A recorded book read by Wills himself. I usually don't care for authors reading their own, but this one worked very well. Wills thinks Jesus meant just what he said--God wants people to leave everything and follow him, to treat everyone like they want to be treated, to care for the least of society above one's own comforts. His was a radical message and the Church has watered it down, installed priests even though Jesus (and the first Christians) did away with priests, and exalted material manifestations of holiness --church buildings, raiments--where Jesus really did have notihng and was homeless. A very interesting and powerful discussion. I look forward to reading the book I have on what PAUL MEANT.

Jesus was one strange man who did and said a lot of strange things. Pulitzer Prize-winning author, historian, and prolific religious writer Garry Wills believes that to truly understand it all we must read the gospels in the spirit in which they were written. That means, we can't just ask what Jesus did or said; instead, we need to figure out what he meant by it all.

This short book is a fascinating discourse that upends a lot of meek and mild Sunday school teaching—and that's a good thing! Wills's refreshing take helped me view the tried-and-true gospel stories in a whole new light. Written for the layman and not the scholar, this devotional text is bold and honest. "Jesus ghosted in and out of people's lives, blessing and cursing, curing and condemning," writes Wills.

He states the obvious, but in daring and almost brash ways, citing gospel chapter and verse where Jesus was called an agent of the devil, unclean, consorter with Samaritans and loose women, a promoter of immorality, a glutton, a drunkard, and a mocker of Jewish law. Whew! So what does it all MEAN? That is where this book excels, offering different explanations of the same old stories.

Jesus was defiant. I love this description by Wills: "He walks through social barriers and taboos as if they were cobwebs." It's easy to forget how contrary and rebellious Jesus was in the first century Jewish culture where everything was governed by the law laid out in the scriptures. Jesus upended all that with his most radical stance of all: love. He taught us to treat everyone—no matter their social position or income—as if we were dealing with Jesus himself. "Love is the test. In the gospel of Jesus, love is everything. But this love is not a dreamy, sentimental, gushy thing. It is radical love, exigent, searing, terrifying," writes Wills.

If you're ready to think of Jesus—and your Christian faith—in these terms, read this book. Some of Garry Wills's words are hard-hitting, especially when he describes what Jesus would think of our modern-day churches, priests, bishops, and cardinals. And that's just the poke we all need!

This compact book gets to the heart of the central meanings of Jesus of Nazareth's teachings, statements and deeds. Mr. Wills considers the plain language as well as the translated words of Jesus, and places them in a context reflecting the historical moment (where necessary for better understanding). He cuts through the institutiional claims of the various churches that sprang up after Jesus' death, asking whether Jesus, by His own words and actions, would have, or in fact did, agree with or support these structures and creeds. Simply, would Jesus have been a Christian? Did He found a church? Was He political? How did He regard economic matters? What about the priesthood? Well worth the read!

Infinitely worth reading.

This was an alright book that took me a lot longer to read than it should have(!). It actually took me about a week; I misplaced it for three weeks, sadly, otherwise I would have finished it sooner.

Anyway. It held my interest throughout the entire book, overall. I do not necessarily agree with all of the author's assertions or statements, but that is okay. Granted, some of them seemed quite a bit out there, for me like when he calls Judas a saint for committing suicide after betraying Jesus for thirty pieces of silver, or that the first person Jesus rescued from hell was Judas (in the author's opinion), though. Regardless, I did like some of the points he made over the course of the book such as reminding Christians/Catholics that Jesus did not come to create earthly kingdoms or to seek any kind of religious or political power; He came to serve people, especially the 'least members' of society; or how that whatever we do to the people we would consider to be 'the least,' we are actually doing to Jesus as well (which is something I am sure most Christians do not think about). There were other points, but these three stick out the most to me. I felt that it started strong in the first chapter or two, but then started losing its 'strength' the further I read; I felt the last chapter or two were the weakest in the book (and it only had eight chapters and an afterward).

