And the men which journeyed with him stood
speechless, hearing a voice, but
seeing no man. (Acts 9:7)
And they that were with me saw indeed the
light, and were afraid; but they heard
not the voice of him that spake to me. (Acts 22:9)
Commenting on the question as to whether Paul’s companions heard the
voice of Jesus, Robert Bowman wrote:
. . . critics often point to discrepancies in
the three accounts [of Paul’s conversion] in Acts. In particular, Luke’s
statement that the men traveling with Paul “heard the voice” (Acts 9:7) appears
to contradict Paul’s account quoted later, in which he says that the men with
him “did not hear the voice of the one speaking to me” (Acts 22:9). Even I we
granted that these texts were genuinely contradictory, no serious scholar seems
to think that the apparent discrepancy calls the event itself into question.
Even skeptics typically bring up the discrepancy as a problem for biblical
inerrancy, not for the historicity of Paul’s vision (E.g. Dan Barker, Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became
One of American’s Leading Atheists, Foreword by Richard Dawkins (Berkeley,
CA: Ulysses Press, 2008), 243-50. I have found some Muslim blogs and websites claiming that the discrepancies in Acts
proves that Paul was a deceiver. The argument is hardly worth mentioning, let
alone refuting).
Not only is the
apparent discrepancy between Acts 9:7 and 22:9 not relevant to the historicity
of the risen Jesus’ appearance to Paul, it
is probably not a contradiction in substance. Most likely, Acts 9:7
means that Paul’s companions heard the sound of Christ’s voice while 22:9 means
that they were not able to hear the specific words that Christ said. This
distinction neatly parallels the distinction the two texts make with regard to
what Paul’s companions saw: they saw the light (22:9) but did not see the
person whom Paul saw in the light (9:7). Thus, both the sound and the light
were indistinct or unidentifiable for Paul’s companions but were perceived and
understood by Paul as the voice and appearance of a figure who identified
himself as Jesus. The inherent ambiguity
and range of connotations of the word for hear
in Greek, English, or any other language makes
this interpretation eminently plausible. We have all had occasions,
for example, when we could “hear” someone speaking but we could not “hear”
their words well enough to understand what was said (This interpretation does
not depend on the contested grammatical argument based on the difference case
readings of the Greek noun translated “voice” in Acts 9:7 and 22:9. For a thorough
discussion of the issues, see Robert M. Bowman Jr., “Heard but Not Understood?
Acts 9:7 and 22:9 and Differing Views of Biblical Inerrancy,” paper presented
at the Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting, Providence, RI, November
15, 2017, online at https://independent.academia.edu/RobBowman).
(Robert M. Bowman Jr., Jesus’
Resurrection and Joseph’s Visions: Examining the Foundations of Christianity
and Mormonism [Tampa, Fla.: DeWard Publishing Company, 2020], 122-23)
Bowman has a habit of presenting any pet theory he has to salvage his
beliefs as “plausible” and other terms, even if they are a stretch and ultimately boils down to him being forced into defending a doctrine/dogma (in this instance, his understanding of biblical inerrancy). This is seen in the paper the references (available
online here),
including the following (again, ask yourself: if this was a purported
discrepancy in the Book of Mormon, would Bowman allow a LDS apologist to make such arguments and
confident conclusions, and ask one to “suppose” things that were to be proven,
etc, let alone accept such argumentation as compelling?):
Certainly,
at least in this English translation, these statements in Acts 9:7 and 22:9
constitute a verbal contradiction. Since the Greek words translated “heard”
and “voice” are the same words in both texts, they constitute (at least on the level of individual words) a verbal
contradiction in Greek as well. (p. 11)
In the end, literary
explanations for the apparent discrepancy between Acts 9:7 and 22:9 seem to
fall short of actually explaining the difference. Readers of Scripture need not
be closed to the possibility of explanations for apparent discrepancies that
appeal to the authors’ literary purposes, but the interpretations offered must
still give a coherent explanation. In this particular instance, the proposed
literary explanations do not seem genuinely explanatory. (p. 16)
The most commonly given explanation for the apparent
discrepancy regarding what Paul’s companions heard is that they heard (9:7) but
did not understand (22:9) the voice of Christ who spoke to Paul.43 . . . Long
before anyone had proposed that the differences in cases had anything to do
with the matter, Calvin had suggested that Paul’s companions heard the sound
but did not understand the words, as noted previously.70 This
explanation of hearing but not understanding has been advocated by many of the
same grammarians who disputed the grammatical argument. A. T. Robertson, for
example, explains that rather than thinking that Luke has flatly contradicted
himself, it is quite natural to understand Acts 9:7 to mean that Paul’s
companions heard the sound of Christ’s voice but could not understand it. Such
a distinction is “possible and even probable here” even though it is not a
grammatically “necessary” distinction that can be assumed elsewhere.71 Richard Young
concludes, “Whether the distinction is valid must be decided on an individual
basis and on the sense of the context. It does seem to be valid for Acts 9:7
and 22:9.”72 Wallace argues, “It is still most reasonable to
conclude that these accounts are not presenting contradictory views about what
Paul’s companions heard.” He suggests that “both ἀκούω and φωνή carried
different nuances in each source” Luke had used for his accounts. “Hence, what
looks like a contradiction is in reality evidence of Luke’s reticence to drastically
alter the traditions as handed down to him.”73
Although the suggestion of different
nuances in the parallel accounts is a reasonable one, it need not be made
dependent on the notion of separate sources, as explained earlier . . . Although the grammatical argument for
understanding Acts 22:9 to mean that Paul’s companions heard but did not
understand falls short, there
are contextual reasons for accepting this explanation.
