Acts 9:4-5,Acts 22:7,Acts 26:14 Why the story change?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Christi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Christi

Guest
Still wondering whyActs 9 says,"HE fell…while the other men remained standing–“stood there speechless.”( NJB translation)
Acts 22 states, “I fell.” (implying he fell alone.)
Acts 26 states, “WE ALL fell.”
I am more curious about the last two passages here that state “I” then later, “we”.
Please help! :rolleyes:
 
Hi Christi,

First, my conclusion would be that they all fell to the ground as stated explicitly in Acts 26:14.

In Acts 9:4, the comment about the men standing there speechless comes after Paul’s conversation with the Lord and after the Lord tells him to get up. The men may well have fallen to the ground and already have stood back up. Undoubtably they’d have been baffled - wondering what was going on; who was Paul talking to.

In Acts 22, Paul is relating this part of the incident in the first person only. Note how he says in verse 5, “I set out…” (even tho others set out also), and in verse 6, “I was traveling along, approaching Damascus…”(again,even tho others were also travelling, etc). He continues in the same manner in verse 7 when he says, “I fell…”. It reveals nothing one way or the other about the others who were with him.

Hope this helps,

Nita
 
Dear Nita,
You mentioned…(Your words in quotations)…
“First, my conclusion would be that they all fell to the ground as
stated explicitly in Acts 26:14.”

OK! That would be the one that is the least confirmed by Paul, as per the NJB. The first account in Acts 9 supposedly is the one that he could have gotten straight from Paul. One problem is that the accounts given by Paul in his Letters mention none of these details - so

"In Acts 9:4, the comment about the men standing there speechless comes

after Paul’s conversation with the Lord and after the Lord tells him to

get up. The men may well have fallen to the ground and already have

stood back up. Undoubtedly they’d have been baffled - wondering what was

going on; who was Paul talking to".

Maybe - though they heard the voice, too, in that version.

"In Acts 22, Paul is relating this part of the incident in the _first

person _only. Note how he says in verse 5, “I set out…” (even tho

others set out also), and in verse 6, "I was traveling along, approaching

Damascus…"(again, even tho others were also traveling, etc). He

continues in the same manner in verse 7 when he says, “I fell…”. It

reveals nothing one way or the other about the others who were with him."
As you know - ‘he’ doesn’t say this, in any of these accounts - Paul did not write Acts - it’s thought to be a Lukan authorship, for various reasons. However, having said this, what is consistent in all three accounts is the 1) falling to the ground (regardless of how many) before Paul’s hearing the voice.

Besides the argument that the number of men falling being inconsistent in the accounts (granted, we can interpret this any way we like, but the written accounts are inconsistent), another argument for inconsistency can be taken up for what the other men heard or didn’t hear. In Acts 9:7, the men hear the voice; in Acts 22:9, the men don’t hear the voice; in Acts 26:14, it relates that Paul hears the voice, but doesn’t mention whether the other men did or not.

PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND.
~Christi
 
When the scripture says that they all “stood speechless”, it refers not necessarily to posture, but to condition. I cound be sitting in a chair and be said to have “stood amazed” at His teaching.
If this simple explanation doesn’t satisfy, if each word must be literally evaluated for your concept of inerrancy (as is sadly true for some of our Protestant friends who spend hours agonizing over these minutiae) perhaps you can simply understand stood as stood up.
As for hearing the Voice, they may have heard the opening line ‘Saul, Saul…’ but not the essentials of the message. They could then be rightly said to have heard the Voice with their ears, but not to have heard the message given, and therefore not to have ‘heard’ what was said.
 
