How is this seeming contradiction reconciled or explained?

  • Thread starter Thread starter eliasaph99
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eliasaph99

Guest
In the readings for Thursday January 25th, there are two options from the book of Acts.

They are Acts 22:3-16 and Acts 9:1-22. The events described also correspond with Acts 26:12-18.

In Ch 22, Paul says that the men see the light, but cannot hear the voice. In Ch 9, it says that the men with him could hear the voice but stood speechless. In Ch 26, it says that all the men fell to the ground, but it doesn’t say whether the men with Paul heard the voice or not.

What is the explanation?
 
Acts 9:3-7
On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him.4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"5 He said, “Who are you, sir?” The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.6 Now get up and go into the city and you will be told what you must do."7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.
Click to expand...
Acts 22:6-9
"On that journey as I drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from the sky suddenly shone around me.7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?'8 I replied, ‘Who are you, sir?’ And he said to me, 'I am Jesus the Nazorean whom you are persecuting.'9 My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.
Click to expand...
Acts 26:3-16
At midday, along the way, O king, I saw a light from the sky, brighter than the sun, shining around me and my traveling companions.14 We all fell to the ground and I heard a voice saying to me in Hebrew, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goad.’ 3 15 And I said, ‘Who are you, sir?’ And the Lord replied, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting.16 Get up now, and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness of what you have seen (of me) and what you will be shown. 4
Click to expand...
Note that in Acts 9 St Luke is narrating the actual occurrance. In 22 and 26 he is reporting St Paul’s account of the occurrance. Thus the Bible is true if 9 is a true account of the occurrance and 22 and 26 are true accounts of St Paul’s words. There is no guarantee of the accuracy of St Paul’s accounts. Note that in 22 especially, he was under considerable pressure; so was probably not striving for the utmost accuracy in details.

One would need to study the originals to be sure of this, but he may be saying in 9 that the others heard the sound, but in 22 that they did not hear distinct words. Likewise in he may be saying in 22 that they saw the light, but in 9 that they did not see the figure. Since he was blinded by the light, it is unlikely that he knew whether the others were standing or fell down. St. Luke may have got that detail for 9 from one of the others, but let St Paul’s account stand as he stated it. St Luke interviewed a lot of eye witnesses according to his introduction to the books.

One presumes that St Luke was aware if there were contradictions in St Paul’s accounts, but left them there to preserve the truth of the record as stated.
 
Forgive me but why has a third thread in as many days started on exactly the same topic. Can’t the OP’s just scroll down and and join the existing ones?
 
thistle said:
Forgive me but why has a third thread in as many days started on exactly the same topic. Can’t the OP’s just scroll down and and join the existing ones?
Click to expand...
Thistle:

Agreed and concurred as the last two are reporting St. Paul’s speeches in 2 different situations, and the substance of the account is unchanged in both situations, just the specifics of who heard the voice and saw the light.

There is NO contradiction. This is unedifying and a waste of time.

I hope the MODS shut this thread down before someone gets confused.

YBIC, Michael
 
Why can’t you contain your impatience even over the internet?

Instead of being rude and a putz, you could point me to the information I’m requesting.

Quite obviously, I had no idea that another thread or multiple threads already existed on the same topic.

As for it being unedifying, not every discussion on the forums exists to prop you up. Sometimes people need to hash out difficult topics or need the resolution to some discrepancy.

If you are looking for edification then don’t click on a thread which has a title that makes it plain it doesn’t offer it.
 
Thanks for the response Joe Kelley. I appreciate your insight a great deal more than the uncharitable comments of the other two characters on here.
 
I too am trying to understand the different accounts of St. Pauls conversion which appear to be contradictory. I had asked the same question in another thread not knowing this thread is of the same topic.

Verbum explained to me in my other thread that the intent of the original texts (written in Greek) are better translated to mean “they didn’t understand the sounds that they heard”.

Now when I read ACTS 9:3-7 with ACTS 22:6-9 they make much more sense to me.

I have another question and wonder what your thoughts are.

Why did Jesus not want Paul’s companions to understand what he was saying to Paul?

My initial reaction is that it manifests Paul’s use of his free will in accepting the new mission. In accepting Jesus, Paul faces the possibility of severe persecution from his companions especially because it appears they did not understand what was happening.

(ie Paul either stays blind with no persecution or Paul regains his sight but now he carries a cross)
 
eliasaph99 said:
Why can’t you contain your impatience even over the internet?

Instead of being rude and a putz, you could point me to the information I’m requesting.

Quite obviously, I had no idea that another thread or multiple threads already existed on the same topic.

As for it being unedifying, not every discussion on the forums exists to prop you up. Sometimes people need to hash out difficult topics or need the resolution to some discrepancy.

