Has Acts 9:7 been mistranslated? is there validity to harmonising Acs 9:7 and 22:9 by an Appeal to Grammatical Cases?

And the man which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. (Acts 9:7)

Commenting on this verse, one Evangelical Protestant apologist, while holding to the inerrancy of the autographs, stated it is possible that the verse has been mistranslated in English versions:

It is also possible that Acts 9:7 has been mistranslated. The Greek word translated “stood,” εἱστήκεισαν, is the pluperfect form of ἵστημι, an extremely common Greek verb (occurring 155 times in the New Testament, including 61 times in Luke–Acts) with a range of meanings depending on context. It obviously means to “stand” in the usual sense in Acts 26:16 because Jesus tells Paul to stand “upon your feet.” Standing upright (on one’s feet) is by far the most common meaning of the word when used of persons.17 Occasionally, however, it expresses the idea of persons becoming still or stopping, or remaining still or motionless (e.g., Luke 7:14, 38; 8:20; 18:40; 24:17). Over the years, various commentators have suggested that in Acts 9:7 it expresses the idea that Paul’s companions remained motionless or still. The English scholar Peter Vinke, writing in the venerable commentary of Matthew Poole about 1700, explained that Luke meant that the companions “remained in the place in which they were, without going forward.”18 Other classic commentaries such as those by John Gill and F. C. Cook took the same view.19 Recently, Michael Licona has defended this view, citing the example of Luke describing the “immoral woman” as “standing” behind Jesus while he reclined at table while she washed and kissed his feet (Luke 7:38).20 Licona’s defense of this harmonization of Acts 9:7 with 22:9 is all the more interesting as it comes in a book in which he is advocating various compositional devices as non-harmonizing, rhetorical explanations for apparent discrepancies in the Gospels. (Robert M. Bowman, Heard but Not Understood? Acts 9:7 and 22:9 and Differing Views of Biblical Inerrancy, pp. 10-11)

Notes for the Above:

17 Specifically, when used of persons in the active mood. The passive form is used for the act of placing or setting someone in a particular place (e.g., Luke 4:9; 9:47; Acts 1:23; 4:7; 5:27; 6:6, 13; 22:30). The use of the active form of the verb in reference to non-persons (e.g., Luke 5:2; 8:44; 11:18; Acts 8:38) regularly means to be stationed or positioned in one place, to stop moving, or more simply to remain in place.  

18 Peter Vinke, “Acts of the Apostles,” in Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Vol. III: Matthew–Revelation (reprint, McLean, VA: MacDonald, 1962), 413.

19 John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament (London: Mathews and Leigh, 1809), 2:224; F. C. Cook, “The Acts of the Apostles,” in The Holy Bible…with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary, edited by F. C. Cook (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1871-1881), 8:414.

20 Michael R. Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography, Foreword by Craig A. Evans (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 254 n. 137.  

Elsewhere, Bowman argues against the common apologetic that 9:7 and 22:9 can be reconciled with an appeal to different Greek grammatical cases vis-à-vis what, if anything, Paul’s companions heard:

The distinction between the genitive and accusative forms of φωνή (or of other nouns) with the verb ἀκούω apparently applied more consistently in earlier, classical Greek literature, but it does not hold up in the koinē Greek of the New Testament . . . At least two exceptions to the grammatical distinction can be found in the book of Acts itself. Luke quotes Peter as saying, “I also heard a voice [ἤκουσα δὲ καὶ φωνῆς] saying to me, ‘Get up, Peter, kill and eat!’” (Acts 11:7). Later he quotes Paul as saying, “And I fell to the ground and heard a voice [ἤκουσα φωνῆς] saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’” (Acts 22:7). In both of these verses the noun φωνῆς is in the genitive case, yet in both the hearer reports understanding precisely what was said. The second exception is especially noteworthy since it comes just two verses prior to 22:9 and refers to the same voice, making it very difficult to argue that the accusative in 22:9 carries the sense of hearing with understanding in contrast to the genitive. This would also make it difficult to argue that Luke was employing classical usage against his normal style, since 22:9 comes so close to 22:7.  (p. 23)