Wills has written three books of interest: What Paul Meant, What Jesus Meant, and What the Gospels Meant. In What Paul Meant Wills puts forth the notion that Paul's writings (not the pseudo Paul) provide a clearer picture of Jesus than the Gospels because he was closer to the time of Jesus, knew and talked with many people who knew Jesus and had a much better sense of Jesus than the Gospels which were written much later. He makes a good point of this notion. It serves to underscore the emphasis on Pauline theology in some Christian traditions. He carries this theme through the other two books he's written in the "meant" series. Anyone who's interested in the development of Christianity will find all three useful. Start with What Paul Meant and go for it.

Gary Wills does an excellent job of analyzing Paul's writings and his place in the early Church. he debunks a number of myths and clarifies Paul's role in evangelizing the gentiles. I truly appreciated his line by line discussion of Paul's writings and those attributed to him but probably written by someone else. Great read!

Wills' earlier book, "What Jesus Meant", was truly inspired -- engaging from start to finish, it challenged many of the assumptions of modern Christianity about what it means to be a follower of Jesus. I was expecting more-or-less the same from "What Paul Meant". I was slightly disappointed; because this book doesn't quite measure up to the extremely high bar set by its predecessor. Nonetheless, it is a very good book; and I'm glad I took the time to read it (though, since it is a short book, it didn't really take much time at all). The goal of the book is to defend Paul against the unfair criticism that he has received over the centuries from those who claim that he distorted the teachings of Jesus, and also to rescue Paul from those Christians who have twisted his writings to support doctrines that that are contrary to the true gospel of Jesus. Wills argues that Paul's basic message was the same as that of Jesus. The book aims to explain why Paul is so misunderstood, and what he was really trying to accomplish. However, the bulk of the book is actually an attempt to use the available textual and historical evidence to sort out the details of Paul's life and mission -- where he went, what his goals were, what problems he had to deal with, what his relationship was with the leaders of the Jerusalem church and various other missionaries, etc. If you're interested in the life of Paul and the early history of the church (as I am) you will find this a worthwhile read. But, given the title of the book and the precedent set by his earlier book, I was expecting more of an analysis of what Paul wrote, and less of an analysis of his life, his mission, and his relationships with other followers of Jesus. Nonetheless, my disappointment with the book is only slight; and I would certainly recommend it. (Of particular value is the appendix that deals with issues surrounding the proper translation of various words found throughout Paul's writings.)

As a younger man, I attended a conservative Christian college, where I majored in biblical studies. I still recall how adamant the professors were that the Bible was not only infallible but inerrant as well. It is almost amusing to watch the hoops such people will jump through to maintain this untenable position.

Fast forward a few years, to when I took my first serious look at the other end of the spectrum, the ominous "liberals." There I found an approach to the Scriptures in which any possible contradiction or inconsistency in the text is trumpeted loudly as an error, with no attempt whatsoever to harmonize the seeming disparities. Whereas my old mentors were obsessive in defending the Bible's perfection, the other side seems almost gleeful in its attempts to fictionalize as much of it as possible.

Wills obviously belongs to this latter camp, and it shows in the condescending approach he takes to the New Testament. A prime example is on pages 32-36, where he examines Acts 9:1-19, the account of Paul's Damascus Road experience.

On page 33 he writes: "We know from Paul that he was 'unknown by my features to the Judean gatherings in Messiah (Galatians 1:21)......how could a man who had gone house to house arresting the brothers be unknown by them?"

Wills fails to read the surrounding verses in the Galatians passage. They answer his question easily:

"Then I went into the regions of Syria and Silicia, and I was still unknown by sight to the churches in Judea that are in Christ. They only heard it said, 'the one who was formerly persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy." And they glorified God because of me." Galatians 1:21-24.

What Paul is actually saying is not that the Judeans saw him and didn't recognize his face. Rather he is saying that during this particular journey he did not make personal contact with those believers, though they did hear he was in their area. A simple examination of the text makes Willis' objection fall to pieces.

Other points he makes suffer from similar problems. On page 33 he writes "if Paul had been a pupil of the famous Gamaliel, he would have surely said so when he boasted of his Pharisaical training."

Really? How does Wills know this? Is it possible that Paul had a valid reason not to mention this training? Perhaps upon becoming a Christian his former mentor disowned him, in effect saying "do not disgrace me by speaking of our past associations," and Paul honored this request. Perhaps Paul simply didn't see it necessary to mention.

Perhaps Gamaliel was especially hated or feared by the Christians, and Paul's mention of his name would only have made them unduly suspicious of him as well.

Wills considers none of this. Upon sniffing out what may be a problem in the biblical account he loudly proclaims that the New Testament is in error.

