neilgodfrey

To reach this conclusion one has to call on a lot of other stuff from outside the text of Acts. If not, can you show the evidence for this conclusion within Acts itself?

But if we read Acts with a view to discerning its plot and story development, we find the author does tell us exactly why he has Paul make this claim at this point.

To hit on just the highlights here, Paul has to witness first at Jerusalem and then at Rome (that's his destiny, of which the reader is reminded several times up to this point). Much of the author's intent throughout this narrative has been to show up the Jews as a bit of an unreasonable rabble. At the same time, he has been regularly portraying the Christians as the true inheritors of the old religion -- its holy books, its prophetic messages, its true teachings. It is Peter, then Paul, who are the true heirs of the prophets and all the good things about the Jews (as Stephen so dramatically proclaimed in his last moments.)

So with these three major legs of the narrative in mind, note that Paul's witness at Jerusalem is climaxed when his Roman guardian brings him before the religious authorities to explain himself. The author, once he has Paul deliver his final witness to these Jerusalem authorities, has to then arrange for him to leave and begin his journey to Rome. If he is true to form and writes a consistent narrative, he will simultaneously show up the Jews as hopeless and Paul as the true pillar of the antique Jewish religion.

The author has the Pharisees and Sadducees altogether for this moment. Paul sees this, and makes his declaration that he sides with those of their number who at least believe in the basics of true doctrine, thereby declaring the other half as ignorant. But then both sides degenerate into wrangling and chaos, proving once again the point the author has been making all along about the Jews. At the same time Paul has been shown to be not a radical innovator, but once again the true inheritor of true religious doctrine. This is all on a par with the author's earlier notices that there were many Pharisees among the earliest Christians.

(Note also that the author at no time hinted that Paul was a Pharisee when he was sent out to persecute the church -- the narrator wants Pharisees to have a positive image throughout.)

The author could have used his usual trick of having Paul preach Christ from Isaiah or one of the other prophets. That worked well enough whenever he was in new and uncharted territory. But it would not have been overly persuasive to readers to who had been reading how the other apostles had already done that one to death in Jerusalem.

So the Pharisee touch is also a strong indicator (along with the others I cited at the beginning) of the antique natural order of Christianity, with its roots in the law and Jerusalem, the prophets, etc. -- all of which gave it its credibility. Many Pharisees belonged to the Church.

Read as part of the narrative plot of the whole, there was nothing subtly diplomatic about Paul's declaration of being a Pharisee. And there was nothing "past tense" about it, either. Both would have defeated the plot function of the claim.

N

rhutchin

How do you understand Josephus when he wrote that "souls...can be moved to other bodies"?

rhutchin

I guess when I started my earlier comment with "Guess," I should have said, "I guess." And yes, it was said tongue in cheek.

But then, Paul still considered himself to be a Pharisee (as did Nicodemus and other Pharisees who became Christians) despite the clear differences that would have existed between himself and the normal Jewish Pharisees on theology and this between those who were considered the theologians of the day.

steve_bnk

Didn't JC say do as the pharisees say, but what they do, meaning they were hypocrtical and given to reationalizing?

ApostateAbe

I read the passage again, with a clearer mind, and it seems to be Paul's clever trick to get the Pharisees and Sadducees in conflict with each other, at least according to the narrator.

6Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead."
7When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8(The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.)

Iskander

Paul's clever trick ? No, it is not a trick.

The Pharisees and the Sadducees had been fighting each other for many years, long before the birth of Jesus.

The Pharisees considered the Oral Torah to have the same value as the Written Torah: they claimed both of them predated the Creation. The Sadducees denied the authority of the Oral Torah,

The resurrection of the dead was only one of the differences, which existed long before the birth of Jesus

Everyman’s Talmud (or via: amazon.co.uk)
Abraham Cohen
BN Publishing, 2008
ISBN 9562914356
Page 378

ApostateAbe

Yes, I am saying that Paul said it to take the fire off of himself and to reignite the conflicts between the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

Iskander

OK, I am sorry. I have over interpreted your comment

neilgodfrey

Yes, it is one of several comic scenes in Acts. "Luke" shows how totally in charge of the situation Paul is, even though he's the one in bonds.

It's all classic Hellenistic novel stuff.

The humour is not the point or the plot, however.

aa5874

But, the supposed resurrection of Jesus on the third day is in total conflict with the beliefs of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. None of them believed in a 72 hour resurrection.

The story in Acts appears to be fiction.