at Paradoseis

Submitted a new entry over at Paradoseis Journal concerning the Πετρος tradition in the triple tradition (Synoptic Gospels) in general and Matthew's account (16:18) in particular. 

New Journal Entry at Paradoseis Journal.

 It can be viewed here, - it is a defense of the real presence interpretation based on translational decisions from the Aramaic into Greek.

R. E. 

παραδοσεις now viewable!

 παραδοσεις on-line biblical studies journal is now publicly available for viewing. That is where I will be doing most of my public on-line writing from now on. So stop by take a look, pass the word around and even submit an article if you like (read the guidelines posted at the site). 

 

The Lord's Supper: Five Views; Book Review.

     I usually enjoy reading the "5 views on...," or "4 views on...," series, which normally display Protestant scholars debating a certain issue or doctrine. So I was delighted in seeing a Roman Catholic participant in this book, The Lord's Supper: Five Views, published by IVP Academic, 2008. ¹ 

     I quickly noticed however a change in direction in this book from others of this type. Gone is the strict exegesis and historical exchanges that are usually conducted in these types of multi-view presentations. This book is one that turns on ecumenical cordiality rather than swift and passionate debate. ² So then, with this in mind let me give a brief analysis of the various views that were presented. 

The Roman Catholic View ³

     My great hope for a strong position based primarily on the evidence of the patristic testimony (i.e., history) was a great disappointment. ⁴ Instead what we are treated with is an exercise in ecumenical discussion, highlighting what Catholics and non-Catholics have more in common than not. Again, such a thesis has its time and place but in a polemical work such as this, it is not it. Gros' presentation is extremely weak as a defense of the real presence in the Eucharist, namely the Catholic formulation - Transubstantiation. In the eyes of the non-specialist (the target audience) focusing on ecumenical dialogue rather than strictly presenting the position is to leave your view open for criticism from many angles. ⁵

 The Lutheran View ⁶

     As much as the Roman Catholic presentation was a great disappointment, the Lutheran presentation was a great surprise. Here we had a defense of the real presence of Christ in the elements with verve and power. ⁷  We are also given a helpful explanation on the differences within Lutheranism on the Eucharist as well as some notable citations of the patristic fathers for support. 

 The Reformed View ⁸

 What we are given at the hands of Van Dyk is a succinct and able summary of Reformed thought on this doctrine (Calvin in particular.) There is no attempt at a defense of her view or an attempt at a refutation of the other views. In spirit the presentation of Van Dyk was unconvincing as it was passive. The history of interpretation on the Eucharist (patristic witness) is simply passed over save a short paraphrase of Augustine, who is misinterpreted in my opinion. 

 The Baptist View ⁹

     The Baptist position in my mind is glaringly self-refuting as Olson (its presenter) seems at pains to prove? He begins by straining to display the diversity and disagreement within the plethora of Baptist denominations and seems confused on whom exactly to pin the iconic example as the true Baptist understanding. Do we go with the newer wave of Baptist scholarship which has argued more for a sacramental understanding of the Eucharist? Or with the older Baptist theologians which have understood it more as a memorial ordinance? Or perhaps somewhere in the middle? Olson seems a bit lost and his ultimate choice as the representative voice seems nothing more than a hypothesis. This seems manifestly in contradiction to the clarion call of Paul, the New Testament and the early church, which is theological uniformity at all costs. 

The Pentecostal View ¹⁰

 If Olson seemed a bit disturbed at the divergences of theological thought within his tradition, Karkkainen embraces the emergent and multifaceted nature of Pentecostalism in general and its view on the Eucharist in particular. One can hardly even try to pin down a representative voice in this tradition but who cares at this point, would argue Karkkainen, pentecostalism is still in its formative infancy and much work and development needs to be done. With this underpinning in mind it is nearly futile to give a "defense" of any sort (this would apply to the Baptist presentation as well). Simple summaries of various thinkers within the Pentecostal tradition is expressed.

     In conclusion this work can be suggested as a starting point for the non-specialist seeking to find summaries and perhaps secondary literature for further reading at best. One can only dream of a better line up with exegetical rigor and spunk, including perhaps an Anglican and Eastern Orthodox contributor as well. ¹¹

_________________

1. To my knowledge this is the first of these kind of books (Protestant / popular) with a Roman Catholic contributor. The Catholic (episcopalian) view point however has been defended by Peter Toon (admirably) on the entry on ecclesiology, Who Runs the Church?. 

