Defending Paul – Part 9 - The Damascus Road Event

Differences in the Damascus Road narrative:

One argument presented against the apostleship of Paul is that there are three accounts of Paul’s Damascus Road experience in the Acts of the Apostles (authored by Luke).

Acts 9:3 -9

“3 Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.

4 And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?...

7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.

Acts 22:6-11

6 “As I was on my way and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone around me.

7 And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?...

9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me.

Acts 26:11-18

12 “In this connection I journeyed to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests.

13 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.

14 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 …”

There may be some differences in these narratives, but I think it is relatively easy to harmonise them, as they are not unequivocally contradictory. More significantly though, the three accounts, even though two of them are Luke quoting Paul, are all written by Luke. Any discrepancies then are surely either the fault of Luke or the subsequent transcribers and translators! Surely, we can’t lay any blame for any possible or apparent discrepancies here at the feet of Paul.

Given the number of questions that I encountered regarding apparent discrepancies in these narratives, I will give some more detail.

Firstly, the fact that there are differences; that the accounts are not all identical (even though all written by Luke), is actually good evidence for their veracity and for the reliability of the witnesses.

This can be seen in these quotes which discuss the same issue of witness testimony in terms of the resurrection narratives.

Retired judge and lawyer/solicitor/barrister Herbert C. Casteel (Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, College Press: 1992 p. 211):
"The internal evidence of the resurrection accounts: Each of the four Gospels gives an account of that first Easter Sunday when Jesus arose from the tomb. When we first read these accounts it appears they are in hopeless contradiction. Matthew says it was Mary Magdalene and the other Mary who went out to the tomb. Mark says it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome. Luke says it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them, and John mentions only Mary Magdalene. Furthermore, they all mention different people to whom Jesus appeared on that day.

Does this mean that these are false reports, made-up by dishonest men to deceive us? On the contrary, this is good evidence that these are truthful accounts, because people who conspire to testify to a falsehood rehearse carefully to avoid contradictions. False testimony appears on the surface to be in harmony, but discrepancies appear when you dig deeper. True accounts may appear on the surface to be contradictory, but are found to be in harmony when you dig deeper."

Legal writer Clifford, in discussing the "minor variations test" for authenticity of evidence, notes that differences are EXPECTED from witnesses (Leading Lawyers' Case for the Resurrection Canadian Institute for Law, Theology, and Public Policy, 1996 p. 61):

"The minor variations test. ... Whilst truthful witnesses complement each other, a judge would not expect them to describe the same incidents in precisely the same way. If they did, that would point to conspiracy. Sometimes there may not be total uniformity in the order of events. One anticipates variations when two or more people testify about the same incident."

It is interesting that some in-depth recent work on these events, by John Wenham, a biblical scholar (Easter Enigma, Baker: 1992, rev. ed.) describes a similar pattern. So, pp.10-11:

"I first became interested in the subject in 1945 when living in Jerusalem not far from the old walled city. I got to know the sites in and around the city intimately. I had no real doubts that the gospel writers were honest and well informed people, providentially equipped by God to give the church a sound account of these events, but I was by no means committed to the view that the accounts were correct in every detail. Indeed I was impressed in my early studies of the resurrection stories by the seemingly intractable nature of the discrepancies.

It is by no means easy to see how these things can be fitted together while remaining strictly faithful to what the writers say. But an insatiable curiosity made me want to know who did what and why each writer put things so. Reading all I could and studying the Greek text carefully, I gradually found many of the pieces of the jigsaw coming together. It now seems to me that these resurrection stories exhibit in a remarkable way the well-known characteristics of accurate and independent reporting, for superficially they show great disharmony, but on close examination the details gradually fall into place."

German classical historian Hans Stier: "the sources for the resurrection of Jesus, with their relatively big contradictions over details, present for the historian for this very reason a criterion of extraordinary credibility."

So, are the three accounts of the ‘great light’ to seriously contradictory, or do they fit the criteria of being believable ‘witness testimony’?

The Acts 9 narrative is Luke writing from memory of what he knew; the Acts 22 and Acts 26 versions are Luke quoting the Apostle Paul. Note that in quoting the Apostle Paul, Luke’s 2 accounts may differ but he does not have Paul contradicting himself.

Event	Acts 9	Acts 22	Acts 26
Great light	Yes	Yes	Yes
Sha’ul falls to ground	Yes	Yes	Yes
Sha’ul hears voice	Yes	Yes	Yes
Sha’ul blinded	Yes	Yes	Not told, but ‘sent to open eyes’
Men – see light	Not told either way	Yes	Yes
Men – hear voice	Yes	?	Not told
Men – understand voice	Not told	No. Many versions have that they didn’t hear; a number that they didn’t understand.	Not told
Men fall	Not told	Not told	Yes

In Acts 9 we are told the men stand ‘speechless’ or ‘dumbstruck’. This does not negate that after a moment of being ‘dumbstruck’ by the light and voice, that they also fall. So this is not necessarily contradictory either.

The issue of whether the men with The Apostle Paul also heard the voice (of Yeshua) is an interesting one though.

Here is how some argue that these accounts are ‘hopelessly contradictory’:

“In Acts 9:7 we are told that the men travelling with Paul hear a voice; in Acts 22:9 that they didn’t hear the voice; and in Acts 26:14 that only Paul heard the voice. Thus, these details are totally contradictory.” - paraphrasing

Looking at a number of translations we see a consistent message in Acts 9:7 that the men did hear the voice, but we are not told if they understood it.  The translations also give a consistent message in Acts 26:14 that only the Apostle Paul heard the voice (in Hebrew). Acts 26 does not tell us whether the other men heard the voice at all.

