Jinx. Buy me a coke. 
Perhaps the contextual clue is his reference to the message being in Hebrew? He would have no reason to mention it, like I would have no reason to specify English. He may have been inferring an explanation as to why his companions didn’t “get” it.
He may not have been traveling with Hellenized Jews, but maybe a couple of Phoenician sluts going to Damascus to work the convention circuit. Or something.
Paul didn’t like girls.
Seriously, though, if he was travelling with gentiles the text would have mentioned it. It would have been unusual enough to require an explanation, especially since Paul was on a purely religious mission to Damascus.
The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim, that’s why.
Or it could mean that your reading is superficial, and fails to consider idiomatic expressions, context or nuances of the original language. Such considerations may not matter to someone who jumps headlong toward a conclusion, but they are very important to people who desire accuracy.
No, you are asserting that Luke meant to use the common meaning of “hear.” You have yet to substantiate that claim.
Occam’s Razor is not an excuse for jumping to hasty conclusions, without considering nuances of language. It is not meant to excuse sloppy scholarship.
Another possibility (as suggested by my Oxford Annotated edition) is that Luke simply didn’t draw a distinction between Hebrew and Aramaic. Hellenized Jews, therefore, would have studied Hebrew but not necessarily have understood Aramaic.
Of course this explanation assumes that Saul/Paul’s companions actually heard a supernatural voice which I am not ready to accept without some pretty damn good proof. I throw it out as a sop the apologists.
The default assumption is that the word should be read for its plain meaning. Akouo is nuanced in a similar manner to English. If I said I heard a voice in Tasmanian but my buddies didn’t hear it, the plain meaning of the sentence is that they physically did not hear it not that they didn’t understand it. The context in the passage from Acts does not lend itself to the nuance that you want.
I started this whole sidetrack with a crack about a “hallucination.” I just meant it to be a throwaway line but I realize that for many people it was belittling thing to say about what is a seminal event in Christian history. To get way back to the OP, I will just say that Paul never met Jesus before the crucifixion but that he had a visionary experience on the road to Damascus which Paul at lest believed was a direct communication with christ and which transformed Paul’s life and led to a mission who’s importance to the development of Christianity cannot be overstated.
I apologize for being flippant about other people’s beliefs.
'm pointing out that we don’t have enough information to conclude any of those points.
It most certainly is questionable! While there is reason to believe that they would have been Greek Jews, we simply cannot conclude that they were. There isn’t nearly enough evidence to support that claim.
The default assumption is not necessarily correct. Words can have multiple meanings, and the shades of those meanings can vary depending on the context and the writer’s intent.
Shifting the burden of proof, eh?
If you’re going to claim that a contradiction exists, then the burden of proof rests on you to show that there IS one. Otherwise, all you have is a potential contradiction, which ultimately proves nothing.
The contradiction is evident on its face. The two passages make opposite claims. If you want to claim that they don’t contradict then you have the burden of proof. My burden is met by a simple prima facia reading of the text.
The only question is whether they were Greek or Palestinian. Whether they were Jews is beyond any serious debate. Gentiles would have no interest in cleansing Jewish synagogues. All educated Jews studied Hebrew, so it’s pretty much a cinch that Paul’s companions knew Hebrew unless you can show a reason that gentiles would have accompanied him on a Jewish religious mission.
I find it interesting that Paul, in his 14 epistles, written over a 15 year +/- period, never once mentions the remarkable events surrounding his conversion. What better testimony could he offer than a firsthand account of the events he experienced that day on that road to Damascus.
Yet, without any apparent explanation, the early Christians, the victims of his earlier persecutions, accept Paul as their friend. Strange.
If it’s self-evident by plain reading, actually, the burden is on you to show that a non-standard meaning was meant. Contradictions are not exactly impossible or even unlikely occurances: the idea that Archer defends: that there are not and CAN NOT be any contradicitons, and any passage MUST be read so as to alleviate the contradiction, no matter how obscure the interpretation necessary, is itself pretty darn extreme as claims go.
Eh? Are you reading the same Bible I am? Because I seem to remember Paul reffering to just this story in 1 Cor 15:5-9, albiet vaguely.
Another interesting note: how seriously can we take Paul’s claim that he was a Pharisee? His writing doesn’t bear the usual characteristics drummed into you in their teachings till they become second nature. He’s taking orders from the High Priest: the very guy who HIMSELF persecuted Pharisees.
Hate Paul if you will, but he’s one of the few writers in the NT to use sarcasm to humorous effect.