2. While I appreciate ecumenical dialogue, I prefer strong and passionate positional defenses, especially in a work of this nature. 

3. I noticed that the views are given basically in historical order, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, Baptist, Pentecostal. The Roman Catholic position is given by Brother Jeffrey Gros, Professor of Church History, Memphis Theological Seminary. 

4. Compare Gros with Toon who uses history to his advantage in arguing for the episcopal system of church governance. The argument from history has no real retort and if correctly and fairly handled is a devastating blow to all non-Catholic positions. 

5. Besides reading the primary writings of the fathers themselves who clearly and unambiguously hold to the real presence of Jesus Christ in the elements of the Bread and Wine, I suggest among dozens and dozens of full length works and monographs defending the Catholic view of the Eucharist (Transubstantiation); David Power, The Sacrifice We Offer: The Tridentine Dogma and Its Reinterpretation. (New York: Crossroads, 1987); James T. O'Connor, The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist, (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2005); Kevin Irwin, Models of the Eucharist. (New York: Paulist Press, 2005); Kenan Osborne, Community, Eucharist, and Spirituality. (Liguori: Liguori Press, 2007). 

6. Was given by John Stephenson, Professor of Historical Theology, Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, Ontario. 

7. I think Stephenson's contribution the strongest in the book in terms of style and presentation. He is first and foremost interested in defending the real presence at the cost of ecumenical dialogue (and he offends half of the other contributors in the process and interestingly attacking the Reformed position more than any other). 

8. Presented by Leanne Van Dyk, Professor of Reformed Theology at Western Theological Seminary, Michigan. 

9. Given by Roger Olson, Professor of Theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary, Texas. 

10. Is supplied by Veli-Matti Karkkainen, Professor of Systematic Theology - Fuller Seminary, Pasadena. 

11. I would nominate as a "fantasy line up" Joseph Fitzmyer or Luke Johnson for the Roman Catholic position, keep John Stephenson for the Lutherans, Robert Raymond or Ken Gentry for the Reformed, Peter Toon for the Anglicans, Millard Erickson for the Baptists and Walter Hollenweger for Pentecostalism. 

 

Mary in the New Testament: Book Review.

 This collaborative work on the aspects of Mary in the New Testament (and in the second century literature as well) was first published in 1978. Usually a project dealing mainly with NT material published in the late seventies would be considered dated by now. However, this book is unique in the sense that it is not by a single author but it is a collaboration of New Testament specialists, and specialists from differing theological traditions (Protestant / Catholic)¹. Therefore, one is treated not to a single view point on Mariology but an overall consensus voice of this committee of scholars².

The final product that we are given is one of the sanest and controlled outlooks on Mary via the data of the New Testament (and the second century) that still holds water today. The contributors are masterfully familiar with the best of the secondary literature in question. Highlights of the book are:

  - The mature handling of the difficult textual and grammatical problems over the question, did Jesus have siblings or not? according to the New Testament, (this discussion was led by Paul Achtemeier and Karl Donfried.) 

- Raymond Brown leads a jaw dropping exegesis and overview of the interpretive history over questionable Marian inferences that have been drawn from the New Testament. Such views as Mary / Daughter of Zion motif, Mary / Ark of the Covenant motif (that are endlessly peddled today by popular Catholic apologists) Brown uncovers as nothing more than poor eisegesis. 

- Fitzmyer's entry on Mary in the book of Revelation is astounding³. Fitzmyer demonstrates that all views that see in the woman figure of Rev 12 as primarily referring to Mary face two insurmountable difficulties: First, the earliest patristic commentary that we have available see this primarily as a reference to the Church. Secondly the best modern commentators do not see this as singularly referring to Mary. 

- Where this book could have gone horribly wrong is in its treatment of the late first and second century corpus⁴. However, Elaine Pagels and K. Froehlich to a superb job at presenting an even handed and fair investigation into the matter⁵.

Overall, Mary the mother of Jesus is presented in her historical context fairly and accurately. The contributors while admitting what one is hard pressed to truly uncover a portrait of the historical Mary through the NT and the second century (since little is actually written of her) they give on the the finest efforts that has been written.

