Are Paul’s Conversion Accounts Contradictory?

Passages of Conversion of Paul said to be in conflict

There are some who look at the accounts of Paul’s conversion in Acts and after a casual reading of the accounts assume that they are in conflict with each other.

Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting 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 rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. (Acts 9:3–8, ESV)

“As I was on my way and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone around me. And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’ And I answered, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’ Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me. And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.’ And since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus. (Acts 22:6–11, ESV)

“In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests. At midday, O king, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me. And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’ And I said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you as a servant and witness to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you, delivering you from your people and from the Gentiles—to whom I am sending you to open their eyes, so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me. (Acts 26:12–18, ESV)

They say because these accounts differ with one account having the men standing, another them falling, one them hearing, another them not hearing, and one them seeing, another them not seeing that these accounts must be contradictory with these multiple discrepancies. However, these discrepancies are only there if the texts are read casually, and proper scholarship is ignored.

Errors in looking at the accounts of Paul’s conversion

When the Gospel writers were writing their accounts paper was a limited resource. They were limited in the words they could write. Because of this, writing wasn’t an exhaustive play-by-play description of the event. Instead, their writing took as if it were snapshots of a movie. They were also more concerned with the accurate gist of the story rather than a detailed account of an event. For example, for a speech, you won’t necessarily get a word-by-word account, but you will get the heart of the message. They were also translating all this into Greek, so catching the heart of the message was key. When we see slight differences in the gospel it is because they are taking different gist snapshots of the story. Yet some read the accounts and think these gist snapshots are the movie. The characters and scenes and events are not like mannequins in a shopping window. Yet we treat these stories that way. And when you see the Gospels this way, you will see errors where there are none. It is the same with those who presume the accounts of Paul’s conversion are in contradiction.

Another error is assuming language is wooden and a word must mean the exact same thing everywhere. This is not how linguistics and literature work. One word can have a dynamic range of meanings which we ascertain by looking at the context. A word can mean one thing in one place and something else in another.

Another error is assuming Luke is a fool. Luke is known for his accuracy, and we ought to give him the benefit of the doubt. To assume that he was unaware of any differences in his accounts is assuming we are more observant than Luke. Luke a companion with Paul would have been familiar with Paul’s account. It would be unlikely for him to make the mistakes that people claim, especially when the descriptions he gave fit well with what we would expect to have taken place.

Also, the fact must be dealt with that an author is less likely to contradict himself in a short book. If it is longer, a little more likely. If writing another book, then a little more likely. If the two books are several years apart, a little more likely. If written by two different authors then more likely. The point being Luke contradicting himself in the book of Acts is unlikely and it is in the prerogative of those who believe there is a contradiction to provide definitive evidence for if there is a good explanation for the differences then that explanation is more likely to be true than believing Luke contradicted himself.

Seeing/not seeing

Acts 22 states that the men saw a light and Acts 9 states that the men saw no one. A light and a person are not the same things. Together this just tells us that the men saw the light but did not see anyone. There is no contradiction. The fact that this is used to support the case that these accounts are in conflict demonstrates the poor scholarship of those who take this position. A scholar does not present false evidence to support their claim. The fact that some feel the need to do so only makes them look foolish. Act 26 helps to bring Acts 9 and Acts 22 together. Acts 26:13 says, “I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, that shone around me and those who journeyed with me” inferring again that all the men and Paul saw the light. But in 26:19 Jesus says, “But rise and stand upon your feet, for I have appeared to you”. “You” here is singular referring to only Paul. So, Jesus confirms that only Paul could see him. Other verses confirm that Paul saw Jesus (Acts 9:27, 22:14, and 26:16).

