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)