Christi said:
Still wondering whyActs 9 says,"HE fell…while the other men remained standing–“stood there speechless.”( NJB translation)
Acts 22 states, “I fell.” (implying he fell alone.)
Acts 26 states, “WE ALL fell.”
I am more curious about the last two passages here that state “I” then later, “we”.
Please help! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Hi Christi

Here is an interesting teaching to understand the writings of the Acts and the Conversion of Saul-Paul

Discovering the First Century Church – Dr Margaret N. Ralph – Article 13 (You should get this book to study)
(various other apparent discrapencies which are explained…such as the different accounts of Judas; death, and the Book of Revelation)​

Why would Ananias argue with the Lord in a vision (Acts 9:13-14)?
You;s think if the Lord told him to help Saul he;d just go and do it.
(Acts 9:1-22 Acts 8:3, 9:26-29, 22:1-16 ,26:9-18 (Also discussed)​

Growth Process which preceded Acts
  • Events
  • Oral Tradition
  • Written Tradition
  • Edited Tradition (Lk 1:3)
  • Canonical
THREE ACCOUNTS OF PAUL;S CONVERSION
Acts 9:1-19, 22:1-16, 26:9-18.

Events in common
·- Saul is on the road to Damascus with the intent of persecuting Jesus; followers.
·- Saul is surrounded by a light.
·- Saul falls to the ground.
·- A voice says, “Saul,Saul why do you persecute me?”
·- Paul responds, “Who are you, Lord?”
·- The voice says, “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting?.

Details which differ· What do those traveling with Paul see and hear?
·- What role does Ananias play?
  • What does Ananias say?
    ·- In whose mouth does the explanation of Paul;s conversion appear
Once more we have a question that gets off the point by assuming that we are reading a journalistic account of events.

Dialogues in Acts as well as speeches are co pared and/or edited by Luke in order to teach the significance of historical events.

In this cas the historical event is the conversion of Saul on the road to Damascus. We have already met Saul. He was present at the death of Stephen.
“Then they cast him (Stephen) out of the city and stoned him; and the witnesses laid down their garments at the foot of a young man named Salul… (Acts 7:58).
“But Sal was ravaging the church and entering house after house: he dragged of men and women and committed them to prison” (Acts 8:3)

As Iluke pick up the story of Saul again he begins just where he had ended.
“But Saul still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus so that if he found any belong to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem” (Acts 9:1-2)

However as Saul proceeds to Damascus h has an experience that profoundly changes not only his life but the life of the whole world. Luke emphasizes the importance of this event by telling us about it three times in Acts, here as well as in two speeches ( Acts 22:1-16 and 26:9-18)

Because we have three accounts of the same event we can compare the accounts and get a clearer idea of what are the core events and what are details included for emphasis. In comparing the accounts it becomes evident that Luke simply didn’t care about minor inconsistencies. For us to care about them is to miss Luke’s point because we have misunderstood the kind of writing we are reading.

In each account Saul is on the road to Damascus with the intent of persecuting Jesus; followers when he is surrounded by a great light, falls to the ground, and hears a voice say
“aul, Saul why do you persecute me” And he said, “Who are you Lord?” Ane he said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting;” (see Acts 9:4-5, 22:7-8, 26:14-15)

conft /2
 
Paul;s Conversion (cont. 2 of 2)

Exactly what those who were traveling with Paul saw and heard is unclear as the accounts differ on these details.

Ananias appears in two accounts (chapters 9 and 22), but his arguing with the Lord about helping Saul appears only in chapter 9.

Thus it is clear that to ask “Why would Ananias argue with the Lord?” is to focus on the wrong point. However once again, it may be best to respond directly to this mis-focussed question in order to move on to the important question, “What is Luke teaching through his account of Saul;s/Paul;s conversion’”

Ananias; arguing with the Lord is a literary technique which enables Luke to put into the mouth of the Lord the significance of the Lord says, “Go for he is chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel…” (Acts 9:15). With these words the readers understand the pivotal nature of the event about which they are reading. As we continue to read Acts we will see Paul do exactly this – preach to Gentiles, kings and Jews. However, his missionary vocation will be primarily aimed toward the Gentiles.

In the second account of Paul;s conversion this explanation of Paul;s vocation is put in the mouth of Ananias, speaking to Paul (see Acts 22:14-15).

In the third account, the explanation of Paul;s vocation is again placed on the Lord;s lips, but this time addressed directly to Paul (see Acts 26:16-18)

It is obviously important to Luke that as he tells the story of Paul;s conversion, his Gentile readers understand the pivotal nature of the event in their own lives.

