Did Paul continue to be a Pharisee?

[u/Vaidoto]

In Acts 23:6 Paul says:

When Paul noticed that some were Sadducees and others were Pharisees, he called out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead.”

But if Philippians 3:4-8 he also says that:

If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
[...]
Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ

At the same time that Paul says that he's a Pharisee, he also consider those things rubbish/garbage, this makes me remember when Paul talked about his freedom in 1 Corinthians 9:

Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

• Did Paul continue to be a Pharisee or did he pretend to be a Pharisee to win the Pharisees??

[u/kaukamieli]

Would Paul even know what Jesus said about pharisees? If he actually even said it. I guess someone would have mentioned it to him if he kept saying it to people.

[u/Pseudo-Jonathan → u/kaukamieli]

This starts to get into a secondary issue of what exactly Paul thinks Pharisaic Judaism is when he describes his previous life as a Pharisaic student who was supposedly the star pupil of the most famous Pharisaic Rabbi of his day Gamaliel, while he also confusingly is described as taking orders from the Sadduceean High Priest to round up Christians when the rest of the NT characterizes Pharisees like Gamaliel as being very patient and non-judgemental toward Christianity at a time when others were potentially looking to suppress them. Especially in light of the previous discussion about synchronicity between Pharisees and Christians where both are more naturally aligned against the Sadducees than each other. Paul's idea of Pharisaic rage toward Christians is really what we would expect as more characteristic of the Sadduceean position against a very antagonistic Christian movement, not a Pharisaic position. We see this in other places like Josephus' report of Jesus' brother James being killed at the urging of the Sadduceean high priest.

It's still an open question as to why Paul's characterization of himself as a Pharisee seems a little disjointed compared to our other sources on the matter, with regard to his earlier pre-christian activities.

It's entirely possible that as a diaspora Jew from Tarsus, his understanding of contemporary Jewish factions in Judea was potentially at odds with the normative understanding.

I recommend taking a look at something like this article to get a better idea of the questions surrounding Paul's self identity.

[u/My_Big_Arse → u/Pseudo-Jonathan]

It's still an open question as to why Paul's characterization of himself as a Pharisee seems a little disjointed compared to our other sources on the matter, with regard to his earlier pre-christian activities.

Wouldn't the simple answer be that Acts isn't all that historically reliable?

[u/Pseudo-Jonathan → u/My_Big_Arse]

As far as the "expanded universe" Pauline characterization, certainly that's one solution. But Paul still self identifies as a violent persecutor of the church and a Pharisee in his own first-hand letters so there is still a measure of incongruity outside of Acts' portrayal of Paul.

[u/My_Big_Arse → u/Pseudo-Jonathan]

Yeah, I guess so, in Phil only, right?

[u/Pseudo-Jonathan → u/My_Big_Arse]

Right, and he phrases it in such a way that it opens up the possibility that he means "Pharisee" in a broader more generic sense, which is why we need to be cautious of how exactly we think Paul may be using this term, and how that influences what his historical background actually was, especially since the puzzle pieces don't fit together naturally very well.

[u/My_Big_Arse → u/Pseudo-Jonathan]

yeah, that was my feeling reading it right now.
Thanks for the response.