He does focus quite a bit on 'love' over the course of the book. On the one hand, I guess that makes sense. In the New American Standard Bible (the version I tend to read the most), "love" is mentioned 480 times in both Testaments and 234 times in the New Testament alone. The world "holy" is mentioned 416 times in both Testaments and "only" 167 times in the New Testament. The word "righteousness" is mentioned 433 times in both Testaments (either as "righteous" or "righteousness") and 147 times in the New Testament. So, it would appear that 'love' is pretty important to God. However, that being said, I had the distinct impression from the author that he felt love should ignore sins, that if a person loved somebody, they would excuse that person's sinful behavior or look the other way. He gave an example in the book with his son that he could have used as a teachable moment with his son and instead sugarcoats his son's concern(s) by ignoring the question. I, personally, felt he was wrong to do so, but he justified his response to his son by quoting Scripture as the basis for his feeling 'safe' and 'secure' in what he said to his son. Again, that is my opinion, but I kept getting the impression he was all about compromising God's holiness all in the name of 'love' (which is something Jesus never did).

Some other random thoughts:
Page xiv – the author admits he has an image of Jesus in his own mind on how Jesus spoke and acted. Because of this, when he attempts to “translate” the original koine Greek into English, he puts it in the words he believes Jesus would have used.

He does make an interesting point on pages xii and xiii – he claims that translators do not like how some things are phrased in the original Greek language, so they have tried to change what was actually said to make it ‘more accommodating’ and ‘churchy’ to readers, they try to make what was said more ‘elegant’ and ‘acceptable’ to Christians today. So, is he implying things are changed to change or control the perspectives of the readers because “religious leaders” do not want the ‘lay people’ to get the wrong idea when reading what was “originally” said in the original language?

He feels the “original” versions of the Gospels have a rough-hewn earthiness that is missing in today’s translations, so he admits he has attempted to ‘retranslate’ verses into what he believes they really mean as opposed to how they are translated today by trained professionals and scholars.

p. xx – the author claims that because Jesus ate with sinners and tax collectors, that somehow makes Jesus a promoter of immorality (Mark 2:16) – on what basis does he make that accusation about Jesus? The religious leaders of the day might have judged Jesus for doing such a thing, but why would the author make such a claim?

Churches and Christians focus on Jesus being meek and mild and full of mercy and gentle (xxi – xxii); they (we) tend not to focus on other aspects of Jesus. “there is something appalling, something that makes the blood run cold, in the idea of having a statue of Christ in wrath” (xxii).

It is interesting that this author disputes and disagrees with the works of the Jesus Seminar because this group acts (believes) just like Jefferson did – that anything odd or dangerous or supernatural is prima facie suspect and should not be believed (whereas Thomas Jefferson clipped the things he disagreed with out of the New Testament Gospels, the Jesus Seminar ‘merely’ highlights what they disagree with about Jesus’ life with different colors) (xxv). This group actually trims the Gospels far more than Jefferson ever did, believing Jesus to be a ‘wise secular sage’ (xxv). The author actually claims the group is very conservative because they are attempting ‘to tame the radical Jesus’ and cut Jesus ‘down to their own size’ by taking away His Deity and supernatural works (xxv).

It is ironic that the sayings that meet the Seminar’s approval have been saved by Christian communities whose contribution is discounted by the very people who use what was saved by these Christian communities (xxvi).

Trying to find a construct, ‘the historical Jesus,’ is a mixing of categories, or rather of wholly different worlds of discourse. The only Jesus we have is the Jesus of faith. If you reject the faith, there is no reason to trust anything the Gospels say. The Jesus of the Gospels is the Jesus who preached, who is the Jesus who is resurrected. Belief in His continuing activity in the members of his mystical body is the basis of Christian belief in the Gospels. If that is unbelievable to anyone, then why should that person bother with Him? The flat cutout figure they are left with is not a more profound philosopher than Plato, a better storyteller than Mark Twain, or a more bitingly ascetic figure than Epictetus (the only ancient philosopher Jefferson admired). If His claims are no higher than theirs, then those claims amount to nothing (xxvi).