In addition to highlighting the significance of Paul;s conversion to the life of his audience. Luke re-emphasizes a pint which he has been making all aalong. Jesus continues to be present in his disciples. W have seen this in the way in which the apostles; ministry mirrors Jesus;. We have seen in the way Stephen;s story reflected Jesus; story. Now we see it clearly in Jesus; own words: ”I am Jesus whom you are persecuting”. In persecuting Jesus’ disciples Paul was persecuting Jesus himself.

After showing how Paul has been chosen directly by Jesus. Luke incorporates Paul into the early church. Paul is baptized (Acts ) and later is introduced in and finally accepted by the apostles in Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-29).

The :acts of Paul” foreshadowed in the Lord;s words to Annias will soon take center stage in the Acts of the Apostles However, as we read Acts, it is becoming abundantly clear that the acts of the apostles and the acts of Paul are all the fruits of the acts of God, directing the early church to spread the good news to God;s people.
 
Hi Christi,
OK! That would be the one that is the least confirmed by Paul, as per the NJB. The first account in Acts 9 supposedly is the one that he could have gotten straight from Paul. One problem is that the accounts given by Paul in his Letters mention none of these details
Click to expand...
Does the NJB give their reasons for making that assertion?
As you know - ‘he’ doesn’t say this, in any of these accounts - Paul did not write Acts - it’s thought to be a Lukan authorship,
Click to expand...
Sorry, should have said it was Luke relating Paul’s testimony. Regardless, those first six verses in Acts 9 are speaking only about Paul’s personal experience. The focus does not include the other men until verse 7, which does not say one way or the other whether they also initially fell to the ground.
Maybe it would help to imagine yourself in the episode with Paul and the men. Something so dramatic happens (sound - bright light) that you fall to the ground. It’s over in a flash. And you rise. But, there is Paul, your leader, still prostrate on the ground, and something more is going on with him. It is NOT over in a flash for him. And he’s talking to an invisible someone. What would you do? Paul’s men stood and waited.
In Acts 9:7, the men hear the voice; in Acts 22:9, the men don’t hear the voice; in Acts 26:14, it relates that Paul hears the voice, but doesn’t mention whether the other men did or not.
Click to expand...
There’s no contradiction here either. The men heard something, but not the same thing as Paul. For the men it was just noise (so to speak), whereas Paul heard understandable language. Read 22:9 again carefully:
“Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.”

The statement does not specify that the men heard NOTHING, just that they didn’t hear what/who Paul did.
If we synthesize the two texts, (Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9) we can reasonably conclude the men heard something, but did not hear the verbalized message from God that Paul received. (See the following Scripture passage for something similar: John 12:28-29)

The same reasoning applies to the light. They saw the light, but they did not see a “Being”:
Acts 9:7 “*The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.” *

Does this help? If there were only the one passage 22:9 which said they did not hear the voice of the one talking “to me”, there would be no reason to think the men heard anything. But when there is another passage that indicates something contrary, then you seek a synthesis. And it’s amazing how it’s almost always there. (Probably a few the Scripture scholars haven’t worked out yet. 🙂 ) A lot of times it’s that we read things into a sentence that aren’t really there; or we miss something that is there!

Regarding the voice, a book I have titled “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” goes into some of the Greek grammar involved. If you would like that info, let me know and I can PM it to you.

Nita
 
Thanks to all who replied. I would like to take some time to read them and will reply within 3 days. Thanks for hanging in there with me! 🙂
 
Christi said:
Dear Nita,
You mentioned…(Your words in quotations)…
“First, my conclusion would be that they all fell to the ground as
stated explicitly in Acts 26:14.”

OK! That would be the one that is the least confirmed by Paul, as per the NJB. The first account in Acts 9 supposedly is the one that he could have gotten straight from Paul. One problem is that the accounts given by Paul in his Letters mention none of these details - so

“In Acts 9:4, the comment about the men standing there speechless comes after Paul’s conversation with the Lord and after the Lord tells him to get up. The men may well have fallen to the ground and already have stood back up. Undoubtedly they’d have been baffled - wondering what was going on; who was Paul talking to”.
Maybe - though they heard the voice, too, in that version.

