Who Heard Jesus’ Voice On The Damascus Road?
.jpg)
Skeptics and critics frequently claim that the Bible is full of contradictions. One of them is about who heard Jesus’ voice on the Damascus road. Here it is:
When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice, did those who were with him hear the voice?
(a) Yes (Acts 9: 7)
(b) No (Acts 22: 9)
Many Bible translations do not precisely translate the Greek, which makes it appear that there really is a contradiction as to who heard Jesus’ voice. However, this supposed “contradiction” is easily cleared up when we look at an accurate translation of the verses under examination.
“The men who were traveling with Saul heard the sound but did not see anyone” (Acts 9:7 NIV).
“The men with Saul stood speechless, for they heard the sound of some’s voice but saw no one!”—Acts 9:7 NLT
“My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him. who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9 NIV).
When we examine the two accounts, it is easy to see that Saul’s traveling companions heard the sound of a voice speaking to Saul, but they did not understand the words being spoken.
The Greek word for “voice” (pho·neʹ) at Acts 9:7 is in the genitive case (pho·nesʹ) and gives, in this verse, the sense of hearing of a voice—hearing the sound but not understanding. At Acts 22:9 pho·neʹ is in the accusative case (pho·nenʹ): the men “did not hear the voice”—they heard the sound of a voice but did not get the words, the meaning; they did not understand what Jesus was saying to Saul, as Saul did. (Acts 9:4) This knowledge from the original Koine’ Greek of the Bible’s use of the idea of ‘hearing’ in both senses helps to clear up what would otherwise appear to be a contradiction.
This is another case of the skeptics and critics being silenced over their criticism of the Bible. “God will always be true even if no human being can be relied on” (Romans 3:4 NJB).
3 thoughts on “Who Heard Jesus’ Voice On The Damascus Road?”
BA1: Skeptics and critics frequently claim that the Bible is full of contradictions.
GW1: The Bible is not “full” of contradictions, but it has many of them. Also, it has inconsistencies, deviations from the conclusions of science, and immoral commands. Another kind of flaw is when one Gospel mentions an important detail which the other three Gospels do not mention. For example, Matthew says that during the time of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, dead people came out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem. Ha. What a joke!
BA1: One of them is about who heard Jesus’ voice on the Damascus road. Here it is: When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice, did those who were with
him hear the voice?
(a) Yes (Acts 9: 7)
(b) No (Acts 22: 9)
GW1: I think there is a third report of this incident. What did it say?
BA1: Many Bible translations do not precisely translate the Greek, which makes it appear that there really is a contradiction as to who heard Jesus’ voice. However, this supposed “contradiction” is easily cleared up when we look at an accurate translation of the verses under examination.
GW1: So now you are going to tell us what is the correct translation? I won’t believe you. You are not an expert in Biblical translation from the original languages (Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek) to English. You might cite an expert with whom you agree, but what do the other experts say about the same verses? Is there a consensus view among the experts, and if so, what is it? What percentage of agreement constitutes a consensus? You will skim over these important issues.
GW1: The best approach here is to select ONE AND ONLY ONE English translation, one which is commonly used by the experts, like the NIV or NRSV, and stick with that. I have already done this with the story of Saul on the Road to Damascus, long ago, and presented my analysis to you in person! The three stories are INCONSISTENT on whether the companions on the trip saw the light or heard the voice. I am very confident that Saul experienced a hallucination, but the other good alternative explanation is that the story is a fabrication.
GW1: I found this from Bart Ehrman: “ I think the NRSV is the best translation of the Bible available. And I especially like it in a study edition, such as the HarperCollins Study Bible.”
https://ehrmanblog.org/my-preferred-bible-translation-for-members/
Henceforth, I will be using the NRSV.
BA1: “The men who were traveling with Saul heard the sound but did not see anyone” (Acts 9:7 NIV).
GW1: What exactly did they hear? Where are the written reports from each of them?
BA1: “My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him. who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9 NIV).
GW1: What kind of light? What did it look like? Only one person in the entire group heard a voice and understood it? Very odd and unlikely. Where are the written reports from each of the companions?
BA1: When we examine the two accounts, it is easy to see that Saul’s traveling companions heard the sound of a voice speaking to Saul, but they did not understand the words being spoken.
GW1: One account says the companions heard a voice, but the other says they heard a sound. Big difference! A voice is a very particular kind of sound. Was the experience of the companions unanimous? If the story is true and if the companions heard a voice, I am confident that all the relevant verses would say that the companions heard a voice. This cannot be the Word of God since God would not permit such a discrepancy.
BA1: The Greek word for “voice” (pho·neʹ) at Acts 9:7 is in the genitive case (pho·nesʹ) and gives, in this verse, the sense of hearing of a voice —hearing the sound but not understanding. At Acts 22:9 pho·neʹ is in the accusative case (pho·nenʹ): the men “did not hear the voice” —they heard the sound of a voice but did not get the words, the meaning; they did not understand what Jesus was saying to Saul, as Saul did. (Acts 9:4) This knowledge from the original Koine’ Greek of the Bible’s use of the idea of ‘hearing’ in both senses helps to clear up what would otherwise appear to be a contradiction.
GW1: I don’t believe you! You are not an expert in Biblical translation. Experts study the languages for at least four years and usually more. For every expert you could find who would agree with you, I could probably find an expert who disagreed with you. I believe there are over a hundred English translations of the Bible, so even the expert translators disagree with each other. Taking the NIV English translation as it is, there are discrepancies in the story of Saul here. So, we do not know exactly what happened. It would help if everyone on the trip wrote a report and these reports were preserved, but this did not happen. Based on my reading of the relevant verses and my knowledge of human psychology, my best guess is that Saul experienced a hallucination, and my second best guess is that the whole story is a fabrication used to rationalize Saul’s conversion from strict Judaism to primitive Christianity.
BA1: This is another case of the skeptics and critics being silenced over their criticism of the Bible.
GW1: I am a skeptic, critic, and gnostic atheist, and I have not been silenced! The days of the Inquisition are over.
BA1: “God will always be true even if no human being can be relied on” (Romans 3:4 NJB).
GW1: Why did you switch versions here? Didn’t the NIV align with your own views here? If God did exist, he would regularly speak the truth to all living persons at the same time. This has never happened. Therefore, God does not exist.
GW1: God would not use Jesus to speak to people. And God would not just speak to Saul at one time. He would speak to all living persons at the same time! Would there be any doubts that God exists? Would there be any atheists? No and No.
This is also a good rendering:
“The men with Saul stood speechless, for they heard the sound of some’s voice but saw no one!”—Acts 9:7 NLT
I don’t use the NLT and I don’t trust your skill in translation. The bottom line is that the details of the three different renditions of the story of Saul on the Road to Damascus are inconsistent and thus the story could not have been inspired, approved, or dictated by God, even if he did exist, which he doesn’t. The best explanation is that Saul had a hallucination of Jesus. The second best explanation is that the story is just fabrication. Jesus was already dead.