CONTRADICTION BETWEEN ACTS 9:7 AND ACTS 22:9

“As [an] example of a New Testament contradiction, the conflicting accounts of Paul’s conversion can be cited. Acts 9:7 states that when Jesus called Paul to preach the gospel, the men who were with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. According to Acts 22:9, however, the men saw a light but didn’t hear the voice speaking to Paul.” (American Humanist Association)

F.F. Bruce: “Luke realized the importance of Paul's conversion in the history of salvation for, despite his limited space, he relates it in some detail, once in the third person (ch. 9), and twice narrated by Paul himself (ch 22 and 26).” However, the reactions of the bystanders are not mentioned in the last recounting.

Longman notes the similarity of this NT theophany with that found in Daniel 10:1-9. “Those around Daniel do not see the vision but somehow they sense some great power because they immediately flee the scene and hide.” And Marshall points out additional parallels in Deuteronomy 4:12 and the apocryphal book Wisdom of Solomon 18:1.

There are three ways in which we might provide an answer to the apparent contradiction posed by the AHA, but it should be mentioned that none is exactly definitive.

Paul's voice is the one that the people heard in Acts 9, not the heavenly voice.

Trenchard explains that the account in Acts 22:9 adds that Saul replied to the voice asking, “What shall I do, Lord?” Thus, the remark in Acts 9:7 that the men with him “heard a voice” refers to the fact that they heard Saul's voice. This interpretation was probably first proposed by the early Church Father John Chrysostom (347-407 AD). Neil also feels that this is the most probable explanation.

The major problem with this solution is that it is unlikely that Luke in Acts 9:7 would have said, “they heard the voice” if it merely referred to Saul's question. Instead, he would have written something like, “but they did hear Saul's reply.”

The bystanders, according to Acts 22:9, did hear the voice but they could not understand the words.

This would also seem to be a remote possibility since the Greek word akouontes translated “hear” is the same in both accounts. But there is a subtle grammatical difference between the two usages. Thus, Toussaint explains that “the verb 'to hear' with the genitive case may mean 'to hear a sound' and with the accusative case 'to hear with understanding.' The genitive is employed in 9:7, and the accusative is used in 22:9. So the travelers with Saul heard the sound (9:7) but did not understand what Christ said (22:9).”

Regarding this possibility, Fitzmyer states, “Moulton insisted on the distinction: the acc. of the thing heard and the gen. of the person heard from...This distinction may be valid for Greek in general, but it 'does not accord with Lukan usage (Bruce).'” And elsewhere, Bruce says that 'this is not the normal distinction between the accusative and genitive cases after akouontes.”

There is indeed a contradiction, but it is a minor one that does not affect any substantial issue.

This is probably a good place to point out that there are numerous such “contradictions” in the exact wordings found when comparing parallel passages in the four Gospel accounts. But instead of taking these as problems for the Christian, they actually go toward strengthening the probability that the events being described really did take place. The reason for my statement is that it demonstrates the Evangelists did not simply copy word-for-word from one possibly dubious account, but instead each one described the events from the viewpoint of an eyewitness, whether themselves or the sources that they interviewed. And we know from his own words that Luke utilized a number of such reliable sources in composing Acts as well. Thus, in the three times he recounts Paul's conversion, he may have been accurately quoting from up to three different witnesses using their own impressions of what transpired. This leaves us in little doubt as to whether the conversion actually took place, and that is the most important fact to relay.

Joseph Fitzmyer says in regard to Acts 22:9, “This difference from 9:7 is almost a contradiction, a strange thing in a composition by one and the same writer, but Luke makes no profession of accuracy of detail in such matters. His concern is only to show that the traveling companions are aware of something that is happening to Paul and so that they are witnesses of his experience on that road.”

I don't know if I would totally agree with Fitzmyer that “Luke makes no profession of accuracy of detail.” (see Luke 1:1-4) However, even if this third possible approach to the problem is taken, we can see that certainly didn't affect Luke's own faith in any way nor did it cause Fitzmyer himself, a Jesuit priest, to give up his calling or cause him to reject the Bible outright as do the American Humanists.