Floyd Parker, «The Terms "Angel" and "Spirit" in Acts 23,8», Vol. 84 (2003) 344-365
In any discussion of the Sadducees, there will always remain a certain amount of doubt due to the paucity of sources about them. Based on what data has survived, the older theory that the Sadducees rejected the extravagant beliefs about angels and spirits provides the most convincing solution to the problem of Acts 23,8. The Sadducees’ reasons for rejecting these views were twofold: 1) angels were integrated into the apocalyptic world view that they rejected; and 2) angels often served as God’s servants to administer predestination or providence. Thus, when Paul claimed that a heavenly being had appeared to him in a manner and with a message that appeared to be predestinarian in nature, the Sadducees were unwilling to entertain the idea that an angel or spirit had appeared to him. Certainly new theories will arise in an attempt to grapple with this issue, but to re-appropriate the words of Jesus in Luke 5,39, "the old is good enough".
4. Sadducean Rejection of Resurrection as an Angel or Spirit
This theory concerning Acts 23,8 maintains that the words "angel" and "spirit" stand in apposition to the word "resurrection" and, therefore, describe two modes of resurrection: resurrection as an angel or as a spirit. There are two major proponents of this view. Samuel Tobias Lachs seems to have been the first to propose this interpretation in an article in 197735. In 1990, Viviano and Taylor, in an attempt to give this line of speculation "wider publicity", revived the theory with some refinements of their own.
Lachs raised five important objections to the older proposal that the Sadducees denied the resurrection and the existence of angels and spirits, which appeared above in the rebuttal of the first theory:
1) Why are angels and spirits not mentioned in either Josephus or in the tannaitic literature as points of controversy between the Sadducees and Pharisees?
2) If the latter two, i.e., angel and spirit, are separate entities, not connected with resurrection, and are cited presumably only to show further differences between the sects, why are not more important differences mentioned?
3) How could the Sadducees, who were slavishly wedded to the literal meaning of the biblical text, deny the existence of angels who are mentioned throughout the Bible?
4) If three points were intended, how is the phrase "the Pharisees acknowledge them both" to be understood?
5) If (a!ggeloj) and (pneu=ma) are separate entities unrelated to (a)na/stasin), then one would expect the plural, i.e. (a!ggeloi) and (pneu/mata) respectively36.
These are excellent points. They have undermined the credibility of the first position (i.e., the denial of angels) and even have ramifications for the second position (i.e., the denial of excessive speculation about angels and spirits). I will attempt to answer these queries at this point before moving on to some objections of my own. The points are not addressed in the same order in which they were asked. Points one and three will not be addressed, since they have been treated earlier in this article.
In response to point two, the intention of Acts 23,8 does not seem