Is this a contradiction?

[JD27076]

Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. Acts 9:7 says. "Then men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.

Acts 22:9 says “My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.”

Seems like a contradiction. Can someone help explain. Thanks.

 

[JamestheOlder]

Not really. It appears that Luke used three different sources…one of which may have been Paul. You know how “eye-witness” accounts go. But there is no real contradiction, since the basic facts are complementary. Here is the footnote from the USCCB Bible online site, for Acts, 9, Verse 7:

[9:1–19] This is the first of three accounts of Paul’s conversion (with Acts 22:3–16 and Acts 26:2–18) with some differences of detail owing to Luke’s use of different sources. Paul’s experience was not visionary but was precipitated by the appearance of Jesus, as he insists in 1 Cor 15:8. The words of Jesus, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?” related by Luke with no variation in all three accounts, exerted a profound and lasting influence on the thought of Paul. Under the influence of this experience he gradually developed his understanding of justification by faith (see the letters to the Galatians and Romans) and of the identification of the Christian community with Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor 12:27). That Luke would narrate this conversion three times is testimony to the importance he attaches to it. This first account occurs when the word is first spread to the Gentiles. At this point, the conversion of the hero of the Gentile mission is recounted. The emphasis in the account is on Paul as a divinely chosen instrument (Acts 9:15).

Peace.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. Acts 9:7 says. "Then men who were traveling with him stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could see no one.

Acts 22:9 says “My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me.”

Seems like a contradiction. Can someone help explain. Thanks.

Act 9:7 And the Lord said to him: Arise and go into the city; and there it shall be told thee what thou must do. Now the men who went in company with him stood amazed, hearing indeed a voice but seeing no man.

(IGNT+) οιG3588 BUT δεG1161 THE ανδρεςG435 MEN οιG3588 WHO συνοδευοντεςG4922 [G5723] WERE TRAVELLING WITH αυτωG846 HIM ειστηκεισανG2476 [G5715] STOOD εννεοιG1769 SPEECHLESS, ακουοντεςG191 [G5723] HEARING μενG3303 INDEED τηςG3588 THE φωνηςG5456 VOICE μηδεναG3367 δεG1161 BUT NO ONE θεωρουντεςG2334 [G5723] SEEING.

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

(IGNT+) οιG3588 BUT δεG1161 THESE συνG4862 WITH εμοιG1698 ME οντεςG5607 [G5752] BEING τοG3588 THE μενG3303 INDEED φωςG5457 LIGHT εθεασαντοG2300 [G5662] BEHELD, καιG2532 AND εμφοβοιG1719 ALARMED εγενοντοG1096 [G5633] WERE, τηνG3588 BUT δεG1161 THE φωνηνG5456 VOICE ουκG3756 DID ηκουσανG191 [G5656] NOT HEAR τουG3588 OF HIM λαλουντοςG2980 [G5723] SPEAKING μοιG3427 TO ME.

G191
ἀκούω
akouō
ak-oo’-o
A primary verb; to hear (in various senses): - give (in the) audience (of), come (to the ears), ([shall]) hear (-er, -ken), be noised, be reported, understand.

The Greek word akouo is used in both verses. However, akouo can have two meanings.It can mean “to hear,” and it can mean, “to understand.” Paul’s companions heard the voice, but they did not understand it.

 

[midori]

From The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer, it explains it in this way:

An apparent contradiction arises between the first account of Paul’s conversion on the
Damascus Road (Acts 9:7) and the second account (Acts 22:9) in regard to Paul’s
companions. Did they hear the Voice from heaven or did they not? Acts 9:7 states: “But
the men who were journeying with Paul were standing speechless, hearing the Voice
(akouontes men tes phones), but beholding no one.” In Acts 22:9, on the other hand, we
are told, “And those who were with me beheld the light, but they did not hear the Voice
[ten de phonen ouk ekousan] of the one who was talking to me.”

In the original Greek, however, there is no real contradiction between these two
statements. Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case
the verb “to hear” takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying
message (in which case it takes the accusative). Therefore, as we put the two statements
together, we find that Paul’s companions heard the Voice as a sound (somewhat like the
crowd who heard the sound of the Father talking to the Son in John 12:28, but perceived
it only as thunder); but they did not (like Paul) hear the message that it articulated. Paul
alone heard it intelligibly (Acts 9:4 says Paul ekousen phonen–accusative case); though
he, of course, perceived it also as a startling sound at first (Acts 22:7: “I fell to the ground
and heard a voice [ekousa phones] saying to me,” NASB). But in neither account is it
stated that his companions ever heard that Voice in the accusative case.

There is an instructive parallel here between the inability to hear the voice as an
articulated message and their inability to see the glory of the risen Lord as anything but a
blaze of light. Acts 22:9 says that they saw the light, but Acts 9:7 makes it clear that they
did not see the Person who displayed Himself in that light. There is a clear analogy
between these differing levels of perception in each case.

(For the technical case-distinction in Greek, cf. W. W. Goodwin and C. B. Gulick,
Greek Grammar [Boston: Ginn & Co., 1930], #1103: “The partitive genitive is used with
verbs signifying to taste, to smell, to hear, to perceive, etc.”–with the example from
Aristophanes’ Pax: phones akouein moi doko–`Methinks I hear a voice." See also #1104:
“Verbs of hearing, learning, etc. may take an accusative of the thing heard etc., and a
genitive of the person heard from.” This comes very close to the distinction made above,
that the accusative indicates the voice as a communicated message or thought, rather
than as simply a sound vibrating against the eardrum.

As I never got to Greek myself, I have to take his word for it… I’m sure we have a Classicist around here somewhere who can vouch for his linguistics. --edit-- Looks like the linguists are already on it!