Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Phlox Pyros · 03-18-2006, 05:41 AM

Forgive me if this has come up before, but it seems that Luke (or someone else copying his work in history) goofed with respect to Paul's vision on the road to Damascus:

Quote:

Acts 9:3-9

3 Now as he was going along and approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" 5 He asked, "Who are you, Lord?" The reply came, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But get up and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do." 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one. 8 Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 For three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Quote:

Acts 22:6-11

6 "While I was on my way and approaching Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?' 8 I answered, 'Who are you, Lord?' Then he said to me, 'I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.' 9 Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me. 10 I asked, 'What am I to do, Lord?' The Lord said to me, 'Get up and go to Damascus; there you will be told everything that has been assigned to you to do.' 11 Since I could not see because of the brightness of that light, those who were with me took my hand and led me to Damascus.

Quote:

Acts 26:12-18

12 "With this in mind, I was traveling to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, 13 when at midday along the road, your Excellency, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me and my companions. 14 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? It hurts you to kick against the goads.' 15 I asked, 'Who are you, Lord?' The Lord answered, 'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But get up and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to appoint you to serve and testify to the things in which you have seen me and to those in which I will appear to you. 17 I will rescue you from your people and from the Gentiles-- to whom I am sending you 18 to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

Does anyone know what the apologetics are for this? What is the explanation for the differences, especially the companions hearing and then not hearing?

dongiovanni1976x · 03-18-2006, 06:43 AM

The responses I usually get spin the word hear[ing] (Gk. akouo) and state that it should be read as "understood"... e.g. "And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no man." & "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they [understood] not the voice of him that spake to me"

Therefore they say that those with Paul heard something and saw a light but neither saw a man (only a light) nor understood what was being said.

andrewcriddle · 03-18-2006, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Forgive me if this has come up before, but it seems that Luke (or someone else copying his work in history) goofed with respect to Paul's vision on the road to Damascus:

Does anyone know what the apologetics are for this? What is the explanation for the differences, especially the companions hearing and then not hearing?

At face value Account one is Luke saying what happened Accounts 2 and 3 are Luke saying what Paul (speaking to two different audiences) said happened.

It is not prima facie implausible that Paul told the story in different ways on different occasions.

(I'm not necessarily making a claim here about the historical accuracy of Acts my point is just that the narrative is not internally inconsistent.)

Andrew Criddle

fta · 03-18-2006, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Forgive me if this has come up before...

Two months ago ago, actually

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=151772

Notsri · 03-18-2006, 04:19 PM

IMO construing Acts 22:9's "hear" (ηκουσαν/ēkousan*) as "understand" (so e.g. NIV) seems plausible.

We might cf. e.g. LXX Isaiah 36:11 (following C. Thomson's translation):

"Then Eliakim and Somnas and Joach said to him [Rab-Shakeh]: 'Speak to thy servants [i.e. us] in Syriac, for we understand (ακουομεν/akouomen) it. Therefore speak not to us in the Jewish language. Why speakest thou to the ears of the men on the walls [of Jerusalem, also]?'"

Cf. also 1 Corinthians 14:2 (RSV):

"For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him (ακουει/akouei), but he utters mysteries in the Spirit."

O.S. Wintermute's translation (in Charlesworth's Pseudepigrapha) from the Ethiopic of Jubilees 10:22ff. also comes to mind, where "hear" might as well be translated "understand":

"Behold, let us go down [to Shinar/Babel] and let us mix up their tongues so each one will not hear another's word, and they will be scattered into cities and nations…And the LORD went down and we [the angels] went down with him. And we saw the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And he mixed up their tongues, and, therefore, one did not hear another's word."

----------
* dongiovanni1976x has already mentioned above the term ακου/akou, hear, of which ηκουσαν is of course an inflected form (IIUC the third person plural aorist active indicative).

Regards,
Notsri

Phlox Pyros · 03-18-2006, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notsri

IMO construing Acts 22:9's "hear" (ηκουσαν/ēkousan*) as "understand" (so e.g. NIV) seems plausible.

Very well written and backed-up post! Thanks.

Isn't the word for hear basically the same in the first account of Paul's vision, too?

judge · 03-19-2006, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Forgive me if this has come up before, but it seems that Luke (or someone else copying his work in history) goofed with respect to Paul's vision on the road to Damascus:

Does anyone know what the apologetics are for this? What is the explanation for the differences, especially the companions hearing and then not hearing?

This contradiction is probably as a result of a mistranslation from an Aramaic original into Greek.