__________________

1. I first read this work in 1987 and thought it was time for a second and fresh analysis (and it was well worth the time). The contributors are some of the best and brightest of critical Catholic and Protestant (mostly Lutheran) of the time. Such scholars such as Paul Achtemeier, Reginald Fuller, Gerhard Krodel, John Reumann, J. Louis Martyn, along with arguably the greatest Roman Catholic NT specialists of the twentieth century; Raymond Brown and  Joseph Fitzmyer (among others). 

2. Where there is disagreement among the committee it is stated in footnotes. It must be stated that these scholars are not exactly the most conservative bunch that could have been assembled for such a project. On the other hand they would not be considered wildly liberal and I think such a group (moderately critical) gives the best opinion in that they are not driven to guard nor champion a particular theological stance, (too conservative nor too progressive). This naturally does not apply to every member of this ecumenical committee, each should be weighed on a case by case basis. 

3. One could only hope for a full length treatment of Revelation at the hands of Fitzmyer. 

4. One only need to read one of the popular Protestant and sometimes Catholic/Orthodox treatments of Patristic interpretation in order to witness how theological presuppositions tamper with the primary writings. 

5. Not every single point is convincing yet I found the treatment like a breath of fresh air. 

    

Olivet Discourse: Part 2.

 In Part 1 of this series on the Olivet Discourse, we had discussed the setting of the discourse, namely in the shadow of the temple of Jerusalem. Today we will continue our examination of the discourse. 

_____________________

- "And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? By no means will be left here a stone upon another, which will not be thrown down." (Mk. 13:2)

- "But he having answered said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, by no means will be left here a stone upon a stone which will not be demolished." (Matt 24:2)

- "These things which you see, the days will come in which there will not be left a stone upon a stone which will not be thrown down." (Lk. 21:6)

____________________

     This destruction of their temple (and in fact all of Jerusalem) is due to their failure at recognizing the advent of the their Messiah on earth (Lk 19:41-44: Mk 11:12-19; 12: 1-12, et al.) and the visible corruption taking place in the house of the Lord, a corruption which was just a symptom of a much deeper spiritual cancer that had taken root in the Jews of the day. This prediction of Jesus stands as a testament for all time on who he is since the validation of his words took place astonishingly accurate¹. 

Christ here is not simply stating a physical event that will occur at the ransacking of Jerusalem. He is using Jewish prophetic language that would be familiar to all Jews hearing the discourse². The prophets of old spoke in the same manner concerning the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC through enemy armies; 

- "They bend their tongue like a bow; falsehood and not truth has grown strong in the land; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they do not know me, declares the LORD...Heaping oppression upon oppression, and deceit upon deceit; they refuse to know me, declares the LORD...Shall I not punish them for these things? declares the LORD, and shall not I avenge myself on a nation such as this? I will take up weeping and wailing for the mountains, and a lamentation for the pastures of the wilderness, because they are laid waste so that no one passes through, and the lowing of cattle is not heard; both the birds of the air and the beasts have fled and are gone. I will make Jerusalem a heap of ruins, a lair of jackals, and I will make the cities of Judah a desolation, without inhabitant." (Jeremiah 9:3-11; Cf. 26:16-18). 

The very last passage of the Old Testament speaks of this destruction. The Lord will send Elijah (the eschatological Elijah / John the Baptist, Matt 11:14; 17:10; Mk 9:11-13; Lk 1:17) before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes to turn the hearts of some of the Jews towards God. This conversion was not total however bringing them the threatened decree of utter destruction (Mal 4:5-6; cf. 3:12). 

 Thus we see the unfolding of the discourse as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Roman armies. The Old Testament is replete with examples of God using enemy forces to discipline the Israelites for disobedience, sometimes at the extreme of raising Jerusalem itself. Jesus our Lord stands in this Jewish prophetic tradition stating a similar disaster to befall Jerusalem for its ultimate sin, namely the rejection of its long foretold Messiah.

___________________

1. Some critics point to the western wall blocks that still stand today (pictured above) to discount the words of Jesus, so E. P Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. (London: Penguin, 1993) 257. Many scholars have responded that this objection does not stand since this particular support was not part of the temple itself but barely a support for the platform of the temple. I would argue that even if a few stones were left upon each other today this would just highlight the fact that Jesus is following Jewish prophetic hyperbole, not to be taken literally. This seems to be the case when Mark uses the word ιερου in V.1 and 3 to describe the "temple." This refers more widely to the entire temple complex including things such as the columns surrounding the inside walls and the other buildings on the temple mount etc. If Mark would have wanted to identify the temple structure proper alone he would have undoubtedly used ναος as in (14:58; 15:29, et al). Cf. for the eye witness account of the utter devastation on Jerusalem, Josephus, Jewish Wars. 7, 1-3. 

