With characteristic clarity and erudition, Wills demonstrates the importance of reading what Paul actually wrote--and not Acts or the pseduo-Pauline epistles--to learn his true message. Fascinating.

Interesting historical perspective of Paul and his writings. Since he wrote before most if not all of the other new testament writers his is closer to the time of Christ. Wills explores inconsistencies among the gospels and Acts and in Paul's writings. He finds that Paul's insights reflect Jesus' own teachings closely. He defends Paul against critics who label him as misogynistic, for instance. The author also analyzes Paul's work in relation to the times. Overall - an interesting read that is worth a closer look.
The recording is made by the author and is well done.

First of all, Wills makes it clear which writings of Paul he’s going to discuss. There are thirteen letters attributed to Paul in the New Testament, but Wills points out that modern scholarship only recognizes seven as genuinely authentic. The others were either not written by Paul or have dubious authorship. The seven in their probable order: Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, Philemon, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, and Romans.
t
Wills addresses what he sees as widespread misinterpretations of Paul’s message, mostly originating in an overly rigid opposition between “the works of the law” and a “covenant of grace.” Critics of Paul, I think Wills is saying, take him too personally and see him as an individual who was unable to follow moral law, represented by the Jews’ external practices. This diffused and distorted Jesus’ teachings. Such a reading led to the self-examinations of such historical figures as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Pascal, and Kierkegaard, all influenced by Paul, and often to a painful sense of an opposition between individual conscience and institutional moral directives
t
In fact, Wills thinks, Paul didn’t have any such dilemma. Paul believed that the “claims of the prophets had to be fulfilled, making a religion of the heart replace that of external observances .” At the same time, he affirmed the essential values of the Jewish law. It was a question of how it was to be fulfilled, not if it should be fulfilled. Paul’s letters were written decades before the four Gospel writers, and Wills makes it clear that in Paul’s preaching, Jesus founded no new religion. Reading the later gospels, the impression can arise that “Christianity” is replacing “Judaism.”
t
Context is everything with Wills. Paul’s seven authentic letters were addressed to gatherings of Jews with specific troubles, and to detail some of these troubles means involved and detailed discussions and some arguments with the later writings of Luke. Paul, Wills writes, was dealing with three groups: 1) Jews who didn’t accept Jesus as messiah, 2) Jews who accepted Jesus as messiah, and 3) non-Jews who accepted Jesus. Practices and beliefs sprang up, like weeds, and Paul was constantly trying to clarify and make clear what Jesus meant and what practices would authenticate Christ’s teachings.
t
Wills quotes one commentator on Paul: “At times he reminds one of a vice-principal of a large urban high school who has to each a daily class in calculus to the college-bound, then, as head of discipline he breaks up a fight in the hall, and next he finds he has to fill in for a shop teache who has gone home with a migraine. . .” Perhaps a trivializing example, but the point is that Paul had to do many things in his letters, minor errors and contradictions occur, so it’s always a mistake to concentrate on a single aspect of one letter.
t
Paul is the great reconciler, as evidenced in these words from Philippeans, “All you have learned, have taken from tradition, have listened to, have observed in me, act on these, and the God who brings you peace will be yours.”

To be honest, this is 2.5 stars, but it's far less "What Paul Meant" and more "So You Think You Know Luke," which wasn't quite what I was bargaining for. A great deal of who we understand Paul to be we get from Luke's stories of his exploits in Acts, so I understand that Wills had to start there. But the time he spends deconstructing Acts and why very little of it is at all valid overwhelms Paul himself and his letters (which is what people want to get into, anyway). And then, when Wills does get into the letters, he leaves a curious gap in the things he discusses--I, for one, have never really heard anyone talk about the controversy of Paul in Jerusalem. I'm glad to know about it, now, but that wouldn't really have been on my list of top 10 things about which I'd like Paul to explain.

Wills did have a pretty solid chapter on women, though, which was good.

So this is well-researched, as all Wills' books are. And I appreciate that Wills has the endnote on translation with explanation, and that he writes Greek in Latin letters for those of us who don't know the Greek alphabet. But overall, I was underwhelmed by this--What Jesus Meant was much better.

Audio

This is an excellent book by Wills which could easily be kept on the shelf for easy reference. Wills has a conversational style to his writing, and he suffers no fools so he is interesting in what he has to say. He does a good job of laying out some of the basic teachings of Paul and dispelling mis-interpretations (e.g. Paul hates women). The gospel writer Luke takes a near continual beating from Wills because he distorts the history of Paul. Of course, Luke was not writing a historical document but a faith document, but that does not seem to matter to Wills. Still, an excellent quick read.

Amazing book which helped me better understand this man and his writings!

Seemed more scholarly than What Jesus Meant and not as practical for living out my faith, though I am glad to know that Paul didn't hate women and Jewish people.

What Paul meant by Garry Wills (2006)

gift from my sister Judy

great book

I read this book as a companion to New Testament study. I enjoyed the additional insights and perspectives. While I don’t agree with some of them it was good to have knowledge of what others have thought about Paul and his works.

Some powerful thoughts on the life of Paul, but discounts a significant portion of his theology by cherry picking what texts it considers authentic, appearing to choose only those portions that agree with the author's preformed conclusions