Apos
This reference must be in verse 9 as the other 4 miss completely. Do you really consider this a “vague” reference to his miraculous conversion?
1 Cor 15:5 - 9
5 - 8 not referenced.
King James Version
9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle,
because I persecuted the church of God.
New American Bible
9 For I am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because
I persecuted the church of God
I Think what Paul was referencing was these facts:
Acts 8: 3.
3 As for Saul, he made havock of the church, entering into every house,
and haling men and women committed them to prison.
Acts 22: 19.
19 And I said, Lord, they know that I imprisoned and beat in every
synagogue them that believed on thee:
Acts 22: 4.
4 And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering
into prisons both men and women.
This again, proves my point. Paul realizes he has a few skeletons in his closet,
and admits to it, but, He FORGETS all about his conversion? I just can’t help but wonder why he doesn’t act a little more appreciative towards his God who has favored him with a personal visit, by at least mentioning it somewhere, if not everywhere, in his writings.
Apos
I don't remember saying.. "I hate Paul" ...?
Apos
I’m not criticizing what Paul wrote, it is what Paul didn’t write that I’m critical about.
Thanks for listening.
Hmmm … interesting. I’ve never studied Greek, but I know the Greek alphabet and I have a big hairy Greek lexicon in front of me.
The Number I definition for Akouo is “to hear.” In fact, this definition says that if it takes the accusative, it refers to the *thing heard, and if it takes the genitive, it refers to the person from whom it is heard.
However, this is only the Number I definition. The Number IV definition is “to listen to, give ear to,” and the 3rd sub-definition under Definition IV is this:
3. to hear and understand, kluontes ouk ekouon (Aesch.)
(Note that I may have mangled that Greek-letter transliteration.)
So here we do have a definition for Akouo in a “real” Greek lexicon that says that the verb can mean “understand” as well as “hear.” However, I see no indication that this Definition IV.3. for Akouo takes the accusative case. In fact, Definition IV.2. for the same verb is “to obey”, which takes the genitive!
So, my question is: Where does Gleason L. Archer get his information that akouo means “to hear a noise” when it takes the genitive and “to understand” when it takes the accusative?
You’ve got that reversed. Archer claims that Paul’s companions heard the voice in the accusative (of thing heard) but not in the genitive (of person heard). He claims that this distinction means that they heard the voice but did not understand it. This is, imo, a rather specious argument as the case does not change the sense of akouo but only indicates what is being heard. It’s not exactly wrong or impossible but it’s a highly selective interpretation by a writer who is motivated to explain away seeming contradictions.
If you’re going to ask the question in an intellectually honest manner, you’d do well to take into consideration a few points:
-
Luke, writing two apparently inconsistent comments in the same letter, would have looked, well, something less than accurate to his intended audience, to be generous, had they understood the comments to bear a discrepancy. Noting his statements at the beginning of Luke, he declares his intent to “write an orderly account” of those things he had “carefully investigated…from the beginning”.
-
We have no record that Paul ever initiated a “correction” consistent with any “inconsistency”, nor any other record mentioning such a discrepancy. This isn’t conclusive, but it is a consideration.
-
The existence of this letter, use amongst the early churches, copies made and maintained, all lend credibility to its integrity as a detailed summary of events during Paul’s life shortly before and during his ministry. Again, not conclusive exclusively, but it does bear consideration.
-
You presume, it appears, that no one in the earliest years of the church ever caught this blatant error (pat yourself on the back if it feels good) and further presume this supports your declaration of irreconciliable contradiction, when the more likely explanation is directly contrary. It seems eminently more likely that those speaking Greek at the time had a much better understanding of the language than any doper with a handy Strong’s by his side.
Taking all this into consideration, I am persuaded that those who demand only the “simple” solution regardless of the reasonable argument otherwise, to the contrary, are not interested in an honest discussion of the issue in question. I am, not surprisingly, more willing to listen to those with a considered opinion based on all relevant considerations, and supplemented with solid knowledge of first century Greek.
Add to this that you are declaring a contradiction based, likely, on little direct knowledge of the Greek language in use at the time. And, you are, subconsciously at least, presuming that no one at any time relative to the letter dating ever recognized the same “error”, which might have resulted in a clarification or further explanatory correspondence, were it needed.
That was not for you, but for everyone.
Read Cor again: those passages I mentioned DO mention that Paul met Jesus.
How so? If I understand what you are implying, then what reason do we have to believe that Paul ever met the author of Luke or read his work? How is it a consideration when Paul would have been far too dead to be checking up tracts for minor errors?