The solution he proposes is predictable: "Luke's fiction has replaced far more interesting fact. Here as elsewhere we must look intently at Paul's own words to see what he actually meant. Luke will prove a continuing obstacle to this effort." page 36.

So, once again, it's the biblical writers who screwed everything up, and it's up to modern scholars, looking back two millennia, to correct their lies and find the real truth they failed to report. This isn't scholarship, it is arrogance, and a particularly pompous type of arrogance as well.

Yet it is this very attitude that guides Wills throughout the rest of the book, which is a mixed bag in my view. He defends Paul against claims of inciting hate (a good example is on page 56), demeaning women, etc. and at many times employs sound hermeneutical principles. On the other hand, he seems passionate to remold the Apostle into a politically correct advocate of diversity and multi-culturalism.

In conclusion, I give this book an overall positive recommendation, but with reservations. It is useful both for its insights into modern approaches to the Bible as well as its analysis of Paul's writings.
Let the reader be aware, though, that it is faulted by biases that should be critically - and fairly - examined. Of course, this is good advice when reading any book, even the Bible.

As a younger man, I attended a conservative Christian college, where I majored in biblical studies. I still recall how adamant the professors were that the Bible was not only infallible but inerrant as well. It is almost amusing to watch the hoops such people will jump through to maintain this untenable position.

Fast forward a few years, to when I took my first serious look at the other end of the spectrum, the ominous "liberals." There I found an approach to the Scriptures in which any possible contradiction or inconsistency in the text is trumpeted loudly as an error, with no attempt whatsoever to harmonize the seeming disparities. Whereas my old mentors were obsessive in defending the Bible's perfection, the other side seems almost gleeful in its attempts to fictionalize as much of it as possible.

Willis obviously belongs to this latter camp, and it shows in the condescending approach he takes to the New Testament. A prime example is on pages 32-36, where he examines Acts 9:1-19, the account of Paul's Damascus Road experience.

On page 33 he writes: "We know from Paul that he was 'unknown by my features to the Judean gatherings in Messiah (Galatians 1:21)......how could a man who had gone house to house arresting the brothers be unknown by them?"

Willis fails to read the surrounding verses in the Galatians passage. They answer his question easily:

"Then I went into the regions of Syria and Silicia, and I was still unknown by sight to the churches in Judea that are in Christ. They only heard it said, 'the one who was formerly persecuting us is now proclaiming the faith he once tried to destroy." And they glorified God because of me." Galatians 1:21-24.

What Paul is actually saying is not that the Judeans saw him and didn't recognize his face. Rather he is saying that during this particular journey he did not make personal contact with those believers, though they did hear he was in their area. A simple examination of the text makes Willis' objection fall to pieces.

Other points he makes suffer from similar problems. On page 33 he writes "if Paul had been a pupil of the famous Gamaliel, he would have surely said so when he boasted of his Pharisaical training."

Really? How does Willis know this? Is it possible that Paul had a valid reason not to mention this training? Perhaps upon becoming a Christian his former mentor disowned him, in effect saying "do not disgrace me by speaking of our past associations," and Paul honored this request. Perhaps Paul simply didn't see it necessary to mention.

Perhaps Gamaliel was especially hated or feared by the Christians, and Paul's mention of his name would only have made them unduly suspicious of him as well.

Willis considers none of this. Upon sniffing out what may be a problem in the biblical account he loudly proclaims that the New Testament is in error.

The solution he proposes to the mass of falsehoods he says are in the book of Acts is predictable: "Luke's fiction has replaced far more interesting fact. Here as elsewhere we must look intently at Paul's own words to see what he actually meant. Luke will prove a continuing obstacle to this effort." page 36.

So, once again, it's the biblical writers who screwed everything up, and it's up to modern scholars, looking back two millennia, to correct their lies and find the real truth they failed to report. This isn't scholarship, it is arrogance, and a particularly pompous type of arrogance as well.

Yet it is this very attitude that guides Willis throughout the rest of the book, which is a mixed bag in my view. He defends Paul against claims of inciting hate (a good example is on page 56), demeaning women, etc. and at many times employs sound hermeneutical principles. On the other hand, he seems passionate to remold the Apostle into a politically correct image, making him an advocate of modern ideas of diversity and multi-culturalism.

In conclusion, I give this book an overall positive recommendation, but with reservations. It is useful both for its insights into modern approaches to the Bible as well as its analysis of Paul's writings.
Let the reader be aware, though, that it is faulted by biases that should be critically - and fairly - examined. Of course, this is good advice when reading any book, even the Bible.