2. A good starting work on Jewish prophetic hyperbolic language in general and Jesus' use of it in particular see Robert Stein, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible; Playing by the Rules. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1994). 

  

The Olivet Discourse: Part 1.

 This will be the introductory article in a series of posts that will cover the so-called Olivet Discourse (also been labeled "The Eschatological Discourse," "Little Apocalypse") that is given in the synoptic gospels, (Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21)¹. And while entire books have been devoted to the correct hermeneutical approach to the pericopes, it is best read I believe in its historical context, namely written by and for first century Jewish Christians in light of impending and momentous events. 

     It was with the Jewish temple in the background that this discussion took place (Matt 24:1-2) in response to the questions posed by Jesus' disciples. And they were not alone, rabbinic and intertestamental apocalyptic literature around this time was ripe with prognostication and fanciful flights of imagination². Jewish apocalyptic thought was up to this point pregnant with meanings and nuances, all soaked in the prophets and psalmists of the Old Testament as the primary source point. Jesus gave a discourse to first century Jew's concerning events that would befall them very soon in prophetic and apocalyptic hyperbole that they would be intimately familiar with³. The import that is carried concerning the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem is often missed today as we read of these events after the fact, two thousand years later in a Christian era. However to the original hearers and audiences of the first century, namely the Jews this would be a cataclysmic event that is hard to compare in our day. It is the end of a religious order, a destruction of the very headquarters or icon of the faith. I suppose a modern comparison would be the foretelling of the destruction (and its subsequent taking place) of the Vatican in Rome for Catholics, the White House for Americans or Mecca for Muslims. However for the ancient Jews it would be even more astounding and traumatizing than these modern examples. In Judaism the Temple had a political and economic role that religion no longer plays in modern government. Hence it is the prediction of the completion of a way of life not just an ideological-structure. 

 The entire discourse is framed with words of immediacy, "πρωτον" (Luke 21:9), "ηγγικεν" (Luke 21:9, 20), "Προ" (Luke 21:12), "εγγιζει" (Luke 21:28), "εγγυς" (Luke 21:30), which underscore the temporal association of the events that are to unfold; the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of the Roman army⁴. The time window of these events are to occur very near, "επι θυραις", (Matt 24:33; Mk 13:29). Jesus gives his promise in unmistakable language, all of the things in the discourse are to be fulfilled before the generation of his hearers on the Mount of Olivet pass away (Matt 24:34; Mk 13:30). 

 And so, with these short but critical preface's we move to a succinct examination of the Discourse itself. (Translation my own and for the purpose of exegesis painfully literal). 

-"Coming out of the temple and as he went Jesus approached his disciples who showed him the buildings of the temple" (Matt 24:1). 

-"Coming out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Teacher, look what magnificent stones and what magnificent buildings!" (Mk 13:1). 

-"And as some were speaking about the temple that with magnificent stones and with sacred gifts it has been decorated, he said" (Lk 21:5)

All three of the synoptics are in agreement, the setting for the discourse has the temple of Jerusalem in the backdrop⁵. And while Matthew and Mark are silent concerning the "αναθημασιν" Luke speaks of them and the importance of bringing these to the temple in Judaic life (cf. 2 Mac 3:2-7; Josephus, Antiquities. 15, 2, 3). 

