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".
in apposition to "resurrection". In other words, according to this theory, the Sadducees deny both resurrection as angel and resurrection as a spirit. It is possible to understand the adjective in this manner, but dogmatism must be avoided here. Several scholars have likewise argued for the translation "both" in this passage, but have concluded that the first belief was the resurrection and the second was belief in angels and spirits38. Others argue that ta_ a)mfo/tera can mean "all" and that it refers to three items in this passage: the resurrection, angels, and spirit39. The latter view is substantiated not only by extra-biblical usage, but also by Acts 19,16 where it refers to seven items.
The remainder of this section consists of an examination of several objections to the resurrection theory. The first issue plaguing the scholars arguing for this view is that they fail to discuss how their definitions of "angel" and "spirit" in Acts 23,8 would make sense in 23,9, where these words appear in the pericope for the second time. It seems reasonable to think that these words should have the same meaning in both of these passages40, that is, according to the resurrection theory, they should signify modes of resurrection in both verse 8 and 9.
An application of their definitions to Act 23,9 forces us to the unlikely conclusion that the Pharisees allowed for the possibility that Jesus had been raised from the dead in one of these two forms. It follows that if the Pharisees endorsed belief in "angel" and "spirit" resurrection bodies in 23,8, that they must also allow for the possibility that someone in a "spirit" or "angel" resurrection body appeared to Paul in 23,9. That someone who appeared to Paul was Jesus on the road to Damascus and in the temple (22,6-21)41. Given these facts, it seems that these scholars are compelled to accept the following paraphrase of the Pharisiac response in 23,9: "Perhaps Jesus appeared to Paul in a spiritual resurrection body or an angelic resurrection body". Is it really plausible to believe that the Pharisees have suddenly become advocates of the