Christian Dogmatics: Mueller compared to Pieper

      Because of the popularity of J.T. Mueller's 1934 book Christian Dogmatics, I have wondered how it's content compares with the material on which it is based, Franz Pieper's 3-volume set of the same name, Christian Dogmatics.  I have assumed that Mueller was quite faithful in holding to Pieper's doctrinal material, but I have not studied his abridged version ("epitome"), only Pieper's work in depth.  Judging by the popularity and the number of languages Mueller's work has been translated into (~11), I would wonder that more people in the world have learned their theology from Mueller's book than from Pieper's.  In order to begin to make a comparison, I have produced a side-by-side comparison of the Tables of Content of the two works – see the embedded scrolling chart below showing the similarities and differences.

Red highlighting in Pieper column indicates possible missing section in Mueller.  Green highlighting in Mueller column indicates possible added material over and above Pieper; Yellow highlighting indicates possible corresponding sections with differing heading names.

One notes significant sections with nearly identical headings and other portions of significant omissions by Mueller.  I was a little surprised that several headings in the "Holy Scripture" section were not listed in Mueller, but it did not surprise me that Mueller abridged large sections from Pieper's "Doctrine of Christ" or Christology (volume 2) to defend against Reformed errors. Evidently further study would be required to make any final judgments.

Which is better?
      To anyone who would desire to learn true Lutheran, i.e. true Christian, doctrine, I would encourage them go directly to Pieper's work instead of Mueller.  Why?  Because even though Pieper includes more use of Biblical and ecclesiastical languages (Greek, Hebrew and Latin), yet his narrative in English is so clear that one can still grasp his points even with no knowledge of these languages or of his references to dated works of theology.  Pieper practiced what he taught others theologians to do – he spoke and wrote in a clear manner that does not confuse his hearers or readers.  If a reader of this blog still is determined to get through the material in the shortest possible time, then Mueller may be used to good effect. — Of course the best comparison is to determine in detail what Mueller omitted and added to Pieper's content, a rather large project.  It is hoped that the above chart will aid in determining these differences.