For Acts 22:9, I checked some 32 English versions on Biblegateway.com and 20 of them have that the men ‘did not hear the voice’. Of the other 12 some have that they heard but did not understand.

The Greek word used here for  ‘hear’ or ‘heard’ is ‘ακούω ‘ (Strong’s G191). Strong’s tells us that G191 can mean ‘hear’, (in various senses) or ‘to understand’ or ‘be reported’. So even the word ‘listen’ can be a suitable translations as in Matthew 10:14 “And if anyone will not receive you or listen (G191) to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town.” Clearly then in Matt 10:14 G191 means means ‘understand’.

In Romans 10:17 “So faith comes from hearing (G191), and hearing through the word of Messiah.”. Also here then the meaning is also clearly to ‘understand’.

So given that this Greek word can mean either hear or understand, does its use in Acts 22:9 mean that the men heard absolutely nothing or that they didn’t understand what was heard?

While we can’t be certain, if we expect some consistency in Luke’s writings and he has already told us in Acts 9 that they did hear the voice, then the meaning of ‘understand’ certainly has the higher probability.

The fact that whether the men ‘heard/understood’ or did not ‘hear/understand’ in Acts 26 is an omission of detail, not a contradiction of this detail. Appreciate that in Greek there is really no contradiction between Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. Provided you use the relevant meaning of ‘ακούω’ (G191) in each of these verses then one is just stating that the mean heard and the other that they heard but didn’t understand. In other words Acts 22:9 gives a little more detail, not a contradictory reading.

We might ask though how could the men have seen the light and not be blinded when Paul was, and also hear the voice and yet not understood it as Paul did?

Firstly, I think it relevant to mention than Luke informs us that Ananias in Damascus actually tells the Apostle Paul (rather than the Apostle Paul informing him), that The Apostle Paul had had a vision of Yeshua and Yeshua had spoken to him.

“… And laying his hands on him he said, Brother Paul, the Lord Yeshua who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” – Acts 9:17

This narrative is good support for the whole event and a fair inference can be drawn here that the other men had not been blinded as well.  It would seem the vision, while having some impact on the other men, was specifically directed at the Apostle Paul.

These men were all travelling back from the Hellenistic Sadducean High Priest in Jerusalem. Given that much of the disputation against the followers of Yeshua (for example those involved in stoning Stephen) were from Hellenistic cities like Alexandria (and the Sanhedrin was largely composed of Hellenists as the High Priests were installed by Rome), it is possible that these men were even citizens of Damascus and Greek speaking Jews (who had not also had the Hebrew education that the Apostle Paul had had). Therefore, it is possible that they heard Yeshua speaking in Hebrew and could not understand the language. Thus, it would then make sense to learn that they heard the voice but did not understand it.

Regardless of whether such conjecture is close to the truth, there clearly is little contradiction between these three accounts of whether the men ‘heard/understood’ (G191) the voice. From this Greek word ακούω and the combining of all three versions it should be clear that whatever the full details of the miraculous event were, the men HEARD but did not UNDERSTAND.

So the differences in these 3 accounts by Luke are minimal and fit the expectations of subtle differences between witness testimonies and recollections, which help confirm rather than negate these testimonies.

Another argument against Paul is that he directly disobeyed his teacher and Rabbi, the revered Gamaliel I. In Acts 5, we read Gamaliel’s instructions to leave the Apostles be:

Acts 5:33-40

“33 When they heard this, they were enraged and wanted to kill them.

34 But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while.

35 And he said to them, Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men.

36 For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.

37 After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered.

38 So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail;

39 but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God! So they took his advice,

40 and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.”

Note that this occurred fairly soon after the outpouring of the Spirit at Shavuot (Pentecost) and was therefore some 2-3 years before the events on the road to Damascus. While it is possible that Paul was involved in the persecution of Yeshua’s followers at this time, the first mention of him is at the stoning of Stephen, which most scholars place as occurring some 2 to 3 years after these events of the Shavuot in the year of the resurrection. If 2-3 years had elapsed, isn’t it possible that Gamaliel had by now changed his instructions, or that for some reason unknown to us, they were no longer considered binding on his pupils. 

Also, we need to appreciate that our understanding of what it means to ‘… keep away from these men and let them alone …’ may be a little different from theirs, as you will note that in heeding Gamaliel’s advice they still beat up the Apostles!!

Another common argument is that the 12 Apostles to Israel made it quite clear that Gentile followers should not eat meat offered to idols, whereas the Apostle to the Gentiles, Paul said that idols are nothing, and that therefore it was ok to eat such meat. Again, this is totally missing the rhetorical approach that Paul used to lead his Gentile audience from their pagan practices into following the Noahide Laws which included, as per the Jerusalem Council, NOT eating meat sacrificed to idols. On this point, I would refer you back to the evidence already quoted from Schurer in “The Jewish People in the Times of Jesus” (also quoted in my article 'Colossians 2:16 and the Sabbath').

This evidence highlights that the ‘church’ in the Diaspora, even as late as the end of the 1^st century CE, were following Jewish food laws. In ‘The Mystery of Romans’, Prof. Mark Nanos also spends some time showing how the Apostle Paul was in fact supporting obedience to the Noahide Laws by the Gentile believers in Rome.

Next: Conclusions & Appendix on ‘Works of the Law’ 

Or get the book http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Apostle-Paul-Weighing-ebook/dp/B009TLLK0U/

 

 http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Apostle-Paul-Weighing-ebook/dp/B009TLLK0U/