Acts 23:6

But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out to the council, Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of a Pharisee: touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

This writer has no sympathy at all for the views of writers like Farrar who "on moral grounds," no less, are critical of what Paul here did. There was no fault whatever on the part of Paul in setting those mad-dogs at each other's throats instead of his own. He well knew the schismatic condition of the Sanhedrin and very wisely took advantage of it in order to save his own life.

The resurrection of the dead ... The so-called "moral problem" comes here. Was it strictly true that Paul had been brought before them because of his teaching on the doctrine of the resurrection? Well, of course it was. As Alexander Campbell noted:

The literal resurrection of the dead, in the person of the Son of Mary and the Son of God, was the omnipotent argument, wielded with irresistible power by the eyewitnesses of the fact, against Sadduceeism and every form of materialism and infidelity, which any form of philosophy, falsely so-called, has ever obtruded upon mankind.[12]

That Paul on this occasion elected to state the fundamental precept of Christianity in such a manner as to divide his foes was a stroke of genius and should be praised and appreciated. When Jesus appeared to Paul later on that same occasion (that night), there was not one word of blame or censure.