Evidence: The Gathering

[Minimalist]

[Randy Carson]

[Jenny A]

Blue was a rather expensive color.

[Rhondazvous]

Luke recorded Paul's testimony:

4 I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, 5 as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.

And yet, Paul became a Christian. Why, Cato?

The book of Acts had at least two authors. One said the men on the road with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. The other said the men saw a light but heard no voice.

Once again, you can't make sense of the story without going through a lot of literary acrobatics and adding stuff that isn't there. Why couldn't they tell a good story? I wrote more coherent stories when I was in grade school.

[Randy Carson]

Luke recorded Paul's testimony:

4 I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, 5 as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.

And yet, Paul became a Christian. Why, Cato?

The book of Acts had at least two authors. One said the men on the road with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. The other said the men saw a light but heard no voice.

Once again, you can't make sense of the story without going through a lot of literary acrobatics and adding stuff that isn't there. Why couldn't  they tell a good story?  I wrote more coherent stories when I was in grade school.

Wow...do you like have a book that you bought containing all these freshman level "contraditions"? Or do you just wander around the web until you find something that sounds good to you because you don't actually take the time to think about it before posting?

First, if TWO people were involved in the authorship of the Book of Acts, then that pretty much blows the "collusion theory" all to hell because they obviously couldn't get their stories straight. If YOU could write a more coherent story, then it's safe to say that just about anyone else could have done the same.

But there ARE some passages which need some thought in order to be harmonized, and this is NOT because more than one author was involved but because you (or the person you are parroting) fail to understand the text.

Happily, Jimmy Akin wrote a blog post on this very topic just last month, and you know what? I'm going to quote it in full. (For the skimmers, I'll highlight the haymaker than KO's Rhonda's question in blue below.)

Resolving a Bible Difficulty: What Happened at Paul’s Conversion?
by Jimmy Akin
http://jimmyakin.com/2015/07/resolving-a...rsion.html

The book of Acts records St. Paul’s conversion in the following terms:

Acts 9:3-8
Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting; but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus

There are several interesting things here.

No Horse!

One is that there is no mention of St. Paul riding on a horse. You frequently hear people recounting how Paul was knocked off his horse at the time of his conversion, but this is an image that comes from art—not the Bible.

He isn’t likely to have been riding a horse, for at the time horses were more commonly used in warfare—such as for drawing chariots. They were not commonly ridden.

The passage doesn’t mention Paul riding any animal. He was likely travelling on foot, as suggested when the text simply says that he fell to the ground when the heavenly light flashed around him.

It’s also suggested by Jesus telling him to “rise and enter the city” (no mention of getting back on an animal) and by him being “led by the hand” into Damascus by his companions.

If he’d been riding on a beast (e.g., an ass), they presumably would have put him back on the animal and then led the beast—not taken Paul by the hand to guide him.

A Bible Difficulty?

Many people have commented on a Bible difficulty that arises from this passage when it says:

The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one [Acts 9:7].

This is worthy of comment because, later in the book when Paul is recounting his conversion, he says:

Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me [Acts 22:9].

What did they see? What did they hear?

The difficulty that needs to be solved concerns what the men with Paul saw and heard. The first is not difficult, for the two passages don’t contain any apparent discrepancy. The first says that they didn’t see anyone and the second says that they did see light. There is no contradiction because one can easily see light without seeing a person. What the men heard presents more of a difficulty, because the first passage says they were “hearing the voice” while the second says that they “did not hear the voice.”

That looks like a contradiction. Is it?

Greek to You and Me

Whenever we encounter something that looks like a contradiction, it’s wise to check the original language, which in this case is Greek. Examining the two passages, we find that both of them use the same two terms: akouō (hear) and phōnē (voice). This means that we can’t solve the dilemma by appealing to the fact that the passages are using different terms, because they aren’t. They both use the same verb for hearing and the same noun for what is being heard. That doesn’t mean we can’t resolve the discrepancy, though, because these terms have more than one meaning in Greek.

Akouō can mean hear, listen, understand, obey, know, and other things.

Phōnē can mean sound, tone, voice, cry, solemn declaration, etc.

Since we have a single author (Luke) writing both passages in a single book (Acts), a logical inference is that Luke probably meant the terms to be taken in different senses. Are there two different senses in which the terms can be taken that would make sense of the passages? You bet.