________________

1. Naturally the secondary literature related to the Olivet Discourse is immense. My exegesis of the texts barely touch the tip of the literary iceberg's (due to space restraint). A very brief outline of the trends in the secondary literature is as follows; those that have been severely critical of this material and have either relegated it as an original Jewish apocalyptic writing taken over by the composers of the gospels and then attributed to Jesus; T. Colani, Jesus-Christ et les croyances messianiques de son temps, (Strasbourg: Truettel et Wurtz, 1864); Rudolf Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1972). This view has been subject to a detailed refutation by many scholars such as; C. E. B. Cranfield, "St. Mark Crucis: A Critical Analysis of Mark 13" Int 24, 1970. Others have held that the Discourse is an example of the genre of Jewish farewell discourse, F. Busch, Zum Verstandnis der synoptischen Eschatologie: Markus 13 neu untersucht, (Gutersloh: Bertelsmann, 1938). C. H. Weisse (followed by many others) was apparently the first to give a full length presentation that the Discourse constitutes not a single lecture but a number of loosely related eschatological sayings that were then pasted together by the writers of the gospels, Die evangelische Geschichte: Kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet, (Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel, 1838). David Aune has argued that the Discourse follows the Greco-Roman peripatetic temple dialogue, Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World, (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1983). Conservative works however that see the Discourse in its natural setting and taking it as face value as a single response lecture from Jesus to his disciples are not hard to find, (see especially) L. Gaston, No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels. (NovTSup 23. Leiden: Brill, 1970); David Wenham, The Rediscovery of Jesus' Eschatological Discourse. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1984); G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days: The Interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1993); Ken Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, (American Vision, 1998).

2. E.g., Book of Enoch, Psalms of Solomon, Assumption of Moses, Book of Jubilees, Ascension of Isaiah, Apocalypse of Baruch, Book of the Secrets of Enoch, etc., which have the arrival of the Messiah always in literal, earthly and political conquests, raiding the kingdoms of earth (such as the Roman Empire) inviting the descendants of Abraham to sit at the perpetual Messianic banquet, at the exclusion of the dirty gentiles. Important to note that Jesus' Discourse as found in the Synoptics is strikingly different from these extra-biblical apocalypses (and even from some biblical apocalyptic genre's such as John's Revelation). Gone are the heavenly journeys, numerology, symbolic imagery, animal imagery, battles among divine figures, (see K. Grayston, BJRL 56, 1973, for an important article showing the differences between the Discourse and apocalyptic writings). 

3. Jesus' first century readers as well would be immediately struck by the OT motif's and imagery that placed him squarely in line with that of the prophetic terminology of the prophets of the Old Testament (who spoke in the same hypberbolic tones on the exact same point as Jesus, namely judgement on Israel for its unfaithfulness to the Lord). The Old Testament prophets were the forerunners of announcements of destruction falling on the Temple of Jerusalem for disobedience, (1 Ki 9:6-8; Micah 3:12; Jer 7:12-15, 22:5, 26:6, et al). Even non-biblical examples can be found of the foretelling of the destruction in A.D. 70, such as that by another Jesus, Jesus son of Hananiah (he pronounced shortly after the death of Jesus Christ and was put on trial for his "threats", b. Yoma. 39b) and that found in 1 Enoch 90:28-29, cf. T. Levi. 16:4; T. Jud. 23:3; Sib. Or. 3, 665; et al. It is a marvel that popular "end time" sensationalist commentaries either miss this most obvious literary background to the discourse, or even worse knowingly distort Sacred Scripture to prey on the ignorant masses for monetary gain. This discourse was given to a particular people concerning particular events. To imagine that Jesus spoke (mainly) of things thousands of years into the future makes a mockery of the historical setting and context of the gospels in particular and Sacred Scripture in general. 

4. Most New Testament exegetes of all traditions are agreed on this point of the discourse, that it pertains to the fall of Jerusalem in A. D. 70 by Titus. The fierce debates have to do with where does the discourse stop relating to the fall of Jerusalem and start on the events surrounding the second advent of Jesus Christ. The fall of Jerusalem was so accurately portrayed by Jesus that a host of critics have charged the composers of the gospels of writing after the events occurred since they imagine, Jesus did not have predictive powers. Perhaps now the best defense that the Discourse en toto deals with the destruction of Jerusalem is N. T. Wright's, Jesus and the Victory of God. (London: SPCK, 1996), see also J. Kik, Matthew Twenty-Four. (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1948); R. V. G. Tasker, St. Matthew. (TNTC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964). Representatives of those scholars which see most of the Discourse as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem with a small portion (at the end of the discourse) dedicated to the second advent, R. T. France, Mark. (Michigan: Eerdmans, 2002).  Others see the Discourse as being split in half more or less, with the first part relating to the destruction of Jerusalem and the latter half the second advent, so. G. R. Beasley-Murray. Still others have held that the majority of the events described pertain to events post the destruction of Jerusalem up to and including the second advent and only a small portion of the beginning of the discourse deals with the fall of Jerusalem (with a noticeable feature among these scholars on holding the concept of double-fulfillment, or that the events that occurred in the destruction of Jerusalem will mirror end-time events as well); Craig Blomberg, Matthew. (NACNT. Nashville: Broadman, 1992); D. A. Carson, Matthew. (EBC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984); D. A. Hagner, Matthew. (WBC. Dallas: Word, 1995); W. D. Davies & D. C. Allison, Matthew. (ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997); David Turner, Matthew. (BECNT. Grand Rapids, 2008). The particular view which espouses that the Discourse deals solely with futurists events (future to our stand-point) is usually built on a Dispensational eschatological system and can be found in the works of; J. F. Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come. (Chicago: Moody, 1974). 