The author, Garry Wills, offers a fresh approach to New Testament books usually attributed to Paul, attempting to put specific words into context of the first century. He carefully chooses to deal with the books that almost certainly were written by Paul, giving reasons for believing that some others probably were not written by him. Dr. Wills says that he is not a theologian but writes from the perspective of a Historian and a Greek scholar, although he did study for the priesthood. He separates fact from myth in an interesting and readable writing style.

Review of: "What Paul Meant"

By: Garry Wills

Paul was the first letter writer of Christianity.

His epistles are considered the most pessimistic writings of the early church.

Despite the pessimism of Paul's epistles, he guided the early church and aided the growth of the early church. The author, Garry Wills, calls the growth of the early church an explosion of belief. He says of Paul: "Paul was part of this explosion of belief." Garry Wills says that Nietzsche called Paul the "dysangelist" or the bad news bearer, and "a man with a genius for hatred." This is in contrast to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the "evangelists" or the good news bearers.

The author asks the question: "how much of this notoriety is deserved?" His answer: "very little."

This book uses seven of Paul's letters: "Letter to the Thessalonians", "Letter to the Galatians", "Letter to the Philippians", "Letter to Philemon", "First Letter to the Corinthians", "Second Letter to the Corinthians" and "Letter to the Romans." These are the letters whose authorship is not disputed.

Author Wills shows that Paul echoed and amplified the message of love spoken by Jesus. Paul had the same message of love as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John when he reports on the teaching of Jesus.

This book also gives details of the life of Paul and of the history of early Christianity.

See Also:

What the Gospels Meant

and

What Jesus Meant

This book is a good amplification of the meaning of Paul's letters. It is clear and easy to understand and the reasoning is very sound.

I recommend "What Paul Meant" as a supplemental guide when reading the New Testament or as a stand alone text.

I've now read all three of Wills' books in this series. He provides a very insightful analysis of the actual language of the New Testament in context, in sharp contrast to many commentators who pick and choose passages to suit their doctrinal perspectives. In this one, Wills is obviously an advocate intent on redeeming Paul in the face of historical criticism, which Wills readily acknowledges, but he makes it clear where he's making an argument and where he's making an objective observation. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of his translations from the Greek, but they pick up nuances that other translators have described in commentary or have expressed themselves in their own translations. I think this is essential reading for anyone interested in a close reading of the New Testament texts.

As the title makes clear, this book seeks to uncover what Paul really intended, stripping away subsequent interpretations and misinterpretations. Wills' first task is to clarify what Paul did not mean. Not surprisingly for a first-century Jew, Paul was not anti-semitic. He did not hate women - - or anybody else, according to Wills. The argument here often rests on pure assertion that nobody thinks that Paul really wrote Titus, 2 Thessalonians, or the two Timothy letters. Readers unfamiliar with historical-critical scholarship may be a little surprised by such assertions without argumentation, though Wills is right about the scholarly consensus.

The more difficult task in this book is the positive one: what did Paul mean? Wills lays this out at a very high level of abstraction. He does not read verses or passages closely, and for the most part does not even discuss individual books (letters) as a coherent whole. Instead, he prefers to treat Paul's entire body of work, often leaping from one epistle to another. If you read Biblical texts closely, I suspect you'll be frustrated.

This approach is also a bit disingenuous, given Wills' (reasonable) criticisms of other interpretations. Paul's letters were written in widely scattered times and places, in response to different problems and circumstances. Wills knows all this, but lumping everything together tends to obscure the differences. It also lets Wills cherry pick his evidence more effectively than would a close reading of, say, Romans. (Incidentally, Wills has an interesting reading of Romans that any Protestant familiar with Luther will find challenging.)

Wills' core assumption is that we have to immerse ourselves in Paul's world to understand him. To help us do this, he uses non-standard translations of many key words - - "messiah" for "Christ" (khristos), "gathering" for "church" (ekklesia), "revelation" for "gospel" (euangelion), and so on. This can be jarring in familiar passages but Wills certainly has the right idea here. The Roman Mediterranean did not have a growing "Christian" church but an increasing Christian tendency within a minority Jewish diaspora scattered from a Jewish homeland.

In this environment, love for God and love for one another were central - - divisions among the Brothers over circumcision or dietary laws weakened the followers of Christ and created conflicts with the larger Jewish community. These conflicts weakened both Christian and non-Christian Jews in the wider Roman world. Following one's own heart while respecting others doing the same lies at the core of Paul's message as Wills sees it. It's not a bad lesson for the contemporary world.

Wills doesn't go on and on and he cuts through the mire of modern translation to get on with it in simple, rough-cut Greek. This book is fast and punchy and leaves readers looking for more, rather than leaving them stumped and swamped. Readers can come away with a crisp picture of Paul and the experiences of the early gatherings in Messiah. He raises good and tough questions that others like to skip. A must read for those who want to know more, probably not so good for those who think they know everything.