The Likely Solution

The most likely solution is that in the first passage, akouō is to be taken to mean “hear” and phōnē is to be taken to mean “sound,” while in the second passage, akouō is to be taken to mean “understand” and phōnē is to be taken to mean “voice.” On this reading, Acts 9:7 says that the men were hearing a sound but didn’t see anyone while Acts 22:9 says that they saw light but did not understand the voice.

This would parallel John 12:28-29, where the Father speaks to Jesus from heaven and some in the crowd perceive it as thunder: They heard a noise, but they didn’t perceive it as an intelligible voice—the clearer perception being reserved for those God wanted to have it. This appears to be the most probable solution. Thus some translations render the two passages like this:

The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone (Acts 9:7, NIV).

My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me (Acts 22:9, NIV).

These translations are perfectly acceptable, as “hear” and “understand” are common meanings for akouō, while “sound” and “voice” are common meanings for phōnē.

Be Cautious Beyond This Point

While we have identified the probable solution, we should be careful not to press it too far. Some have proposed that there is a feature in the Greek that makes the solution even more certain. According to some older grammars and commentaries, the verb akouō’s meaning changes in a way that is relevant here depending on the grammatical form of the noun that follows it.

In Greek, nouns take different forms, known as “cases,” depending on the role they play in a sentence (the same is true of nouns in Latin, German, Russian, and many other languages). Two of these cases that Greek uses are known as the genitive and the accusative. According to some, when akouō is followed by a noun in the genitive case, it stresses the hearing of the sound but not the understanding of it. By contrast, these individuals hold, if akouō is followed by a noun in the accusative case, it highlights the understanding of the sound.

It so happens that in Acts 9:7 the noun phōnē is in the genitive case, and in 22:9 it is in the accusative. This is then taken as evidence confirming the solution proposed above: In the first passage the companions are said to hear the sound while in the second they are said not to understand it.

The problem is that these claims are not at all clear from the way the verb is used in New Testament Greek.

Daniel Wallace, one of the foremost contemporary scholars of New Testament Greek, writes:

[I]t is doubtful that this is where the difference lay between the two cases used with akouō in Hellenistic Greek: the NT (including the more literary writers) is filled with examples of akouō + genitive indicating understanding (Matt 2:9; John 5:25; 18:37; Acts 3:23; 11:7; Rev 3:20; 6:3, 5; 8:13; 11:12; 14:13; 16:1, 5, 7; 21:3 as well as instances of akouō + accusative where little or no comprehension takes place (explicitly so in Matt 13:19; Mark 13:7/Matt 24:6/Luke 21:9; Acts 5:24; 1 Cor 11:18; Eph 3:2; Col 1:4; Phlm 5; Jas 5:11; Rev 14:2). The exceptions, in fact, are seemingly more numerous than the rule!

Thus, regardless of how one works through the accounts of Paul’s conversion, an appeal to different cases probably ought not form any part of the solution [Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 133-134].

We should thus be cautious of case-based arguments concerning the solution to this difficulty.

This does not mean, however, that we haven’t identified the correct solution. The most likely solution remains that the terms are simply being used in different senses in the two passages.

+++

Hope this helps.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

When you look at the painting it should be obvious that you are looking at a 100% BS lie.  Such books as the one the dude is holding didn't exist in the First Century.  Thanks for providing another nail for the coffin holding the corpse of the ethnocentric religious fairy tale.

[abaris]

And your point is? I mean, other than post a medieval picture, which I can appreciate for it's artistic and historical value.

[Randy Carson]

When you look at the painting it should be obvious that you are looking at a 100% BS lie.  Such books as the one the dude is holding didn't exist in the First Century.  Thanks for providing another nail for the coffin holding the corpse of the ethnocentric religious fairy tale.

Um...yeah...that medieval artist's rendition of the Word holding the Word is the final nail, alright.

[Randy Carson]

And your point is? I mean, other than post a medieval picture, which I can appreciate for it's artistic and historical value.

Point?

Min and I are just sharing some of our favorites with each other...kinda like looking through an old photo album with Grandpa one last time.

[abaris]

And....? Is that supposed to be a message from Lala Land?

As I said, I like medieval art, but what exactly is your point?