Resolving an Alleged Contradiction: Did Paul’s Companions Hear the Voice?

Scripture is often subjected to scrutiny when it comes to perceived contradictions, and one of the most debated examples involves Paul’s conversion experience as recounted in Acts. In Acts 9:7 and 22:9, we find two descriptions of the same event, but they seem to differ in the details—specifically, what Paul’s companions heard. This has led many to question whether the Bible contradicts itself on this point.

By examining the original language and context, however, we can gain a clearer understanding of these passages. In this post, we’ll explore the nuances in the Greek text and discuss how these apparent differences actually harmonize, demonstrating that the Scriptures remain consistent and reliable. Let’s take a closer look at the issue and see if this is truly a contradiction or if there’s a more reasonable explanation.

The Alleged Contradiction between Acts 9:7 and 22:9

“The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one” (Acts 9:7, NASB).

“And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me” (Acts 22:9, NASB).

At first glance, the problem is not immediately apparent in the NASB translation. This is because the translators made an interpretive decision to render the Greek verb for “hear” (ἀκούω) in Acts 22:9 as “understand,” which is a legitimate translation option. To see the issue more clearly, consider how the KJV translates both passages:

“And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (Acts 9:7, KJV).

“And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me” (Acts 22:9, KJV).

It appears that at Paul’s conversion, the people with him heard a voice. Yet, when Paul recounts the event later, he says they did not hear the voice. So, how are we to understand this apparent contradiction?

Here are some introductory thoughts on the matter:

1. Luke is the author of both accounts, and as such, if he had deemed them contradictory, he could have either omitted the details or changed them.
   
2. Luke was a long-time travel companion of Paul, and it’s likely he finished writing Acts while accompanying Paul in Rome, or shortly thereafter. This aligns with point #1: Luke would have had direct access to both accounts from Paul himself. It’s therefore unlikely that Luke would have included contradictory details with Paul present to verify the narrative.

A Common Solution to the Issue

One proposed solution is to examine the original language. In Acts 9:7, the verb “hear” (ἀκούω) is used with “voice” (φωνή), which is in the genitive case. The genitive case (a descriptive case) draws attention to the sound of the voice. However, in Acts 22:9, the same verb is used, but “voice” is in the accusative case. The accusative case is said to highlight the comprehension or understanding of the sound. Therefore, this difference in case usage is thought to explain the non-contradiction.

While it’s true that genitive and accusative distinctions can imply different nuances, this is not always the case in Hellenistic Greek (the language of the New Testament). Although Acts reflects a more Attic style of Greek, where such distinctions are more common, pressing this point is unnecessary because there’s a better explanation for the two passages.

The Preferred Solution

A better solution to the apparent contradiction is to recognize the flexibility in the normal usage of (ἀκούω) “hear” and (φωνή) “voice/sound,” allowing the context to guide the meaning.

For example, depending on context, ἀκούω can refer to the actual process of hearing (e.g., Matt 13:16; 2 Tim 2:2) or to understanding or comprehending (e.g., Matt 11:15; 1 Cor 14:2; Gal 4:21). Similarly, φωνή can refer to a specific auditory voice (e.g., John 5:25; 10:4; Luke 17:15) or to an indistinct sound (e.g., 1 Cor 14:7; Rev 14:2; cf. 1 Samuel 7:10 in the LXX, referring to thunder).

We observe similar nuances in English. For example, I might ask, “Did you hear that?” as a question of attention, or say, “Did you HEAR that?” to stress understanding. Although the words are identical, the nuance shifts depending on the context.

In the same way, the contexts of Acts 9:7 and 22:9 allow for the possibility that in Acts 9, the men heard a sound or voice, but in Acts 22, Paul is emphasizing that they didn’t understand what was said. Further support for this view comes from the fact that Paul was speaking Aramaic to the crowd (cf. Acts 22:2). In Aramaic, much like Greek, the same word is often used for both hearing and understanding. When translated into Greek, ἀκούω “hear/understand” would naturally be used as the equivalent of the Aramaic.

Conclusion

The NASB translation appropriately captures the nuance between Acts 9:7 and 22:9, highlighting the difference in understanding by Paul’s companions. This is not a contradiction, as it simply reflects the flexibility of language and the translation of Paul’s Aramaic speech in Acts 22. Both passages can harmonize by focusing on different aspects of Paul’s conversion experience. In Acts 9:7 the people with Paul heard a sound (or a voice), but Acts 22 reveals they did not understand what was being said.