5. For extra-biblical references to the beauty of the temple at this time see Josephus, Antiquities. 15, 11; Jewish Wars. 5, 5; Tacitus, History. 5, 8. See any of the commentaries for full reports on the massive size and the grandeur of the temple (and thus the silliness of some Jewish rebel rouser announcing the fall of such a monument of human architecture and devotion). 

  

Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, Vol. 2: Review.

  In Protestantism, Systematic Theologies are as common as the flu. Every denomination it seems has it's own Systematic: A. H. Strong (Baptist), L. Berkhof (Reformed), W. Pannenburg/ K. Barth (Liberal Lutheran), N. Geisler (Arminian Evangelical), R. Raymond (Presbyterian), are but a few of the "modern" systematics. Catholicism as well is no stranger to the systemic presentation of Christian doctrine. Aquinas' Summa is a herculean effort that has never been matched. Every century was witness to a slew of Catholic presentations that were famous for the litany of thinkers, theologians, commentators and fathers that they drew upon to offer a theological history of the Christian faith. Modern Catholic historical/systematic theologies abound. The ever developing Denzinger-Schonmetzer which began in the late 19th century comes to mind, as does Rahner's Foundations, and Dupuis & Neuner's The Christian Faith as well. 

And so it came that I stumbled upon, Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). It is a two volume set and I selected volume two based on the doctrines that were covered. While a bit dated (almost twenty years old) I was a bit surprised at the relatively conservative tone of the scholarship in a decade (mostly 80's) where liberalism ran rampant (even in Catholic critical scholarship). 

 Michael Fahey opened the discussions up with the entry on the Church which was a great disappointment. It was one of the more liberal entries denying and challenging most traditional Roman Catholic ecclesiology and especially uneven on Papal authority and its historical origins. 

 Fahey is followed by the entry on sin & grace by Roger Haight which is an excellent historical examination of these doctrines in particular and soteriology in general. Elizabeth Johnson then gives us the entry on the saints and Mary. It is an astounding summary (not defense) of Mariology (and the saints) in ancient and modern Catholic thought. 

 Regis Duffy contributes with an overview of Sacramental theology in general, followed by entries on Baptism & Confirmation, Penance and Anointing of the Sick. On baptism we are given a very strong summation and definition (with an especially illuminating discussion on infant baptism and the immense secondary literature that is involved). In contrast, Confirmation seemed a bit skim. On Penance, Duffy gives us a tight but poignant historical sketch. On Anointing of the Sick we are treated to a very succinct articulation behind the philosophy of this practice. 

David Power comes next with two entries; on the Eucharist and on Order's. The discussion on the Eucharist is noticeably tainted with liberalism yet Power manages to give an important overview of Catholic thought on this Sacrament. Moreover, Power asks some penetrating questions on the limitations of much of modern Eucharistic theology. The entry on Order's is an intelligent account on the origins of the episcopal form of Church government (but not every single point convinces). 

Francis Schussler Fiorenza is the scholar who presents us with the article on Marriage. While heavily liberal/critical it is one of the better presentations on all the various questions surrounding the theology of marriage I have read. The last entry is that on Eschatology written by Monika Hellwig. It is by far the weakest of all the entries in this systematic theology. It hardly touches on the multifarious questions that surround this heated doctrine, especially in modern Christianity and not all will follow Hellwig in many of her liberal eschatological/soteriological conclusions. 

In conclusion, if you want a detailed analysis on the origins of modern Roman Catholic theology this is a great place to start. But be forewarned, the scholarship is far from conservative. I still have yet to see a true enterprise from a panel of top Catholic (conservative) scholars that can rival the scope of something like this.