Rating: 
Summary: Great research. Take conclusions with 2 grains of salt
Review: Wilson does an incredible job of recreating Paul's world to help the reader understand Paul's struggles with the times and people of the 1st century. However, he really should have refrained from making educated guesses in an area which he clearly has no clue - theology. Although Wilson paints a picture of Paul as a fanatic, what also came through, for me, was that he was undoubtedly one of the greatest minds that ever lived. At Wilson's recommendation, I read Paul's letter to the Romans, and if Paul was a fanatic, he was a truly inspired one. Although I do not agree with most of Wilson's conclusions, his research supports my own conclusion, which I came to before reading the book, that Paul was responsible for the spread of Christianity. I recommend this book to those who already have faith in Jesus and are not easily swayed by unfounded arguments of others.
Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating research not taken to it's conclusion
Review: Wilson's book is worth the price, if, and only if, it is part of a larger assemblage of material on Paul. Wilson provides some excellent (and some fatally flawed) insights into the social and political atmosphere of first century Palestine. However, his conclusions and assumptions are not based on a full survey of the available research. As a result he asks the reader to join him in a leap of faith to support his image of Paul as a psychologically unstable, opportunistic businessman, trying to deal with the guilt he felt for his part (yes Wilson says Paul may have been active in the trial of Jesus)in the death of a Jewish prophet. Schweitzer calls this: carrying water a great distance in a leaky bucket to water the garden that sits beside an abundant stream.Several questions are not answered prehaps intentionally: Why would Paul, a self declared Pharisee (Shammite) be in the employment of the Temple Guard, a group the Shammites viewed as compromised and corrupt? Why did Paul speak of his Damascus experience as a resurrection citing, meaning physical body appearance, instead of using language to denote it as the "vision" Wilson suggests? Pharisees would have used language like angel or ghost to descibe a vision, Paul was transformed not because he had a vision of Jesus, but because he saw a resurrected Jesus. Wilson apparently misses the distinction, but it would not be missed by a Pharisee. Visions can happen anytime, resurrection carried a definate implication that YHWH was finally acting through the promised Messiah. This is what changed Paul's life. I won't go into the other yarns (like Paul may not have even been Jewish) because I don't want to be too harsh on a book that deserves a critical read. Read it, but be sure to read some Marcus Borg, N.T. Wright, Meier, Schweitezer, Wenham, Witherington to round out the survey.
| 