If you are looking for edification then don’t click on a thread which has a title that makes it plain it doesn’t offer it.
Click to expand...
Eliasaph:

I apologize for being rude.

Athough Thistle was correct about the subject being introduced earlier:

Did they hear the voice?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=130544

Bible Passages On Conversion of St. Paul
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=130462 (Now Closed due to too many threds on the same topic)

I should not have reacted as I did.

I’ve dealt with people who question “Discrepencies between Scripture Passages” as a way to justify either heresy or apostacy.

I would hope that would explain my reaction, even if it doesn’t justify it. I still was wrong. I beg your forgiveness.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
Wow, a sincere apology on the internet? Now that is edifying. 🙂
 
Traditional_Ang said:
Eliasaph:

I apologize for being rude.

Athough Thistle was correct about the subject being introduced earlier:

Did they hear the voice?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=130544

Bible Passages On Conversion of St. Paul
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=130462 (Now Closed due to too many threds on the same topic)

I should not have reacted as I did.

I’ve dealt with people who question “Discrepencies between Scripture Passages” as a way to justify either heresy or apostacy.

I would hope that would explain my reaction, even if it doesn’t justify it. I still was wrong. I beg your forgiveness.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
Click to expand...
Apology accepted and forgiveness given. I certainly understand the desire to defend our common faith from attack.

I’m just trying to come to an understanding of this passage. I don’t know any Greek and don’t have the time to learn it. Frequently, the reconciliation to a seeming discrepancy like this lies in a nuance which is lost in translation because to communicate it would make the passage excessively wordy.

I’m not suggesting that scripture is in actual contradiction with itself. I’m just wondering what’s happening “behind the scenes” that I’m missing.
 
Dominic_Brother said:
I too am trying to understand the different accounts of St. Pauls conversion which appear to be contradictory. I had asked the same question in another thread not knowing this thread is of the same topic.

Verbum explained to me in my other thread that the intent of the original texts (written in Greek) are better translated to mean “they didn’t understand the sounds that they heard”.

Now when I read ACTS 9:3-7 with ACTS 22:6-9 they make much more sense to me.

I have another question and wonder what your thoughts are.

Why did Jesus not want Paul’s companions to understand what he was saying to Paul?

My initial reaction is that it manifests Paul’s use of his free will in accepting the new mission. In accepting Jesus, Paul faces the possibility of severe persecution from his companions especially because it appears they did not understand what was happening.

(ie Paul either stays blind with no persecution or Paul regains his sight but now he carries a cross)
Click to expand...
I think your initial reaction is a good supposition. Paul had to accept what he heard from Christ based on his own faith, however tentative and uncertain that initial faith may have been. Also, this initial introduction to the power of Christ must have layed a strong foundation for Paul later on. It’s full of connections to Christs death and resurrection, to being in darkness and led into light, and to trusting what the Lord says though you are the only one who hears Him.

If you keep reading past the passage in Ch. 9, you see that Paul is in darkness for three days and (perhaps) it is like hell because he is hungy and thirsty. He receives at least one more vision from Christ, but presumely he is the only one who sees it. After regaining his sight, he is baptized immediately. Then, also like Christ, the Jewish authorities begin to plot to kill him after he begins to preach.

I think an extensive study could be done on the symbolism in this short passage. It would be very interesting.
 
I know exactly what you are talking about and most have missed the point of your question. Follows is another example of what you have discovered. There are many more.

Read Luke 23:39 “One of the criminals hanging in crucifixion blasphemed him…. But the other one rebuked him, ‘Have you no fear of God….this man has done nothing wrong.’

Now Mark 16:32……”The men who had been crucified with him likewise kept taunting him.”

Now Matthew 27:44………”The insurgents who had been crucified with him kept taunting him in the same way.”

In two Gospels BOTH men taunt Jesus. Only in Luke does one defend Jesus. There are cases all over the bible such as the above and the vision with Paul. I believe that details as such will happen in any book, even inspired, basically they are of no consequence.
 
eliasaph99 said:
I think your initial reaction is a good supposition. Paul had to accept what he heard from Christ based on his own faith, however tentative and uncertain that initial faith may have been. Also, this initial introduction to the power of Christ must have layed a strong foundation for Paul later on. It’s full of connections to Christs death and resurrection, to being in darkness and led into light, and to trusting what the Lord says though you are the only one who hears Him.

If you keep reading past the passage in Ch. 9, you see that Paul is in darkness for three days and (perhaps) it is like hell because he is hungy and thirsty. He receives at least one more vision from Christ, but presumely he is the only one who sees it. After regaining his sight, he is baptized immediately. Then, also like Christ, the Jewish authorities begin to plot to kill him after he begins to preach.

