Rosenzweig as instructive interlocutors for a corrective interpretation of hope as a basic human phenomenon that poetically manifests the disjunction and conver- gence of time and eternity. Pattison argues that ‘The Eternal’ grounds and gives time, seeing and celebrat- ing time as a gift that must be redeemed in and as time, rather than something from which we must be rescued. Elsewhere, Pattison has treated the topic of ‘festal time’ in Augustine and Heidegger more explicitly, and one of the many striking insights in this book is the poetic and liturgical expression of memory reaching out in hope to eternity as festal time. It would be interesting to consider how Abraham Joshua Heschel’s work on Sabbath time fits here as well – especially as it might relate to Kierkegaard and Augustine’s notion of resting transparently in God. Although Pattison does not engage with the Dominican theologian, there is sig- nificant overlap with Edward Schillebeeckx’s God the Future of Man (1968). Following Josef Pieper, it would be interesting to see how Pattison’s revisionary interpretation of the theological virtue of hope as basic and theological hangs together with the projective aspects of ‘perfection’ language in the ‘Grammatical Thomism’ of David Burrell and Stephen Mulhall. In part, Pattison’s thought-provoking book rehabilitates the conceptual roots of Paul Tillich’s theology for a new generation. In some circles, Tillich was regarded as a covert Thomist; perhaps Pattison’s book may inadvertently support a rehabilitation of Existential Thomism as well? Joshua Furnal Dartmouth College Thomas O’Loughlin, The Eucharist: Origins and Contemporary Understandings, Bloomsbury T&T Clark: London and New York, 2015; 248 pp.: 9780567156051, £65.00/$120.00 (hbk), 9780567384591, £19.99/$34.95 (pbk) Based squarely in modern studies of the meal practices of Jesus and early Christian communities, as well as anthropological insights into human nature as homo cen- arius, O’Loughlin argues in this excellent, well-written and eminently readable study on the Eucharist, not that the Eucharist was a part of a communal meal in its origins but that it was and is this meal, not that the Eucharist developed from a meal but that the meal disappeared altogether, with a new ritual form remaining. What characterized these early meals is precisely the action terminology of Eucharist, understood as disciples, brought together by the Holy Spirit, offering their thanks to the Father in Christ. This giving thanks at the meal was Theocentric in act rather than Christocentric in focus. With specific reference to the early Christian Didache, O’Loughlin notes: [W]orship ... took place in the setting of a real meal: they blessed the Father through Jesus ... So at a meal, while the food on the table was the occasion of the thanksgiving prayer, the thanksgiving was not confined to what was on the plates, but extended to Book Reviews 445 at University of Nottingham on November 18, 2016 tjx.sagepub.com Downloaded from