1. There is a reasonable, general presumption
that a literate, careful author more than likely is not contradicting himself
in the same book when recounting something more than once. The point is not
that an author can never contradict himself but that the burden of proof in an
instance such as this is on the one alleging a definite contradiction. Some
allegations of contradiction are simply more credible than others, even
independent of the specifics. All other things being equal, that two authors
contradict each other is quite possible. That an author contradicts himself in
books written years apart is possible though somewhat surprising. That an
author contradicts himself within the same book is possible but very surprising.74 Stated in this
way, the argument is not “circular,” as Peter Enns alleges.75 Finally, the
claim that an author who demonstrates high literate skill and care contradicts
himself within the same book is possible but a priori so unlikely that
the claimed contradiction bears the burden of proof. To put the matter the
other way around, if a plausible explanation is available that would clear up
the discrepancy, it should be preferred in such cases to the claim that the
author has clumsily contradicted himself. Since Luke was clearly a consummate
author,76 the burden of proof is on those who assert that Acts 9:7 must be
understood as a clear contradiction of 22:9.
2. Suppose
Acts 9:7 means that Paul’s companions heard the sound of Christ’s voice while
22:9 means that they were not able to hear the specific words that Christ said.
This distinction would neatly parallel the distinction the two texts make with
regard to what Paul’s companions saw: they saw the light (22:9) but did not see
the person whom Paul saw in the light (9:7). Thus both the sound and the light
were indistinct or unidentifiable for Paul’s companions but were perceived and
understood by Paul as the voice and appearance of a figure who identified
himself as Jesus.77 . . . . .
. These four considerations would seem sufficient
to conclude in favor of this explanation of the apparent discrepancy. (pp.
17, 24, 25, 26)
Notes for the Above
43 Bradley
Chance suggests a variation of this explanation: the companions “heard a voice”
but “did not hear the voice of the living Lord who revealed himself to Paul”;
Chance, Acts, 407. Chance seems to be suggesting that Acts 22:9 means
that the companions heard what Christ said but did not recognize that the voice
was in fact Christ speaking. Had this been Paul’s meaning, one would have
expected Luke to write “did not hear the one who was speaking” rather than “did
not hear the voice of the one who was speaking.” A similar dubious explanation
is given by Daniel Marguerat, The First Christian Historian: Writing the
‘Acts of the Apostles’, trans. Ken McKinney, Gregory J. Laughery, and
Richard Bauckham; SNTSMS 121 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 192
n. 37.
70 It is therefore somewhat misleading to say that in
proposing this explanation Calvin had “anticipated” the grammatical argument,
per Vanhoozer, “Augustinian Inerrancy,” 229.
71 Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament,
3:117-18.
72 Young, Intermediate New Testament Greek, 40.
73 Wallace,
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 134 n. 168.
74 So also Licona, Resurrection of Jesus, 390.
Barker misses this point, which undermines most of his argumentation. According
to Barker, nothing in the context of Acts 22:9 indicates that ἀκούω means
anything other than “hear.” But of course, Acts 9:7 is in the context of Acts
22:9, since it is in the same book and is about the same incident!
75
Enns, “Response to R. Albert Mohler Jr.,” 62.
76 See especially Keener, Acts: An Exegetical
Commentary, Volume 1, 166-220, though all of his 600-page introduction is
relevant.
77 Archer,
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 382; Peterson, Acts, 599.
