Saul's conversion Acts 9 vs. 22

[mark_a]

I’m trying to understand the difference between the two versions. In chapter 9 Saul’s companions heard Jesus’ voice but in acts 22 they did not.

Acts 9
3 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.

Acts 22
6 "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.

 

[Nita]

The following is from a book titled “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” by Gleason L. Archer:

…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 (*akoumontes men tes *phones), butbeholding no one.” In Acts 22:9, on the other hand, we are told, “…but they did not hear the Voice (ten de phonen ouk ekousan) …”

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 9:45 says Paul *ekousen phonen *- 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.

…"

Nita

 

[mark_a]

The following is from a book titled “Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties” by Gleason L. Archer:

…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 (*akoumontes men tes *phones), butbeholding no one.” In Acts 22:9, on the other hand, we are told, “…but they did not hear the Voice (ten de phonen ouk ekousan) …”

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 9:45 says Paul *ekousen phonen *- 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.

…"

Nita

Thanks so much.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Note that there are three accounts: Acts 9,22, & 26. The first tells what happened, the other two report Paul’s account of the event on two different occasions. While they differ a bit, Luke sticks to exact truth in reporting each as it occured without trying to reconcile differences.

As Nita notes there is no real disagreement, just a difference in emphasis.

 

[savedsinner]

This is why Paul was imprisoned.

His alibi didn’t match.