DAY 249
CHALLENGE
“Accounts of Paul’s conversion in the New Testament contradict each other.”
DEFENSE
The passages are easily harmonized.
At the time of his conversion, Paul (aka Saul) was traveling to Damascus when a great light from heaven shone around him and Jesus spoke to him. A contradiction is alleged between two verses describing the reaction of the men who were with Paul:
The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing (akouontes) the voice (phōnēs) but seeing no one (Acts 9:7).
Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear (ēkousan) the voice (phōnēn) of the one who was speaking to me (Acts 22:9).
Both verses have forms of the Greek verb akouō for “hear” and the noun phōnē for “voice.” One seems to say the men with Paul heard the voice and the other that they didn’t.
However, both texts were written by the same author (Luke), who got the information from the same source (Paul). Luke was Paul’s traveling companion (see Day 26; cf. Col. 4:14, 2 Tim. 4:11, Philem. 24), and both accounts are based on Paul’s reminiscences to Luke. Consequently, if the passages can be read in harmony with each other, they should be. And, although it is not obvious from the above English translation, they can.
The verb akouō doesn’t just mean “hear.” It can also mean “understand.” Further, the noun phōnē doesn’t just mean “voice.” It also means “sound.” These are not controversial translations. They are found in any standard Greek lexicon.
Since the texts were written by the same author, relying on the same source, it is natural and straightforward to read the passages as saying that the men with Paul heard the sound but did not understand what the voice was saying to him.
This would be similar to John 12:28–29—when God speaks from heaven and some bystanders perceive it as thunder—indicating an ob- jective experience only incompletely perceived by those who were not its primary recipients. There is thus no contradiction.
TIP
Some apologists try to answer this challenge with an argument that cites the grammatical case of the noun following akouō. This argument is unnecessary and shaky. It is better avoided.