APPARENT CONTRADICTIONS IN SAUL'S CONVERSION STORY
PROSECUTION
We are told in Acts 9:7 that the men journeying with Paul at the time of the event stood speechless, hearing the voice yet beholding no one. Yet in Acts 22:9 we read Paul saying ...
"And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of Him that spake to me."
DEFENCE
It is true that in most Bibles, there appears to be a contradiction between what Paul said in Acts 9:7 and what he said in Acts 22:9. But first, let us remember who it was who wrote the Book of Acts and if Luke did not notice any contradiction between these verses, then it is quite possible that there is NO contradiction, whatever, in the Greek text which the author wrote down, and that, once again, the fault lies with the way in which it has been translated into English.
First let us look at this verb 'to hear' and then notice the way in which it is used throughout the New Testament. The Lexicons tell us that it is used in 3 distinct ways
And the lexicons also list several passages of Scripture, which illustrate the use of this verb in these differing shades of meaning even though the English translation may not reveal the true meaning accurately.
Such an example is John 8:43 in the A.V., where Jesus said to the Pharisees ...
"Why do ye not 'understand'(get to know) My speech(teaching)? Because ye cannot hear My word."
Now it is obvious that if Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees then -
a) they were not deaf, and
b) they must have been able to hear Him.
But it is equally obvious that since they could hear Jesus then what Jesus was saying was that the reason they did not 'get to know' His teaching was because they could not comprehend or understand what He taught. Therefore the verb 'to hear' in the second sentence of verse 43 would have made better sense if it had been translated as in (2) above, 'cannot understand'.
If this alternate meaning of the verb 'to hear' is applied to Acts 9:7 and 22:9, it will be found that the apparent 'contradiction' disappears. It will be noted from Acts 26:14 that "the voice" spoke to Paul in Hebrew, and those who were with Paul may not have been familiar with this tongue since the local languages were Aramaic and Greek at that time.
Then in Acts 22:9 we are told that the men with Paul did NOT (Greek - emphatic NOT) 'hear' the voice, but in Acts 9:7 we are told that they DID 'hear' the voice. Thus it should be obvious that - like the Pharisees of John 8:43 - they 'heard' the voice but did NOT understand what was said. Acts 22:9 would have made better sense in English had it been given its meaning (2) of 'to understand' instead of 'to hear'. This verse should have been translated as follows:
"Now the (ones) who were with me indeed saw the light but did not understand the voice of the One speaking to me".
It should be noted very carefully that the ability to understand what is heard can be distinctly implied, or as firmly negated, in Greek, simply by changing the Greek form in which the word 'voice' is written, and/or the syntax of the sentence. Furthermore, this ability to 'understand' can be negated or cancelled without in any degree cancelling the hearing of the 'voice' or the sound that is heard. It is the failure of almost all of the translators of our Bibles to note the different forms of the word 'voice' in Acts 9:7 and 22:9, and the syntax of the sentences. This has led to failure to translate the verb correctly, bringing about what appears to be a contradiction in English but which is not the case on the parts of either Paul who spoke the words, nor Luke who recorded them. Both men knew their Greek grammar better then the translators of our popular Bibles.
In Acts 9:7 the form of the word 'voice' definitely negates any ability to understand what the voice said (as is also the case in John 5:25 where all the dead will likewise fail to understand what the voice will say except "the ones hearing -AND understanding"). Therefore verse 7 should have been translated from the Greek text ...
"The men who were travelling with him stood speechless (with fright), hearing indeed the voice but neither understanding (it) nor seeing anyone (speaking)".
In Acts 22:7 the form of the word 'voice' would appear to negate the understanding by Paul. But this is not so here because the context records a conversation ensuing. It is apparent in this case that the form of the 'voice' is governed by a preposition which, in Greek idiom, need not be spoken or written. Paul "heard (from) a voice saying... ". This idiom occurs in many other passages - for example John 9:31, "God does not hear (from) sinners".
In Acts 22:9 the form of the word 'voice' most definitely implies both hearing and understanding, but only one of these faculties is negated by the Greek emphatic 'NOT'. Now the men with Paul were not deaf, so obviously they heard the voice, which undoubtedly was both thunderous and terrifying enough to render them speechless. Therefore it could only be their understanding of what the voice said which was negated, because nothing could have prevented them from hearing the voice itself. This agrees PERFECTLY with Acts 9:7.
Rev. W. K. Lowther-Clarke notes in his 'Concise Bible Commentary'
"That Paul was not a member of the Sanhedrin may be taken for granted. He was a leader among the Greek speaking Jews at Jerusalem who accepted Pharisaism in its strict form."
In view of this and the foregoing, the most likely explanation for the lack of understanding by those accompanying Paul would be because of a lingual ability that did not extend to the 'Hebrew' that our Lord spoke to Paul. There is NO contradiction here whatsoever, and the eminent scholars W. E. Vine and Cremer both attest this view on grammatical grounds.
