I took Tom Whartenby's course on the New Testament a couple of years ago. His lectures were generous and I regard the experience in high esteem.

But my understanding of Paul underwent enormous change as the result of reading Gary Wills' book.

No review can substitute for the real thing but there are a number of propositions which might intrigue some.

1) Paul on Paul is likely to be more informative than Luke on Paul. Most of what we think we know about Paul comes from the Acts of the Apostles - i.e. Luke. Paul paints a rather different picture.

2) Paul wrote closer in time to the "historical" Jesus and thus his sources underwent less interpolation than the Gospels.

3) Paul "knew" only the resurrected Jesus. Thus his writings reflect that experience more than the "living" Jesus which figures more intensely in Matthew, for example.

4) Paul distinguished between his "opinions" and those he "received" from Jesus. The latter are significantly more universal than those Paul claims as his own.

Enough to make a liberal Christian blush.