God’s chosen people are commonly chosen to suffer (1). Jesus says as much in His ‘ironic description of happiness’ (2): Matthew 5:11 – 12.

The sword Jesus brings is wielded by others, as seen when Herod slaughtered the innocent male children under age 2 when trying to kill Jesus (2). Jesus is (was) seen as a threat to those in power from the very beginning.

p. 8 – there is a difference between being rebellious and ‘chafing against the boundaries of the past and panting to explore new horizons.’ I would not say Jesus was ‘rebellious’ as that implies He was disobedient and sinned by not obeying His earthly parents, but I could see Him being ‘restive’ and full of the ‘idealism of youth.’

Hebrew as the learned language of the day (10). Author believes Jesus learned Hebrew from desert ascetics and scholars; the common folk spoke Aramaic and the necessary second language was “marketplace Greek” (10).

On a side note, having gone back and looked up some of the Scripture references he lists throughout the book, I have come across numerous errors and typos, where he either puts down the wrong reference for a verse (like saying it should be verse 13 when it is actually verse 14) or claiming a verse says one thing when it says nothing of the sort. I cannot speak as to why he would make the claim a verse says one thing when it says something else; perhaps when he read it at the time, he interpreted it one way in his mind but a subsequent reading would have shown him he had misread it (I know I have done that before, myself). I will leave it at two stars, as I would probably drop the rating between 1.5 and 1.7 stars because of his errors which, when rounded, still equals two stars.

While I, in good conscience, could never recommend this book to anybody, I did find it interesting, and I did feel the author made numerous good points in the first half of the book. The latter half definitely started losing steam, and I really felt that the author was slipping quite a bit in the last chapter or two. While I do not agree with his 'minor' points and/or examples, I believe I can safely say I do agree with some of his 'more major points' in each chapter. That being the case, I am glad that I read it and (finally!) finished it.

I am not a religious person, and this book was little bit too much for me. However, I liked Mr. Wills explanations.

Penso não exagerar dizendo que este livro estava na minha estante de espiritualidade - quando nem sequer estava ciente que ela viria a materializar-se - há mais de uma década... já na altura andava às voltas com a minha educação tendencialmente católica mas essencialmente livre... desde a infância que algumas mensagens veiculadas pela Igreja Católica (tal como por outras Igrejas, cultos, dogmas...) soavam profundamente contraditórias, assentes numa profunda hipocrisia que Jesus Cristo - quem quer que ele possa ser - parecia rejeitar.
Na altura, este livro seduziu-me por ser a tentativa de resgate de um Jesus não romantizado por um autor católico, precisamente...
Agora que finalmente senti a tranquilidade necessária à sua leitura, confesso não ter ficado decepcionada... embora se trate de um livro técnico, já que muita da análise feita pelo autor assenta em desafios de tradução e interpretação - algo inevitável quando falamos dos Evangelhos - Garry Wills consegue cativar com o resgate de um Jesus humano e da sua verdadeira mensagem...
Nota de frustração: Gary Wills não se aventurou a analisar o papel de Maria Madalena... ela está nas entrelinhas várias vezes num vago "as mulheres"... Estávamos na época de Bento XVI quando o livro foi publicado e ainda longe da justa colocação de Maria de Madalena no seu lugar de Apóstolo dos Apóstolos... e, sendo justa, trata-se de um livro de poucas páginas (143), centrado na figura histórica de Jesus. De qualquer forma, já me levou a fazer algo que andava a adiar, a encomendar o Evangelho de Maria Madalena de Jean Yves Leloup, em versão francesa, a versão em português do Brasil parece muito difícil de encontrar...

