In Acts 23:6-9 we get a further elaboration on what the Sadducees believed.
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.
And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, "We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God."They didn't believe in the Resurrection, angels or spirits. Now based on this scene alone Paul only explicitly sides with the Pharisees on the Resurrection, we have to go elsewhere to try and figure out his positions on the other issues.
What I want to talk about here however is how I've seen a lot of online scholars say this can't be accurate, that a sect which upholds The Torah can't possibly have any grounds to reject the existence of Angels.
The thing is, I as someone who's very unconventional, have flirted with the possibility of rejecting the doctrine of Angels as it's traditionally understood. I've concluded that many passages both within The Torah and elsewhere we assume to be referring to Angels can potentially be interpreted differently when you remember things like the word "angel" in the Greek and Hebrew being their word for messenger and definitely does refer to human prophets sometimes. However I feel unable to fully do that because of certain passages, but none of those passages are in The Torah.
If I decided to become a Torah Only person, I would probably reject the doctrine of angels as it's traditionally understood.
First of all I have already decided I believe the Sethite view of Genesis 6. In fact I talked about this very issue briefly in that post, though I may in the future edit that section out since I now have this post.
Second, the majority of the time the word "Angel" appears in the KJV of the Torah, indeed every time it does so in singular form, it is referring to The Angel of YHWH or The Angel of God, an entity which even many Pharisees (Philo of Alexandria and Trinitarian Christians) view as being a manifestation of YHWH Himself not a separate Angelic being, the Voice in the Burning Bush is technically called an Angel.
The Seraphim or "fiery serpents" from Numbers I believe originally refereed to a type of serpent or reptilian animal indigenous to the region (I lean towards the Pterodactyl aka Ropen), it is Isaiah alone who places some in the Throne Room of God, and those I think if they are "Angels" are Angels taking the form of that Animal, or appearing like them to Isaiah's three dimensional eyes.
Now I'd like readers to stop for a minute and read the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8. Now imagine if that story had been recorded from the Eunuch's POV rather then Philip's? It would very conceivably seems to readers generations latter like an encounter with an Angel.
We know that during the time of the Patriarchs of Israel there were people worshiping of YHWH in other places, like Salem ruled by Melchizedek or the Kenite Priesthood of Jethro. So the two "Angels" of Genesis 18-19 could possibly have been Human Prophets that YHWH assigned this task to.
Likewise in Genesis 31:1-2 the "Host of God" could be a camp of believers sent to greet Jacob when he returned to the Land. In fact if we translated "Malakim" consistently in Genesis 32, it becomes plausible the messengers Jacob sent to Esau in verse 3 came from among these "angels". The Hebrew word for "Host" here isn't the same one used in verses about the "Host of Heaven". It's a word elsewhere translated Camp including when referring to the Camp of Israel in the Wilderness and when the Red Heifer is described as being slain "without the camp". So this Camp could have been of people from Isaac's household.
Genesis 28:12 is something Jacob saw in a dream and therefore iffy to build literal doctrine on. The point was to show this place as a "Gate of Heaven".
The "Host of Heaven" is simply a term for the stars, and no verse in The Torah can be taken to insinuate the stars are living sentient beings. The worship of the stars is compared to the worship of Idols, inanimate objects.
That just leaves Genesis 3. In the KJV of verse 14 Cattle is a mistranslation, Behemah I have come to view as simply the broadest Hebrew word for Animal. The English grammar of verses 1 and 14 of Genesis 3 leave more room for interpretation, but in the Hebrew it is actually unambiguous that the Nahash/Serpent is a Behemah and a Beast of the Field. Making it one of the Beasts of the Field created in Genesis 2:18-20.
The Beasts and Fowls created in Genesis 2:19-20 are a separate creation from the animals created before Adam was in Genesis 1. These must be being who were a bit more sentient since they are, as weird as we may find it, presented as potential helpers for Adam. Frankly I think the Cherubim (as well as the Seraphim Isaiah saw in the Throne Room) could also be among the creatures created here.
You could define those creatures as Angelic, but they aren't the traditional view of Angels.
The problem is many seek to use that origin for the Serpent against identifying it with the Satan, which identification the Book of Revelation clearly makes. But I don't view it as a conflict, Satan is never called an Angel, only said to appear as one.
The verses outside the Torah that are the real obstacle to rejecting the traditional view of Angels are Psalm 8 (which implies the Angels existed before Adam), 2 Kings 6:17, Daniel 10 (and perhaps other Daniel material), and then lots of New Testament stuff, but some New Testament Angels I think are OT Saints Resurrected soon after Jesus was in Matthew 27:52-53.
So I still believe Angels exist, but people who limit their Canon to the Torah can easily decide otherwise.
Though I think it's also plausible that the Sadducees where influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle who could be described as the original Deist as well as the first Materialist, Antigonus of Sokho may have been the key middle man in that transmission.
Some have mistakenly compared the Saduccess to Platonic Philosophy, but that's based on how within Christian denial of the Resurrection comes via allegorizing it away into a Spiritual rather then physical one. The Sadducees didn't just deny the Resurrection but any notion of an After Life, they were Jewish Materialists.