Phillips Vs. Bernard Williams

I must say from the start that I have some real difficulty understanding Phillips. I read each chapter we covered, sometimes twice, and I come away with little comprehension. Up to this point, I have been able to read each philosopher in turn and take something away, but Phillips focuses so intently on minutia that I lose hold of the bigger picture.
In this way I read and considered the section Williams and I get the 8 assumptions about the gods. The ancients had so thoroughly built their reality and worldview around the framework that the gods play a part in everyday life that they could not have reasoned without it. I feel that Williams is correct in his critique of the errors made in the assumptions, and that the logic of the ancients has lost all its relevance for today’s thinkers. This is not to take anything away from the accomplishments of the Greeks and their contributions to philosophy.
Here, Phillips critique takes so many varied and wild shots at Williams’ work that I found myself getting angry as I read him. A good analogy would be to criticize the work of a painter because you don’t like the architecture of the building it is hanging in! I would really need to read Williams outside of a Phillips text to be able to appreciate what is really being said. I found myself pining for Pals and his approach of letting the philosopher speak for himself, and then adding the criticism almost as a postscript.