Did St Paul meet Jesus?

Great Debates
21

This is a commonly, albeit ignorantly, pointed out contradiction that is no contradiction at all. First off, which translation are you using, and why does the NIV say something different? Could be because it wasn’t in English, therefore you have to go and see why there is a difference. For instance, if I look at my son and say “Do you hear me?” when he’s standing right in front of me, I’m asking if he understands me, not if he hears me. So the connotation of ‘hear’ is different than saying someone who is deaf can’t hear, as someone who is deaf can understand, but can’t hear. So let’s look at the same passage in the NIV, then the Greek:

Acts 9:7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone
Acts 22: 9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

So the Greek:

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.

So clearly they were saying they heard the noise, but didn’t understand it, as it was possibly not in their language, as was made clear when Paul said in Acts 26:14 And when we all had fallen to the ground, I heard a voice speaking to me and saying in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

They which were with me (Paul) saw indeed the light, and were afraid, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.” In this place, the words “heard not the voice” must be understood in the sense of “understanding the words,” of hearing the address, the distinct articulation, which Paul heard. They heard a “noise”; they were amazed and alarmed, but they did not hear the distinct words addressed to Saul. A similar instance occurs in John 12:28-29, when the voice of God came from heaven to Jesus, “The people who stood by and heard it said it thundered.”

So whether they heard it as a thunder, they didn’t speak Hebrew, or just didn’t understand, clearly this is a weak case for a contradiction.

22

I happen to be on the rational side as well. I believe it to be true in the absense of proof. You dont believe its true in the same absense of proof. Lack of proof is not lack of existance. Do wormholes exist? Did they exist before there was proof or did they just appear when the proof was found?

23

Translation Schmanslation. I’m reading the Greek.

[symbol]Akouw[/symbol] means “hear.” That’s pretty much all it means. Sometimes other nuances can be inferred from context. Acts 22:9 is not one of those instances. In that passage it means they could not hear the voice. Period.

24

Clearly? Clearly?! It’s not clear to me at all! Can you show me other passages of the Bible where this exact Greek word was used to mean “understand”, as opposed to “hear”?

Perhaps you can, and I’d learn something new today. But if you can’t, then you’re just another “it could have meant” bibliolator.

25

Here’s one for you Svt4Him:

Same writer, same book of the Bible,

Acts 28:26 - …ye shall hear, and shall not understand…

Please tell me what Greek words Luke uses for hear and understand in this passage.

Nice try, but I have a Strong’s, too…

26

Hey that’s a great quote, but does your Greek also say:

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.

And you are correct, but Paul was the one saying it, and he may have used the same word, which does mean understand and hear, in the same way it does when I ask my son if he hears me. So roundguy, it kinda proves to me Luke recorded it like Paul said. And let’s not discredit the passage that talks about the Hebrew.

Diogenes the Cynic- of course you’re right…even when I posted the other passage, clearly Paul was saying that. Thanks for the insight.

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 inteligibly (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.
– Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, by Gleason L. Archer, p. 382.

27

Oh and RoundGuy, what does your concordance say about

John 8:43 where Jesus said to the Pharisees …

“Why do ye not ‘understand’(get to know) My speech(teaching)? Because ye cannot hear My word.”

Did the Pharisees not hear, by your definition, what Jesus was teaching?

28

Oh – my – God. You have got to be kidding me. Is this where you get all of your knowledge? This is, without question, the worst excuse for biblical apologetics I have ever read (well, except for maybe Josh McDowell).

If this is all you have Svt4Him, you are in big trouble.

I would strongly suggest you do some independent research. Perhaps you should start with the Secular Web to see how badly your favorite apologists have been discredited.

Regardless of the exact words of Paul, Luke (supposedly) wrote the Acts, and it is beyond comprehension that he would use totally different words, with totally different common meanings, to mean the same thing. Luke’s self proclaimed task was to make the gospel clearer, not to make it more confusing.

You need to do better than this.

29

The difference in accousative and genitive is only between whether what is being heard is a person or a thing. A “voice” which conveys a message would take the genitive (of person heard) but the case only serves to clarify what is being heard, it does not change the meaning of “akouo” per se. With no other modifiers or contextual clues, Acts 22:9 has a prima facia translation that they could not hear the voice.

Your rendering of the phrase is not necessarily incorrect but it is not the translation one would get at first gloss. It is rather an interpretive translation which seeks to avoid a contradiction with another passage. Read in a vaccuum, without a contradictory passage, there would be no reason to read ouk ekousan as anything other than “they did not hear.”

30

The above post is addressed to SvtHim, of course.

31

Do the passages state the nationality/ethnicity of his “companions”? If Paul understood Hebrew, did his companions? And would Paul have expected to be addressed by Jesus in Hebrew, or Aramaic?

32

Paul’s companions would have presumably been Greek Jews like him. As educated Jews they would have understood Hebrew (the language of Jewish scripture, but not the spoken language of Palestinian Jews at the time which was Aramaic).

33

Okay, you’ve proven that you can malign Dr. Gleason Archer. Congratulations. Now, how about directly refuting what he says?

34

Why not? English speakers do this all the time.

“I see” and “I understand” typically mean the same thing, even though they employ totally different verbs with totally different common meanings. It’s hardly beyond comprehension that people would use terms in that fashion.

Sometimes, a verb is used in its common sense. At other times, it isn’t. There’s nothing unusual about that, and there’s no rule of writing which dictates that a writer must consistently use the common sense of a term.

35

That’s a pretty big assumption. How do you know that they were Greek Jews who understood Hebrew? (Remember, the burden of proof rests on the person who claims that there is a contradiction between the verses in question.)

36

You can’t equate Greek idiom with English. It’s not the same.

37

Well, I’m a simple man, so let’s try this:

We have two choices:

  1. Mine, which says that Luke was using the common meaning of “hear” in both passages, and the passages contradict. Luke wrote what he meant, and meant what he wrote, as any reasonable, normal person would understand it.

  2. We have Gleason Archer who says:
    “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 inteligibly (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.”
    So, let’s apply Occam’s razor here … hmmmm, I think I’ll stick with #1.

38

Which part are you questioning, that they were Greek, that they were Jews or that they knew Hebrew?

Paul was a Greek Jew and and it is not really a question that his companions would have been Jewish. Gentiles would have had no reason to enlist in Saul’s campaign against Christian’s at that time. This was an entirely Jewish argument. The vision on the road to Damascus occurs after Paul has been to the High Priest in Jerusalem. Acts doesn’t specify if Saul’s companions were Greek or Palestinian. I would guess Greek because I would assume that they were his companions before he went to Jerusalem. Either way they would have known Hebrew because all educated Jews would have studied Hebrew. There is no reason to presume that Paul’s companions were not educated Jews is there?

39

Why?

If a clear reading of the passages shows a contradiction, then there is a contradiction. It’s self-evident. You (or Gleason Archer), on the other hand, need to go through all kinds of twists of logic and reasoning to prove otherwise.

I’ll stick with a clear reading of the passage, thank you.

40

BTW, the contradiction is self-evident. One passage says that they could see but not hear, the other says they could hear but not see. The attempts to explain away the contradiction are not convincing.

Let’s just think of English for a moment. “Hear” can sometimes indicate a figurative sense of understanding. As in, “I hear what you’re saying, man.” Mostly, though, it means hear, and if you read a sentence that says “they could not hear the voice,” the sense of the word “hear” is best inferred as literal unless some contextual cue indicates otherwise. It is the same with Acts 22:9.