Paul’s Vision and Biblical Inerrancy
The late “overall servant” of the Members of the Church of God International (MCGI, “Ang Dating Daan”) discussed with a Latter-day Saint inquirer in regards to inconsistencies in Paul’s personal description of his vision on his road to Damascus (Acts 22:6-10) and Luke’s own account of Paul’s vision (Acts 9:7):
As always observed with his treatment of biblical texts (his deliberate use of proof-texting without any meaningful exegesis based on careful observations), Eli Soriano argues that there are no inconsistencies in both accounts, arguing in favor of biblical univocality. However, considering the language of the New Testament, this is not the case. Acts 9:7 reads in the King James Version along with the Greek:
“And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.” (Acts 9:7, KJV)οἱ δὲ ἄνδρες οἱ συνοδεύοντες αὐτῷ εἱστήκεισαν ἐνεοί, ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς μηδένα δὲ θεωροῦντες.
Acts 9:7 is Luke’s account of Paul’s vision conversion narrative, where it describes that Saul did hear a voice and saw someone, while his companions did not see someone but only heard a voice. This is inconsistent with Paul’s own recollection of his vision before Herod, where Acts 22:7-9 reads:
“And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 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.” [οἱ δὲ σὺν ἐμοὶ ὄντες τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο τὴν δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν τοῦ λαλοῦντός μοι, verse 9]
When Luke’s account in Acts 9 says that Paul’s companions heard a voice but saw no one (as Paul saw the light), Paul’s recollection in Acts 22 says that his companions saw [a light] but did not hear a voice. How then can both accounts be reconciled? Others who argue in favor of consistency and deny inconsistency would say that this is a mistranslation, but this is where the Greek verb ἀκούω (akouō, “to hear”) is coupled with the noun φωνῆ (phōnē, “voice”) that is used in two cases. In Acts 9:7 used the genitive case (ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς); and Acts 22:7-9 used the accusative case (τὴν δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν). In grammar, if in a partitive genitive case, one hears the voice, and in the accusative case, one hears the message. Innerantist will argue that Acts 22:7-9 concerns comprehension (“understood”) rather than merely hearing (“hear”) for the reason that the cases are distinct, but however, this argument fails, because this grammatical rule applies only to Classical Greek rather than Koine Greek; and is even unreliable when applied to Koine Greek. The New Testament, with Luke using basic Greek vocabulary for this account, was in Koine Greek. Furthermore, New Testament scholar and grammarian of Koine Greek Dr. Daniel Wallace, provides the following comments on this inconsistency:
“There seems to be a contradiction between this account of Paul’s conversion and his account of it in Acts 22, for there he says, “those who were with me. . . did not hear the voice. . .” However, in Acts 22:9 the verb ἀκούω takes an accusative direct object. On these two passages, Robertson states: “. . . it is perfectly proper to appeal to the distinction in the cases in the apparent contradiction between ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς (Ac. 9:7) and τὴν δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν (22:9). The accusative case (case of extent) accents the intellectual apprehension of the sound, while the genitive (specifying case) calls attention to the sound of the voice without accenting the sense. The word ἀκούω itself has two senses which fall in well with this case-distinction, one ‘to hear,’ the other ‘to understand’.”(Robertson, Grammar, 506.)The NIV seems to follow this line of reasoning: Acts 9:7 reads “they heard the sound but did not see anyone”; 22:9 has “my companions saw the light, but did not understand the voice.” The field of meaning for both ἀκούω (hear, understand) and φωνή (sound, voice), coupled with the change in cases (gen., acc.), can be appealed to to harmonize these two accounts.On the other hand, it is doubtful that this is where the difference lay between the two cases used with ἀκούω in Hellenistic Greek: the NT (including the more literary writers) is filled with examples of ἀκούω + genitive indicating understanding (Matt 2:9; John 5:25; 18:37; Acts 3:23; 11:7; Rev 3:20; 6:3, 5;(Rev 6:7 finds a parallel with the acc.!) 8:13; 11:12; 14:13; 16:1, 5, 7; 21:3) as well as instances of ἀκούω + accusative where little or no comprehension takes place (In some of these examples, the hearing is indirect (e.g., hearing about wars [Mark 13:7 and parallels]; of divisions [1 Cor 11:18]) where, on Robertson’s scheme, a gen. would be expected. Other examples showing the fallacy of this approach: in Jesus’ urging his audience to listen to his words and obey them, cf. the parallels in Matt 7:24 (acc.) and Luke 6:47 (gen.); the parallels of the angels’ articulate cry of “Come!” when they dispense with the seal judgments (Rev 6:3, 5 have the gen.; 6:7 has the acc.).) (explicitly so in Matt 13:19; Mark 13:7/Matt 24:6/Luke 21:9; Acts 5:24; 1 Cor 11:18; Eph 3:2; Col 1:4; Phlm 5; Jas 5:11; Rev 14:2). The exceptions, in fact, are seemingly more numerous than the rule!” Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996): 133.
Biblical Innerancy gives a person a very limited view of the Scriptures and how it was produced of both humans and God. This discrepancy does not dismiss the New Testament’s reliability, but rather only shows the human element contained in the Scriptures. Holders of this belief (e.g. Eli Soriano, INCs, and evangelicals) need to re-examine their own views.
