Ver. 6. γνοὺς . .. τὸ ἓν .. « τὸ δὲ ἕτερον. Όπ ἕν . . . ἕτερον: see Simcox Language of the N.T., pp. 71,72. That Pharisees and Sadducees alike had seats in the Sanhedrim during this period is borne out not only by the Ν. T., but by Jos., Ant., xx., 9,1, B.F., ii., 17, 3, Vita, 38, 39. Itis possible that the Pharisees might have attracted the attention of the Apostle by their protest against the be-
3---δ.
σου οὖκ ἐρεῖς Kakds ”.
6. Γνοὺς δὲ ὁ Παῦλος ὅτι τὸ ἓν µέρος ἐστὶ
Σαδδουκαίων, τὸ δὲ ἕτερον Φαρισαίων,! ἔκραξεν ἐν τῷ συνεδρίῳ, "Ανδρες ἀδελφοί, ἐγὼ Φαρισαῖός εἰμι, vids Φαρισαίου”" περὶ ἐλπίδος
1 εκραξεν, but imperf. εκραζεν ΔΒΟ 36, Syr. Pesh.; so Tisch., W.H., R.V.
Weiss, Wendt (see note ed. 1899).
Blass has εκραξεν, so Hilg. Φαρισαιον, but
plural Φαρισαιων in ΝΑΡΒΟ, Vulg., Syr. Pesh., Tert., and other authorities as above, with Blass also, perhaps altered into sing., because one only thought of the relation of father and son (Wendt). B, Sah. Boh., Tert. omit εγω before κρινοµαι ; Lach. and Tisch. retain, but other authorities above with Blass omit (but W.H. in marg.) ; it may have been added in accordance with xxiv. 21. .
haviour of Ananias and their acceptance of the words of apology (so Felten, Zéckler), but it is equally probable that in St. Luke’s apparently condensed ac- count the appeal to the Pharisees was not made on a sudden impulse (see below), but was based upon some mani- festation of sympathy with his utterances. In ver. 9 it is evidently implied that the story of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus had been narrated, and his acceptance of the Messiahship of the Risen Jesus carried with it his belief in a resurrection.—éxpagev: the word may here as sometimes elsewhere, cf. John vii. 37, xii. 44, indicate no isolated cry, but a reference to something previously said, and it is probable that St. Luke may have passed over here as elsewhere some portions of the Apostle’s speech, which were less intimately connected with the development and issue of events. It must however be noted that the verb may mean that the Apostle cried aloud so that all might hear him amidst the rising confusion.—éy® Pap. εἶἰμι κ.τ.λ.: the words have been severely criticised, but in a very real sense they truthfully expressed the Apostle’s convictions. Be- fore Felix St. Paul made practically the same assertion, although he did not use the word Φαρ. (cf. also xxvi. 5), Hort, Fudaistic Christianity, Ῥ. 111. More- over it is difficult to see why the Apostle should not describe himself as a Pharisee in face of the statement, xv. 5, that many members of the sect were also members of the Christian Church. They, like St. Paul, must have acknow- ledged that Jesus was the Messiah. But that Messiahship was attested by the avowal of the resurrection of Jesus, and the resurrection was a pro- minent article of the Pharisees’ creed. In the acceptance of this latter doctrine St. Paul was at one not only with the ‘* Pharisees who believed,’’ but with the whole sect, and that he used the title in this limited way, viz., with rela-
tion to the hope of the resurrection, is plain from the context, which fixes the limitation by the Apostle’s own words. But because the declaration shows the tact of St. Paul, because it is an instance of his acting upon the maxim Divide et impera, has it no higher side in relation to his character and purpose? May we not even say that to the Pharisees he became as a Pharisee in order to save some, to lead them to see the crown and fulfilment of the hope in which he and they were at one, in the Person of Jesus, the Resurrection and the Life? That the Apostle’s action met with Divine approval seems evident, νετ. 11. See “Paul” (Dr. Llewellyn Davies), B.D.}, ili, 754, 755, and amongst recent writers, Luckock, but on the other hand Gilbert, Student’s Life of Paul, p. 187 ff. Bethge attributes to the Apostle an apologetic aim, viz., to show the chili- arch that Christianity sbould be pro- tected by the State, since it was no new religion, but really proceeded from Judaism ; and in support he refers to the words of Lysias, xxiii. 29; but although the Apostle’s appeal may have helped Lysias to form his judgment, it seems somewhat strained to attribute to the Apostle the motive assigned by Bethge. —vids Φαρ.: “΄α son of Pharisees,” Κ.Υ. plural, which is the best reading, i.e., his ancestors, 2 Tim. i. 3, Phil. iii. 5, possibly including his teachers by a familiar Hebraism.—twepit ἐλπίδος καὶ ἀνασ.: generally taken as a hendiadys (so Page), ‘‘hope of a resurrection of the dead”’ (see, however, Winer-Moulton, Ixvi. 7). In xxvi. 6 ἐλπίς is used of the hope of a future Messianic salvation— the hope of Israel—but in xxiv. 15 St. Paul distinctly makes mention of the hope of a resurrection of the dead, and his own words again in xxiy, 21 seem to exclude anything beyond that question as under discussion on the present oc- casion,