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".
As for the event of revelation, Paul’s experiences were supernatural interventions in the course of his life (i.e., against his free will). The following details illustrate this: 1) Paul’s experiences most closely resemble prophetic call narratives, like those found in the Old Testament and in apocalyptic literature. This is true for the Damascus experience (Acts 22,6-16)77 and the vision in the temple (Acts 22,17-21; cf. Isa 6,1-10)78; 2) in call narratives in general, and in Paul’s case specifically, the person is sometimes commissioned against his will (Exod 3,10–4,17; Jer 1,6-7; Acts 26,14) or chosen from birth for this task (Jer 1,5; Gal 1,15; cf. Acts 9,15); thus, this would be at odds with Sadducean views of free will; 3) these prophetic calls are often presided over by angels (Exod 3,2, cf. Acts 7,30.35; Judg 6,11-17; Hen[aeth] 71,2) or at least angels are present (Isa 6,1-13; Ezek 1,1–3,11; Hen[aeth] 14–16; Rev 10,8-11). As we saw earlier, angels were frequently regarded as playing a role in administering predestination or providential care.
Furthermore, the actual content of the revelation could be construed as divine interference in Paul’s life. Paul was "appointed" to perform certain tasks (te/taktai; Acts 22,10; cf. 13,48 and o# ti/ se dei= poiei=n 9,6). He was "appointed" (proexeiri/sato; 22,14; cf. 3,20; 26,16) to know God’s will and to see and hear Jesus. Furthermore, he was to be privy to God’s "will" (qe/lhma 22,14), which could refer to God’s predetermined plan in history or salvation (Luke 11,2; cf. boulh/ in Acts 2,23; 4,28)79. Finally, the encounter demonstrates God’s awareness and control of future events: Paul would become a witness for Jesus (Acts 22,15) and his testimony in Jerusalem would not be accepted if he remained there (22,18). Although the Sadducees might not have objected to the notion of angels carrying out the will of God in some general sense, they would have objected to their doing so in the fulfillment of a preordained eschatological program and to their interfering with the will of an autonomous human being.
The Pharisees, on the other hand, would not have been shocked that God might send a messenger to enforce his plan, since they believed in predestination to some extent. So, it was at least a possibility, however remote to their minds, that a "voice" (fwnh/) had