In Aramaic we have a root which can read either mean sound or voice.

Unfortunately the forum at peshitta.org hase been inactive for quite a while but here is one post from a native aramaic speaker from that forum.

One of a couple of interesting discussions that took place on that forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Younan

The Greek versions falsely read:

Act. 9.7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

vs

Act. 22.9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me.

Which appears to be a contradiction, right? But this is not a contradiction at all, only a misunderstanding of the Aramaic when the Greeks translated it.

In Aramaic the word fq ("Qala", or "Qol" in Hebrew) means both "voice" and "sound." (c.f., Mattai 20:30, Luke 1:44 for instances where it means 'sound', and Mattai 2:18, Yukhanan 1:23 where it means 'voice.') The Greeks mistranslated both instances (Acts 9:7 and 22:9) as "voice", erroneously.

The reading of the Aramaic of Acts 9:7 should be:

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a sound, but seeing no man.

And Aramaic Acts 22:9 correctly reads:
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spoke to me.

This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Greeks (mis)translated the book of Acts from the Aramaic original - the Peshitta.

Chris Weimer · 03-19-2006, 04:54 PM

Why would the author bother to mention the men hearing a sound and then directly relate it to "man"? Seems like shoddy and deceptive apologetics to me. And that isn't even bothering to address how Aramaic primacy is a dead-theory.

Phlox Pyros · 03-19-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

This contradiction is probably as a result of a mistranslation from an Aramaic original into Greek.

Thanks, and no offense, but I personally do not believe that Acts was originally in Aramaic. Though I am somewhat sympathetic to this view with respect to Matthew, I doubt very much that Acts was written in Aramaic.

I also have my doubts about what the person on peshita.org said. If it isn't too much trouble, could you post the aramaic for these verses (or a link to it)? Thanks.

Chris Weimer · 03-19-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Thanks, and no offense, but I personally do not believe that Acts was originally in Aramaic. Though I am somewhat sympathetic to this view with respect to Matthew, I doubt very much that Acts was written in Aramaic.

I also have my doubts about what the person on peshita.org said. If it isn't too much trouble, could you post the aramaic for these verses (or a link to it)? Thanks.

Matthew was most certainly not Aramaic. How could an Aramaic Matthew correct Mark's bad Greek? There is no case except judge's wishful thinking and an a priori bias considering that he exclusively abides by the Church of the East's predefined exaltment of the Aramaic Peshitta. Peshitta primacy is apologetics.

03-18-2006, 04:19 PM	#5
Notsri Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 220	IMO construing Acts 22:9's "hear" (ηκουσαν/ēkousan) as "understand" (so e.g. NIV) seems plausible. We might cf. e.g. LXX Isaiah 36:11 (following C. Thomson's translation): "Then Eliakim and Somnas and Joach said to him [Rab-Shakeh]: 'Speak to thy servants [i.e. us] in Syriac, for we understand (ακουομεν/akouomen) it. Therefore speak not to us in the Jewish language. Why speakest thou to the ears of the men on the walls [of Jerusalem, also]?'" Cf. also 1 Corinthians 14:2 (RSV): "For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him (ακουει/akouei), but he utters mysteries in the Spirit." O.S. Wintermute's translation (in Charlesworth's Pseudepigrapha) from the Ethiopic of Jubilees* 10:22ff. also comes to mind, where "hear" might as well be translated "understand": "Behold, let us go down [to Shinar/Babel] and let us mix up their tongues so each one will not hear another's word, and they will be scattered into cities and nations…And the LORD went down and we [the angels] went down with him. And we saw the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And he mixed up their tongues, and, therefore, one did not hear another's word." ---------- * dongiovanni1976x has already mentioned above the term ακου/akou, hear, of which ηκουσαν is of course an inflected form (IIUC the third person plural aorist active indicative). Regards, Notsri

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-18-2006, 06:43 AM	#2
dongiovanni1976x Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: St Louis, MO Posts: 686	The responses I usually get spin the word hear[ing] (Gk. akouo) and state that it should be read as "understood"... e.g. "And the men that journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no man." & "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they [understood] not the voice of him that spake to me" Therefore they say that those with Paul heard something and saw a light but neither saw a man (only a light) nor understood what was being said.

03-19-2006, 04:54 PM	#8
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Why would the author bother to mention the men hearing a sound and then directly relate it to "man"? Seems like shoddy and deceptive apologetics to me. And that isn't even bothering to address how Aramaic primacy is a dead-theory.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.