"In Acts 22, Paul is relating this part of the incident in the _first person _only. Note how he says in verse 5, “I set out…” (even tho others set out also), and in verse 6, “I was traveling along, approaching Damascus…”(again, even tho others were also traveling, etc). He continues in the same manner in verse 7 when he says, “I fell…”. It reveals nothing one way or the other about the others who were with him."As you know - ‘he’ doesn’t say this, in any of these accounts - Paul did not write Acts - it’s thought to be a Lukan authorship, for various reasons. However, having said this, what is consistent in all three accounts is the 1) falling to the ground (regardless of how many) before Paul’s hearing the voice.

Besides the argument that the number of men falling being inconsistent in the accounts (granted, we can interpret this any way we like, but the written accounts are inconsistent), another argument for inconsistency can be taken up for what the other men heard or didn’t hear. In Acts 9:7, the men hear the voice; in Acts 22:9, the men don’t hear the voice; in Acts 26:14, it relates that Paul hears the voice, but doesn’t mention whether the other men did or not.

PLEASE HELP ME UNDERSTAND.
~Christi
Click to expand...

The NT was written in Greek. The word phoné in Greek can mean either “sound” or “voice”.​

Don’t worry about the inconsistencies - people aren’t robots, but human beings; there is no reason to imagine they become robotic when inspired, as grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it. And inspiration is a grace. So a sameness of words in talking about the same event on different occasions in no more to be expected of St. Paul or the other writers of the NT, than of anyone else. If we were told in Acts 9 that the event took place on the way to Damascus, but in 26 that it occurred en route to Jerusalem, there would be a problem. But we aren’t. Compared with that, exact recollection of the precise bodily posture of others is very trivial.

I’d be worried if we were told in all the accounts that Saul/Paul & the others were turning cartwheels 🙂 - that would not fit the context of the narrative at all, even if it appeared unchanged in all details in all three accounts. The truth of the narrative does not depend on the exact memorisation of every last detail of the men’s positions or number - because that, is not the reason for the account or the point of it, in any of its versions. ##
 
I am still here! I am doing this for a very dear friend of mine who brought these verses to my attention. When I shared some of the replies to her she stated…“Well so basically the words are not really important, the material details of what happend are not really important, because what’s really important is the truth!?”
I do not know how to answer this. :confused:
Thanks for the help!
Christi
 
It is for me the very inconsistencies which gives it credence.

Were it not so, then it could be said the accounts were contrived
 
Christi said:
I am still here! I am doing this for a very dear friend of mine who brought these verses to my attention. When I shared some of the replies to her she stated…“Well so basically the words are not really important, the material details of what happend are not really important, because what’s really important is the truth!?”
I do not know how to answer this. :confused:
Thanks for the help!
Christi
Click to expand...
What I’ve tried to share is that, if you pay close attention to the text there are no material inconsistencies. (Even without the Greek text info sent in my PM)

Altho the material details are certainly not the primary point in this episode (God’s personal intervention and Paul’s subsequent conversion being the primary point), they do provide background - true background. They are what help to make the incident “real” for us. Without those details we could not imagine “being” Paul in that incident; “being” one of the men with him. And it is often putting ourselves into the episodes that makes Scripture come alive for us.

Nita
 
The way I figure it is that Paul’s alibi’s didn’t match up, and that is why he never got out of prison.
🙂
 
:confused: My friend says that Paul’s own testamonies don’t go into great details as Luke’s accounts. That there’s little or no accurate detail of Paul from Acts and that there is very little historical/psychological evidence on Paul. That Luke is writing Rhetorically and that it’s composed that way. (??)

How do I respond to her.
Please help me out.
Christi
 
Christi said:
Still wondering whyActs 9 says,"HE fell…while the other men remained standing–“stood there speechless.”( NJB translation)
Acts 22 states, “I fell.” (implying he fell alone.)
Acts 26 states, “WE ALL fell.”
I am more curious about the last two passages here that state “I” then later, “we”.
Please help! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Worth remembering these three accounts are to three different audiences. Also worth noting what is the same about the three accounts. Specifically the words he heared. Good you picked this up, keep reading!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top