I don't want to say I hated this book but I just did not like it. It was not what I expected. The author did say in the beginning that this book was going to be more like a devotional than a theological discourse or something like that but I still had high hopes for the book. The beginning started out with translations of the bible and how Jesus was not a christian so I naturally expected the rest of the book to be about "what Jesus meant" when he said things in the gospels.

Instead I found a lot of repetition by this guy. I read this book in 2 days (only 8 chapters) and I was not trying to speed through it but it was just so simple yet I didn't understand what the author was getting at. He was all over the place. I would finish a chapter like okay what did I just read? He talked about the life of Jesus but he never really talked about what he started in the beginning of the book: What Jesus Meant and how His words have been taken too literally or mistranslated. This was the first book I read by the guy but he totally missed the mark for me. He could've done so much more with this book.

An interesting discourse on the language difficulties and interpretive contexts that have led to errors in the literal interpretations of the various translations of the Bible.

Basically, Wills says that the basic translations of the Bible err from the beginning, by translating from the classical Greek in which they were written. Jesus and his contemporaries spoke to each other in "market Greek," a pidgin language where tenses change randomly, articles and prepositions are often lost, and words are used to represent concepts and ideas rather than specifics.

Wills also takes on the "WWJD" concept, and the the blending of religion and politics. I don't necessarily agree with everything his says, but it's interesting and he makes some very good points.

I'm not sure what I think about this book. Some of his theology I agree with, some not; but religion/spirituality is an intimately personal thing. His other book is "Why I Am A Catholic" yet he criticizes the church often in this book. He re-writes biblical passages according to his own translation, somewhat based on Greek, Aramaic and Latin.
What Jesus meant was to love one another. One thing I agree with the author on is that it is that simple. All the rituals and rites are superficial. It's the Spirit that matters.

I love Garry Wills. His biography of Augustine was the book that inspired my novel about Augustine's mistress. This meditation on the essentials of Jesus' message was equally satisfying to read. He emphasizes that Christ's core message was the Golden Rule, but debunks "meek and mild" as the whole picture of Christ and reminds us that Jesus was God and so he is infinitely powerful (and therefore terrifying) as well as infinitely loving. His command that we love radically is an enormous, life-changing challenge. He also tries to explain what, for me, is the biggest puzzle of Christianity: why was it necessary that Jesus die to redeem us? If God is all-powerful, why couldn't he just forgive us without that horrible sacrifice? Wills suggests that we see it as a rescue rather than a sacrifice. The only way we could be rescued was for God to come down here and do it in person. He likens it to his own feelings when his young son asked him, "Daddy, what if I go to hell?" Wills replied, "If you do, I'll go with you."
It was also interesting to me that Wills reacts strongly against the modern church's demonstrations of power and dominance. He feels very strongly that this is directly counter to Christ's message of equality and the meek inheriting the earth. He seems to feel the same about the Vatican that Al and I felt when we went there in 2008. It is very beautiful and I'm glad I saw it. Even as a Protestant, I understand the debt that all Christians owe to the Catholic Church for spreading the faith over hundreds of year. But in no way did I sense the presence of the Holy Spirit at the Vatican. I sensed the presence of human power and desire to intimidate.
This is the first intellectually challenging book that I've read since my surgery on December 29, and it was a good one to pick. Now that I'm past the most physically challenging phase of my recovery, I find that I'm very emotionally and spiritually open, and messages that I've heard all my life in church feel more meaningful.

The Chicago Tribune calls Garry Wills "perhaps the foremost Catholic intellectual" of today. This book gives further insights into not what contemporary religion says, but what Jesus himself meant. One of the most striking passages was where he asked what exactly did Jesus mean when he said, "Whenever you did these things to the lowliest of my brothers, you were doing it to me. He answers this by writing, "It means that priests who sexually molest boys are molesting Jesus...those killing members of other religions because of their religion are killing Jesus...those persecuting gays are persecuting Jesus." This makes me rethink a lot of what is commonly accepted. I will reread this book several times, and look for other Wills books.