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".
to be just a catalogue of the major differences between Sadducees and Pharisees. Nor is its purpose to list various types of afterlife, as they suggest. If that were so, the traditional formula, "who say there is no resurrection" (Luke 20,27; Act 23,8a), would have sufficed to cover anything falling under the rubric of resurrection, including the various modes of resurrection proposed by Lachs, Viviano, and Taylor.
Rather, the purpose of this gloss is to introduce the beliefs necessary for the reader of Acts to make sense of the controversies that have arisen and will soon arise in the passage, as the following chart illustrates:
Paul raises Issue One: "Brothers, I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection (a)nasta/sewj) of the dead" (Acts 23,6)
Luke explains Issue One in retrospect: "The Sadducees say there is no resurrection (a)na/stasin). . ." (Acts 23,8)
Luke explains Issue Two in advance: "... or angel or spirit (mh/te a!ggelon mh/te pneu=ma) but the Pharisees acknowledge them all" (Acts 23,8)
Pharisees raise Issue Two: "What if a spirit (pneu=ma) or an angel (a!ggeloj) has spoken to him?" (Acts 23,9)
The reader is reminded that the Sadducees say "there is no resurrection" (23,8; cf. Luke 20,27; Acts 4,1.2) and that the Pharisees affirm it after Paul cried out that he was on trial for the "hope and resurrection of the dead" (23,6). The reader is also forewarned that the Sadducees reject both "angel" and "spirit" (23,8). This is a pertinent detail, for in the following verse, the scribes of the Pharisees ask: "What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him [i.e., Paul]?" (23,9), an allusion to the events of Acts 22,6-21. Thus, in answer to point five, the use of the singular forms "angel" and "spirit" becomes clear. It is not merely a rejection of the general belief in the appearance of angels and spirits, but the denial that a particular being, Jesus as either "an angel" or "a spirit", appeared to Paul with a message37. However, if the Sadducees denied that this particular angel or spirit served as a messenger, then this suggests that they also denied such messenger activities on the part of all angels and spirits. Thus, the "more important differences" (point two) between the Pharisees and Sadducees are in reality mentioned, since these are the issues pertinent to this encounter.
The argument of point four is that ta_ a)mfo/tera should be translated "both", and that it refers to the two words "angel" and "spirit" standing