There seems to be one tiny difference in two of the three accounts in Acts 9:1-9; 22:6-11; 26:12-18.

Acts 9:7 says the companions heard the voice, while in 22:9 they did not hear the voice.

How do we solve the problem?

The translations are mine. If you want to see many others, please go to biblegateway.com. If you do not read Greek scroll past it at the bottom of the table. I include it so readers who can read it can check my work.

I also quote from scholars I respect because they respect the Scriptures. I learn many things from them. One thing is certain, hostile critics cannot claim objectivity compared to friendly scholars. I place the friendly scholars on the same or higher level than the hostile critics.

Let’s begin.

Paul’s Three Conversion Accounts
Acts 9:1-9	Acts 22:6-11	Acts 26:12-18
1 Meanwhile, Saul, still breathing out murderous threats towards the disciples of the Lord, approached the chief priest 2 and sought from him letters for the Damascus synagogues, so that if he found anyone being of the Way, both men and women, he could bring them bound up to Jerusalem. 3 While he was travelling, it happened. As he neared Damascus, a light from heaven unexpectedly flashed around him. 4 And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul! Why are you persecuting me?” 5 He replied, “Who are you, Lord?” “I am Jesus whom you are persecuting! 6 But get up and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do!” 7 And the men caravanning with him had been standing speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 And Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes, he saw nothing; and the others hand-led him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was sightless and did not eat nor drink.	6 It happened to me as I was going and nearing Damascus, at midday: suddenly a very bright light from heaven shone around me. 7 I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 8 I answered, “Who are you, lord?” He said to me, “I am Jesus the Nazarene whom you are persecuting” 9 And those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one speaking. 10 I said, “What should I do, lord?” And the Lord spoke to me, “Get up and go into Damascus. And there it will be told to you all the things that have been appointed for you to do.” 11 As I was blinded from the glory of that light, I was being hand-led by my companions and came to Damascus.	12 “In these circumstances, I was going to Damascus with the authority and commission of the chief priests, 13 in the middle of the day along the road, king, I saw from heaven a light brighter than the sun, shining around me and those traveling with me. 14 As all of us were knocked to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is difficult for you to kick against the goads!’ 15 And I said, ‘Who are you, lord?’ And the Lord said, ‘I am Jesus whom you are persecuting. 16 But get up and stand to your feet! For this reason I appeared to you, to select you to be a servant and witness to the things you see about me and of the things I shall show you, 17 rescuing you from the Jewish people and the Gentiles, to whom I shall send you, 18 to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light and from the authority of Satan to God, so they might receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those sanctified by faith, which is in me.
1 Ὁ δὲ Σαῦλος ἔτι ἐμπνέων ἀπειλῆς καὶ φόνου εἰς τοὺς μαθητὰς τοῦ κυρίου, προσελθὼν τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ 2 ᾐτήσατο παρ’ αὐτοῦ ἐπιστολὰς εἰς Δαμασκὸν πρὸς τὰς συναγωγάς, ὅπως ἐάν τινας εὕρῃ τῆς ὁδοῦ ὄντας, ἄνδρας τε καὶ γυναῖκας, δεδεμένους ἀγάγῃ εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ. 3 Ἐν δὲ τῷ πορεύεσθαι ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐγγίζειν τῇ Δαμασκῷ, ἐξαίφνης τε αὐτὸν περιήστραψεν φῶς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ 4 καὶ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἤκουσεν φωνὴν λέγουσαν αὐτῷ· Σαοὺλ Σαούλ, τί με διώκεις; 5 εἶπεν δέ· τίς εἶ, κύριε; ὁ δέ· ἐγώ εἰμι Ἰησοῦς ὃν σὺ διώκεις· 6 ἀλλ’ ἀνάστηθι καὶ εἴσελθε εἰς τὴν πόλιν καὶ λαληθήσεταί σοι ὅ τί σε δεῖ ποιεῖν. 7 οἱ δὲ ἄνδρες οἱ συνοδεύοντες αὐτῷ εἱστήκεισαν ἐνεοί, ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς μηδένα δὲ θεωροῦντες. 8 ἠγέρθη δὲ Σαῦλος ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, ἀνεῳγμένων δὲ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν αὐτοῦ οὐδὲν ἔβλεπεν· χειραγωγοῦντες δὲ αὐτὸν εἰσήγαγον εἰς Δαμασκόν. 9 καὶ ἦν ἡμέρας τρεῖς μὴ βλέπων καὶ οὐκ ἔφαγεν οὐδὲ ἔπιεν.	6 Ἐγένετο δέ μοι πορευομένῳ καὶ ἐγγίζοντι τῇ Δαμασκῷ περὶ μεσημβρίαν ἐξαίφνης ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ περιαστράψαι φῶς ἱκανὸν περὶ ἐμέ, 7 ἔπεσά τε εἰς τὸ ἔδαφος καὶ ἤκουσα φωνῆς λεγούσης μοι· Σαοὺλ Σαούλ, τί με διώκεις; 8 ἐγὼ δὲ ἀπεκρίθην· τίς εἶ, κύριε; εἶπέν τε πρός με· ἐγώ εἰμι Ἰησοῦς ὁ Ναζωραῖος, ὃν σὺ διώκεις. 9 οἱ δὲ σὺν ἐμοὶ ὄντες τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο τὴν δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν τοῦ λαλοῦντός μοι. 10 εἶπον δέ· τί ποιήσω, κύριε; ὁ δὲ κύριος εἶπεν πρός με· ἀναστὰς πορεύου εἰς Δαμασκὸν κἀκεῖ σοι λαληθήσεται περὶ πάντων ὧν τέτακταί σοι ποιῆσαι. 11 ὡς δὲ οὐκ ἐνέβλεπον ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τοῦ φωτὸς ἐκείνου, χειραγωγούμενος ὑπὸ τῶν συνόντων μοι ἦλθον εἰς Δαμασκόν.	12 Ἐν οἷς πορευόμενος εἰς τὴν Δαμασκὸν μετ’ ἐξουσίας καὶ ἐπιτροπῆς τῆς τῶν ἀρχιερέων 13 ἡμέρας μέσης κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν εἶδον, βασιλεῦ, οὐρανόθεν ὑπὲρ τὴν λαμπρότητα τοῦ ἡλίου περιλάμψαν με φῶς καὶ τοὺς σὺν ἐμοὶ πορευομένους. 14 πάντων τε καταπεσόντων ἡμῶν εἰς τὴν γῆν ἤκουσα φωνὴν λέγουσαν πρός με τῇ Ἑβραΐδι διαλέκτῳ· Σαοὺλ Σαούλ, τί με διώκεις; σκληρόν σοι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν. 15 ἐγὼ δὲ εἶπα· τίς εἶ, κύριε; ὁ δὲ κύριος εἶπεν· ἐγώ εἰμι Ἰησοῦς ὃν σὺ διώκεις. 16 ἀλλ’ ἀνάστηθι καὶ στῆθι ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας σου· εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ὤφθην σοι, προχειρίσασθαί σε ὑπηρέτην καὶ μάρτυρα ὧν τε εἶδές [με] ὧν τε ὀφθήσομαί σοι, 17 ἐξαιρούμενός σε ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰς οὓς ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω σε 18 ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτῶν, τοῦ ἐπιστρέψαι ἀπὸ σκότους εἰς φῶς καὶ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σατανᾶ ἐπὶ τὸν θεόν, τοῦ λαβεῖν αὐτοὺς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ κλῆρον ἐν τοῖς ἡγιασμένοις πίστει τῇ εἰς ἐμέ.

