From: dalmatia@eburg.com
Date: Sun Apr 26 1998 - 11:14:10 EDT
McKay family wrote:
>
> A new Christian is perplexed by apparent contradictions in the accounts of
> the conversion of Saul.
>
> In Acts 9:7 we read
> hOI DE ANDRES hOI SUNADEUONTES AUTOi EISTHKEISAN ENEOI, AKOUONTES MEN THS
> FWNHS MHDENA DE QEWROUNTES
>
> but in Acts 22: 9 we read
> hOI DE SUN EMOI ONTES TO MEN FWS EQEASANTO THN DE FWNHN OUK HKOUSAN TOU
> LALOUNTOS MOI.
>
> and in Acts 26:14
> PANTWN TE KATAPESONTWN hHMWN EIS THN GHN HKOUSA FWNHN LEGOUSAN ...
>
> F. F. Bruce points out that we have Luke saying that Saul fell to the ground
> in 9:4, and in 9:7 the companions stood speechless, but Paul says in 26:14
> that they had all fallen to the ground. And in 9:7, Luke says the companions
> heard the voice or sound, but in 22: 9 Paul tells his hearers that the
> companions saw the light but didn't hear the voice.
>
> Moulton and A.T. Robertson argued that the genitive in Luke's account refers
> to a sound, but that the accusative in Paul's accounts refers to
> intelligible speech. Is this reasonable?
>
> The NASB translates THN DE FWNHN OUK HKOUSAN in Acts 22: 9 as "but did not
> understand the voice."
>
> F.F. Bruce suggests that the sound Paul's companions heard [according to
> Luke] may have been Paul's own voice.
>
> What think ye?
David ~
Welcome your 'newbe' friends to the GNT!! Then have them serve jury
duty where they listen to two eye-witness accounts of the same event.
Then have them notice that neither Luke nor Paul are 'eye' witnesses.
[Saul was blinded.] Then have them observe the character of the event
being described. Invite them to think about it. Then welcome them
AGAIN to the GNT!! AND to Christianity!!
This is 'backward thinking' through the contradictions, and has no
grammatical implications. It involves imagining the event itself, then
taking another look at the grammar to see how that event is being
described, [and by whom]. It only provides a way for the grammar used
to become textually intelligible, contradictions and all. Working
'backwards' like this from a theological perspective [preconception]
can quickly lead to grammatical error, however, as was pointed out in
another posted response already, so it should be done very carefully.
[And prayerfully!]
Its virtue lies in the fact that the accounts describe real events,
and are SUPPOSED to avail the reader of such a 're-creation' of the
events described. The rub is that they are events with sacred
implications, or events that are themselves spiritual in nature.
Accounts can and do differ, which forces the 're-creation' of the
event itself in the imagination of the reader/student.
What think YE?
George [Perhaps the 'newbe'est of the newbies] :-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:39:36 EDT