Why do the details of Paul’s conversion differ in all three places the story is told within the book of Acts?
Good question.
The first answer is that if Acts is generally historically accurate (a big if, which I will get to in a moment), then the second and third accounts of his conversion are being tailored by Paul to fit different audiences.
The second answer is that the translations used in Acts 9 and 22 might not be entirely accurate. You’re concerned that Paul’s companions hear God in 9 but not in 22, right? That might well be a translation issue (hear vs. understand).
The third answer is that Christians tend to harmonize the accounts by saying that the companions heard but didn’t understand. This argument partially relies on the second answer, above, but also stands apart from it as a theological argument and not a historical-critical one.
The fourth answer is that Acts is notoriously historically problematic about Paul’s life. There’s a reason New Testament scholars tend to rely on Paul’s own account of his life and not on Acts. The biggest issue that comes up is that Galatians 2 flatly contradicts Acts 15. Some people try to rescue Acts by saying it is referring to a different Jerusalem Council, but that seems pretty unlikely. Other issues include Paul’s missionary journeys. The maps in the back of Bibles almost always go according to the Acts chronology for all of Paul’s missionary journeys, but not all of them line up with Paul’s own accounts in his surviving letters.
Just as an aside, the author of Luke (presumed to be the same as Acts, generally) moves things around to suit his narrative several times, or changes details as it suits his depiction of Christ. John the Baptist’s imprisonment is moved earlier, and Jesus’ rejection in Nazareth is different than the other Synoptics. The anointing story in Luke is also in a different place. If Paul’s conversion is retold in different ways in Acts, it’s not really unusual for Luke to do so. Furthermore, Paul’s own account of his conversion is much less detailed than is in Acts, casting further doubt on Acts’ historicity in this matter.
9 notes
-
kynodontas liked this
-
daysofchad liked this
-
allmyfriendsareweird liked this
-
notthemarimba liked this
-
shortbreadsh reblogged this from galesofnovember