Comments:

Acts 9:7 says the companions heard the voice, while here in 22:9 they did not hear the voice. Is this a contradiction? Not in the details.

Paul uses the same word for voice or sound (phōnē, pronounced foh-nay, and yes, we get our word telephone from it), and he uses the same verb for hearing (akouō, pronounced ah-koo-oh, and yes, we get our word acoustics from it).

One related passage says a voice from heaven endorsed the Son of God (John 12:28), but the crowd thought it thundered or an angel spoke to him. Further, in 1 Corinthians 14:2, the verb akouō can only mean “understand.”

Bruce suggests the same thing here and the other accounts in Acts as in John 12:28-29. “Then a voice from heaven came: ‘I have glorified it and I will glorify it again.’ ²⁹ Then the crowd who were standing by and heard it were saying, ‘It was thunder.’ Others were saying, ‘An angel spoke to him.’” (Bruce’s comment on 9:7).

When supernatural events occur, like tongues or a heavenly voice, intellectual understanding can go out the window. So let’s not press the details too hard, nor overinterpret the meaning.

Marshall is right: “Something of Luke’s literary ability may be seen in the way in which he varies the details of the story so that it comes over freshly to the reader each time” (comment on 26:12). Marshall is a friendly scholar.

Now let’s see if we can go deeper and answer the differences between the two accounts.

