Is there not someone who can see the hidden intent of this thread and make an insightful comment? To those who took part in the poll, thank you.
** Haydock Commentary**
Thank you JPY15026 (what does your name mean?) for your effort andthe commentary by Haddock. Interesting commentary but not as thorough as It could be. I am positive that before the end of this thread, an exhaustive explanation will be offered.
Benignus: The part where you were trying to reconcile the differences is the type of approach I was looking for. Oh and remember that it was Luke writing down the accounts, Luke wrote the Gospel so he was a good writer, was learned, a doctor, and probably very systematic so the differences in the three accounts is even more striking considering who wrote it. Did Paul relate the stories differently each time and Luke simply took it verbatim, or was Luke’s reporting inaccurate? or…?
The difference between the two is that in Acts 9:7 the Greek work for “voice” is in the genitive case, (awkwardly put in English, “hearing of the voice”), while in 22:9 it is in the accusative case (“did not hear the voice”). The difference, according to the commentators I have read, is that the former (genitive) usage means to hear a voice without necessarily understanding what the voice said, while the second usage (accusative) means to hear with understanding. They heard the sound of the voice (9:7), but didn’t understand what it was saying to Saul (22:9).
A study of the Greek might be interesting. Do you think this hearing - understanding/not un derstanding also apply in acts where just after Pentecost, where the apostles were speaking in tongues? Some understood it in their own language, while others thought it was gibberish because they were drunk!catholic2 said:
Sorry–I’m not going to second-guess Luke. If the commentators that I have cited were correct (i.e., that the difference between accusative case and genitive case was significant), then Luke’s writing was perfectly clear to him and to those who would have read what he wrote. It’s only when Acts was translated into other languages (starting with Latin) that the meaning started getting muddied up.
Well DaveBJ your response sort of ends this thread, I guess. You have explicity touched just on what I wanted to hear. Luke certainly communicated well with his contemporaries, and there was no conflict in those three accounts of Paul’s Damascus experience. I just wish that the translators could convey the nuances of the original language in such a fashion as to reflect what the writer meant. Thanks again.