I'm reading What Paul Meant by Garry Wills and I had some questions about Wills' version of the death of Paul. Although Wills is a historian, and his presentation of Paul's teachings and message matches the "New Perspective of Paul" (I'm reading John Gager's Reinventing Paul as well), the book is far from a scholarly work (no citations apart from the bible and other ancient texts), and I was curious to see how credible some of the claims he makes are. Wills dismisses much of the narrative in Acts and rejects the Christian tradition that Paul was beheaded and Peter was crucified. Instead, he argues that:
Paul was not a Roman citizen. Paul never claims to be a Roman citizen in any of his epistles. Paul DOES describe being whipped three times by the Romans and five times by Jews (2 Cor 11:24-25), despite it being against the law to flog a Roman citizen.
Paul did not go from Jerusalem to Rome as a prisoner. Paul was never arrested in Jerusalem; not being a Roman citizen, he would not have the right to trial in Rome. Instead, following the failure of his trip to Jerusalem with the collection, Paul went to Rome to prepare for his mission to Spain as mentioned in Rom 15:28.
Paul carries out his mission to Spain. This is based on Clement of Rome's letter, which Wills quotes as saying "that Paul taught 'all the world' after 'he had reached the farthest term of the West," i.e. Spain (pg. 168).
Paul and Peter were called again to Rome to resolve the dispute between Jewish and Gentile Brothers Both Clement and Ignatius of Antioch refer to Peter and Paul as "emissaries" on their final mission to Rome. In Rome, conflict had broken out between Jewish Brothers returning from their six-year exile under Emperor Claudius and the now substantially larger Gentile Brother community which had been able to remain; Peter and Paul went as emissaries to the Gentile Brothers.
The Gentile Brothers, along with Peter and Paul, were betrayed by the Jewish Brothers to Nero Tacitus in his Annals mentions that after the fire of 64 ce, the "open practitioners" (i.e. the Jewish Brothers) of Christianity informed on "a vast multitude" (i.e. the Gentile Brothers). Peter and Paul, although Jewish Brothers, stood with the Gentiles as their emissaries and were executed. This is corroborated by 1 Clement 4-5, which notes that Peter and Paul achieved their martyrdom from "rivalrous grudges." The embarrassment and pain of Brothers betraying Brothers explains why Luke invented the story of Paul's arrest and does not mention his execution.
Peter and Paul were not crucified and beheaded, but were gruesomely executed by immolation or by wild dogs Tacitus notes that the persecuted Brothers were subjected to "the most original forms of execution" as a form of public amusement including being sewn in a sack and mauled by wild dogs or covered in pitch and set on fire. Crucifixion was a common method of execution, in no way an "original" punishment, and Paul, not being a Roman citizen, would not have been beheaded. The grisly nature of their execution may also explain Luke's hesitation to record it.
How solid is Wills' account? How much of is credible? Or is most of the narrative embellishment and unwarranted speculation for the sake of a compelling story? Please feel free to address any or all of the points above. Thanks a bunch!
Wills is correct about Acts and Christian tradition. The former is in large part a fictionalized and idealistic portrayal of Paul's missions. Richard Pervo and the Acts Seminar have published several works demonstrating how it is directly dependent on Paul's letters for clues about his travels but also contradicts them when the narrative or the author's theology requires it. (And, of course, Acts does not tell us how Paul died, even if it implies that he meets his end in Rome.)
Christian tradition about Paul's death is also late and spurious. The earliest "source" (the Acts of Paul, mid-to-late second century) that Paul went to Rome and was killed by Nero also has milk spurting out of Paul's decapitated neck and then has Paul come back to life. This is creative hagiographic fiction, not historical data.
The fact of the matter is that we simply have no information about what happened to Paul. However, it has been shown that Peter almost certainly didn't go to Rome, and other historians have cast considerable doubt on the supposed persecution of Roman Christians by Nero following the Great Fire — a prerequisite for Wills's hypothesis. I can go into detail if necessary, but essentially, no early Christian document seems to know about the persecution, and our only real source (Tacitus) comes by way of a late manuscript that shows signs of tampering. 1 Clement gives no details concerning his death and is not of much use for making the inferences Wills makes. Edit: In fact, if his argument is as you say, then he misrepresents 1 Clement, which does not explicitly mention any martyrdom, but only says Paul "witnessed" to the faith despite trials that included imprisonment and stoning. We would expect something more if Paul had been brutally murdered by Nero.
Anything is possible, but Wills's hypothesis seems improbable.
One of the main issues which sets the tone for all the others is whether or not Paul was a Roman citizen. The evidence is certainly not that clear cut. I've actually done a substantial bit of research on this specifically with regard to Second Corinthians. Two fundamental points which the author you are reading seems to miss based on how you represent their position:
The floggings were by the Judaeans not the Romans. Judaeans throughout the Roman world had their own legal system independent of Roman law and it is pretty well attested. This particular punishment is based on Deut 25:3 and we have relevant witness in Josephus (Ant. 4.8.21) and the Mishna (m. Mak. 3:10). This might mean that Paul would have essentially volunteered in a sense to receive this punishment regardless of Roman citizenship, perhaps in precisely the sort of symbolic acts Paul is on about.
This section (2 Cor 11) actually lines up rather well with Acts, specifically the beatings Acts ( 13:45,50; 14:5; 18:12 [in Corinth!]) among other things. Now you could say its because Acts knew 2 Corinthians, but I actually doubt that.
The second kind of punishment mentioned there is a beating with rods, which does seem to be a Roman punishment. The word is probably a terminus technicus for a punishment described in latin legal terminology as admonition (Dig. Just. 48, 19, 7). This, a Roman citizen could appeal to the magistrates and demand a trial for, except.....
The second assumption that the punishment is inappropriate for a Roman citizen conflicts with the data, since there is at least a very famous example of these punishments being done to a Roman citizen: Cicero, Oration against Verres, V 160ff. Cicero is condemning the punishment without trial of course, but it certainly did seem to happen, even to Roman citizens, without trial in some situations.
Lastly, the work of the Acts Seminar is interesting and a bit better regarded than the Jesus Seminar, but they are certainly not the concensus. On the matter of Acts knowing Paul's epistles, it seems to me the argument is rather circular: "How does Acts match so closely to 2 Cor 11? Because Luke had 2 Cor. How do we know Luke had 2 Cor? Because Acts closely matches the narrative of 2 Cor 11."