First, historians at the time Luke wrote varied their stories about the same character, without batting an eye. No problem for them. Luke was simply fitting in with his literary-cultural context.

The same is true of OT writers and their variations in parallel accounts:

Differences in Gospel Parallels = Differences in OT Parallels

Second, BDAG is a thick Greek lexicon of the New Testament, named after the four main editors over the decades: Bauer, Danker, Arndt, and Gingrich. They have the verb meaning “hear and understand (definition 7, p. 38). Then they reference 1 Cor. 14:2; Mark 4:9, 23, 33; 7:15 [16], 8:18; Luke 6:27a, 8:8, 14:35; Gal. 4:21; Acts 22:9, 26:14; Matt. 11:15; 13:9, 13, 43; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22, 13:9.

Conclusion

I believe that the very common verb akouō can be understood in different ways. The standard meaning is “hear,” as in the physical act by the ears. But it can also mean “understand.”

Bruce is right to point to the parallel in John 12:28-29.

Now, more broadly, let’s allow two prominent historians specializing in the classical world (ancient Greece and Rome) to offer their verdict on Luke’s historical reliability and standing among ancient historians.

Rainer Riesner (p. 326) quotes from two prominent German historians, who were not always friendly towards the NT and its production.

Theodor Mommsen was considered the greatest classical scholar of the nineteenth century. He writes:

“The numerous small features—features not really necessary for the actual course of action, and yet which fit so well there—are internal witnesses of his [Luke’s] reliability.”

Next, the late great classical historian and NT scholar F. F. Bruce, in his commentary on Acts (1990, p. 27), calls Eduard Meyer the “greatest” twentieth-century historian of the classical world. Meyer acknowledges that in classical histories, contemporaneous eyewitnesses were rare. He contrasts this rarity with early Christianity:

For Christianity, however, we have … the completely inestimable advantage—one hardly otherwise available in the case of great spiritual movements—of having access to a portrayal of the beginning stages of its development directly from the pen of one of its coparticipants. That alone ensures for the author an eminent place among the significant historians of world history.

Bruce goes on to say (p. 32) that other modern historians sometimes rely on the Book of Acts for some data points because it is the only source of information for the Greek East during this time in the Roman empire.

Finally, let’s appeal to a NT commentator and historian who wrote a five-volume commentary on Acts. After naming some criticisms of Luke, Craig Keener writes:

In general, however, and by the usual standard of ancient historiography, Luke’s treatment of history fares quite well: he normally writes ‘contemporary history,’ that is, about recent events, and external sources regularly confirm most of his information that can be tested. More recent history was considered more verifiable than the distant past, and especially the earliest mythical period. Sources closer to the events were also recognized as more apt to be accurate. (p. 6)

Keener goes on to write about minor variations in the accounts of ancient historians: “Apart from external polemic and responding apologetic, however, most did not find minor variations a matter of concern” (p. 7).

Differences in Gospel Parallels = Differences in OT Parallels

Word of Advice

The hostile critics of such tiny matters in the Scriptures show themselves to be unreasonable, especially if one of them says that a discrepancy means that the event could not have happened at all. No. It simply means that we may not be able to figure out which version is the correct one, in the details. But in the three accounts we can depend on Luke.

For the Christian reader, go for the gist of the story when differences emerge. To find the gist, place the three accounts side by side and look for common elements. That’s the gist.

On the other side, fiery fundamentalists or more restrictive Christian philosophers and theologians put too many unrealistic demands on Scripture.

The Bible is not brittle, and nor should our faith be. We can still learn wonderful truths from the Bible about God and his redemptive plan of salvation in Christ, from Genesis to Revelation,  and how we can live our lives in him. We can learn great things about the life and ministry and resurrection and exaltation of Christ. The American church of the more restrictive variety needs to relax a lot more.

Ignore the hyper-critics of the New Testament. They have drunk too deeply of the Postmodern Age. Now they eagerly work hard at finding these differences and scaring uninformed readers. In many of the critics I also detect a sneer, a vice that also belongs to Postmodernism.

What Is Postmodernism?

The Skeptical Sneering Age

Don’t drink too deeply of Postmodernism. Keep your faith in Christ intact, when these differences in the book of Acts appear. There are answers, and the most common one is to see the differences as complementary. Also, just focus on the gist of the same stories told from different angles.

RELATED

The Historical Reliability of the Book of Acts

Book of Acts and Paul’s Epistles: Match Made in Heaven?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Scroll down to the bottom of this link to find the bibliographical data:

Acts 9