Hearing/not hearing

Another error in their scholarship is the failure to understand how language works. They look at these accounts and claim that in Acts 9 the men heard Jesus’ words, but in Acts 22 they did not hear Jesus’ words. The word used in both of these passages is a form of “ἀκούω” which can mean either to hear or to understand. It can be used in much the same way as when someone is talking to me and I hear the noise but don’t understand them and say, “Sorry, I didn’t hear you.” Or if someone is whispering and we say, “Sorry, I can’t hear you”. Or when someone spaces out or simply wants to clarify if someone understood, we might say “Did you hear me?” Language is dynamic with a semantic range and not wooden it is in the context of the story that we understand its meaning. In other passages we see “ἀκούω” being used in these two distinct ways. It is used to mean the process of hearing in Matthew 13;16 and 2 Timothy 2:2. It is used to mean understanding in Matthew 11:15, 1 Corinthians 14:2, and in Galatians 4:21. Since we use the word “hear” this way, it should be no surprise that Luke does the same. Also, in Acts 22 Luke is translating Aramaic into Greek and used the Greek word he saw as a natural translation.

Also, the term for “voice” in these passages is a form of “φωνή” which can refer to a voice or sound, depending on the context. In other passages we see “φωνή” being used this way. It is used to refer to a voice in John 5:25, John 10:4, and in Luke 17:15. It is used to refer to an indistinct sound or noise in 1 Corinthians 4:7 and Revelation 14:2.

The purpose and context of Acts 9 and 22 are different with different emphases. To further confirm that Paul meant “understanding” in his Acts 22 speech, he says in Acts 22:14, “And he said, ‘The God of our fathers appointed you to know his will, to see the Righteous One and to hear a voice from his mouth;” (Acts 22:14, ESV). He is telling the account to juxtapose the fact that just as the men heard the voice but did not understand, so too the Jews have heard the voice of God and have seen the light but have not understood. Not only in these two places but throughout his speech Paul uses “ἀκούω” both to mean the process of hearing (vs. 2, 22), and the process of understanding (vs. 1, 7, 9, 14, 15, 26) and demonstrates that there is a difference between the two. Paul understood the message, the Jews though hearing have not understood. In just one speech it is clear that Paul uses “ἀκούω” in these two ways. Paul’s speech would not make sense and would sound ridiculous if you try to apply a wooden semantic definition for “ἀκούω” throughout his speech. Paul is emphasizing what Jesus told him, “they will not accept your testimony about me”. Obviously, since it is clear that “ἀκούω” is used in this manner, there is no problem with listening to or reading Acts 9 and Act 22 and understanding that they are doing the same.

Those who insist on a wooden semantic don’t understand how language works and ignore how Paul is using the term in his speech. Also, they have to claim that Luke who is careful in his writings was careless. What makes more sense is that those insisting that this is a contradiction are the ones who are being careless.

Standing/falling

It is claimed that Acts 9 states that the men were standing and Acts 26 states that they had fallen, and both cannot be true. Really? Are the men mannequins in a store window who are frozen in time? Surely not. This view of these passages is quite silly. In the account of the group of men coming to arrest Jesus in the garden, we get this description in John,

So Judas, having procured a band of soldiers and some officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, went there with lanterns and torches and weapons. Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, “Whom do you seek?” They answered him, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus said to them, “I am he.” Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, “I am he,” they drew back and fell to the ground. So he asked them again, “Whom do you seek?” And they said, “Jesus of Nazareth.” Jesus answered, “I told you that I am he. So, if you seek me, let these men go.” (John 18:3–8, ESV)

In this account, the men fell and since they arrested Jesus, they got back up to do so. The description of these men falling does not mean that they had permanently fallen or had stayed fallen through the whole scene. The men did indeed fall but got back up and were standing by the time Jesus finished talking with Paul.

How these accounts fit together

On Paul’s way to Damascus, all of the sudden a bright light appears. Either before or as Jesus starts speaking all present fell to the ground. The men with Paul saw the light and heard a noise but did not understand the voice nor saw a man. Not seeing Jesus and not hearing what he was saying they stood baffled and trying to figure out what was occurring. Paul having seen Jesus and hearing what Jesus said did what most do in that situation. He remained on the ground. After Jesus finished speaking with Paul was blind. Notice Acts 26:16 says that all the men fell, but in verse 19 Jesus tells Paul alone to stand because the other men were already standing, “But rise and stand upon your feet.” When Paul moved to stand, the men who were already standing nearby were able to come to him quickly and help him to his feet and led him to Damascus.

Articles to read/Videos to watch:

Series Navigation<< Massacre of the innocentsThe guards at the tomb would not have spread a rumor, because it would incur severe punishment. >>