I think an extensive study could be done on the symbolism in this short passage. It would be very interesting.
Click to expand...
Elias:

You might want to see if you can find a copy of the Jerusalem Bible - Reader’s Edition (which has some very good notes) and a copy of the Jerome Biblical Commentary and see what these say about it and if they footnote any leads for you.

I’m sure the Early Church Fathers would say something, as some of them loved allegories, but the volume that you’d have to look through would be daunting. Look up anything they have to say on the subject of the Conversion of St. Paul.

Here is something I think will help - 3 is a big number in the Bible. Jesus spent 3 days “in the bowels of the earth”, and Jonah spent “3 days in the belly of the great fish”. Jesus’ Death and Resurrection was called “The Sign of Jonah” meaning that Jonah died in the the belly of the fish and was raised from the dead when the fish spit him out on the seashore.

In the same way, Paul spiritually died to himself during those 3 days after he was blinded by the light and knocked off his high-horse, and he was raised as a new man from the dead when he was baptized by Ananias. For the 3 days that Saul was blind, God was softening his heart, preparing him to accept Baptism into the Church he had come to persecute, and to accept his assigned place as an Apostle of the Lord of that Church.

I hope this helps get you started.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
ricko said:
I know exactly what you are talking about and most have missed the point of your question. Follows is another example of what you have discovered. There are many more.

Read Luke 23:39 “One of the criminals hanging in crucifixion blasphemed him…. But the other one rebuked him, ‘Have you no fear of God….this man has done nothing wrong.’

Now Mark 16:32……”The men who had been crucified with him likewise kept taunting him.”

Now Matthew 27:44………”The insurgents who had been crucified with him kept taunting him in the same way.”

In two Gospels BOTH men taunt Jesus. Only in Luke does one defend Jesus. There are cases all over the bible such as the above and the vision with Paul. I believe that details as such will happen in any book, even inspired, basically they are of no consequence.
Click to expand...
Rick:

According to Tradition, the Gospel of Luke is pretty much the Gospel According to Mary, the Mother of God. That’s why we read episodes in Luke’s Gospel that can only have been known to Mary. According to the Gospel of John, Mary was present at the foot of the Cross along with the Apostle John (“the Disciple Jesus loved”).

It would, therefore, seem reasonable that Luke’s Gospel would have some of the things that Mary heard and saw that weren’t in the other “Synoptic” Gospels. Among these are the Annunciation and Visitation, and the words of Jesus from the cross that the other Gospel Writers (Matthew the Tax Collector, and Mark who “ghost-wrote” for St. Peter) couldn’t have heard or seen.

And, We usually don’t discuss the Gospel of John, as John generally didn’t repeat things which were said in the other Gospels unless it was absolutely essential for his narrative.

I hope this makes things a little clearer.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael
 
Hi people 🙂

I have a few things to say on this supposed discerancy.
First, the story of Paul’s conversion is narrated three times in the Acts of the Apostles. The first account is the only one narrated by Luke:

9:3-4. And as he went on his journey, it came to pass that he drew nigh to Damascus. And suddenly a light from heaven shined round about him. And falling on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
9: 7 Now the men who went in company with him stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice but seeing no man.

Luke records that Paul’s companions were deprived of seeing Jesus although they heard the voice! Paul was the only one to see Jesus - sight emphasized rather than hearing - as he is the only one to lose his sight for three days after this incident.

However, Paul narrates the same thing to a number of Jewish people with slight variations:

22:6-7. And it came to pass, as I was going and drawing nigh to Damascus, at mid-day, that suddenly from heaven there shone round about me a great light. And falling on the ground, I heard a voice saying to me: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

22:9. And they that were with me saw indeed the light: but they* heard not *the voice of him that spoke with me.

This variation is a result of Paul’s adapting the story of his conversion to the summary of Ananias’ statements in the same chapter:

22:14. But he said: The God of our fathers hath preordained thee that thou shouldst know his will and see the Just One and shouldst **hear the voice **from his mouth.
Paul is singled out as the only person who both sees (chapter 9) and hears Jesus (chapter 22)

Finally, Paul relates the same incident for the third time to the King:

26:14. And when we were all fallen down on the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me in the Hebrew tongue: Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? It is hard for thee to kick against the good.

This time Paul says his companions fell to the ground too although in chapters 9 & 22 Paul is said to be the only person falling to the ground. What’s the reason underlying the shift to this plurality? The answer is simple: Only in chapter 26 does Paul state that a bright light shone around him & his companions. To compare:

Luke’s narrative “And suddenly a light from heaven shined round about him” (singular)

Paul’s first narrative "suddenly from heaven there shone round about me a great light.(singular)

Paul’s second narrative " At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them that were in company with me.(26: 13 plural)

Peace to all,
Angelos N.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top