Acts 9:7 versus Acts 22:9

Greek Koine and Biblical and Medieval Greek
1

I came across the following in a review of When Paul Met Jesus – How an Idea got Lost in History. It comes down to the difference between ἀκούω τὴν φωνήν versus ἀκούω τῆς φωνῆς.

The main hurdle Porter has to clear [regarding the historicity of Acts] is the difficulty of Acts 9:7, which says

Paul’s companions did hear a voice but did not see the speaker
ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς μηδένα δὲ θεωροῦντες

while Acts 22:9 says

they did see the light but did not hear the voice
τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο τὴν δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν

Porter suggests the issue can be resolved by attending to the use of negation. In Acts 9:4 we read that Paul “heard” heard the voice (accusative) and comprehended what it said, while in v. 7 we read those who were with Paul “heard” the voice (genitive) but somehow did not understand what it said. On the other hand, in Acts 22:9 we read they did not “hear” the voice (accusative) in the sense of comprehending it. Porter surmises that “the positive use of the genitive is semantically the same as the negated accusative and means that they did not perceive … [Paul’s] traveling companions did not understand what has happening” (p. 83). In other words, they saw a light but not a speaker, and heard speaking but couldn’t comprehend it.

2

Seems that the problem could be solved by attending to lexical semantics of ἀκούω and φωνή without any need to address the negation_case variation. Porter is “creative” when it comes to syntax issues. He considers variation in the surface structure to be semantically loaded. This is a central feature of his personal brand of M. A. K. Halliady Systemic Functionalism (SFL).

Don’t misunderstand, I am not attempting to refute what Bill Ross said Porter said. At first glance the argument strikes me as unnecessary. But I haven’t read Porter, just what Bill Ross said he said. It is difficult enough to understand Porter 's reasoning first hand, would need to “sit down with the book” to give it a fair evaluation.

3

Certain aspects of Porter’s proposal have a long history and have been rejected by a not insignificant collection of NT scholars.

While Moulton (Proleg. p 66) or Turner who softens the certainty of Moulton (Syntax, p 233) might be cited in support of Porter, F.F. Bruce (Acts NICNT 1954, 1988), Moule (Idiom Book NTG p 36) C.K. Barrett (Acts ICC) claim that the distinction between ἀκούω w/genitive and w/accusative is a classical one that doesn’t hold for Koine and particularly not Luke-Acts. For nuanced treatments of the issue see Zerwick §69 and BDF §173.

H. A. W. Meyer

ἈΚΟΎΟΝΤΕς ΜῈΝ Τῆς ΦΩΝῆς] does not agree with Acts 22:9. See the note on Acts 9:3 ff. The artificial attempts at reconciliation are worthless, namely: that Τῆς ΦΩΝῆς, by which Christ’s voice is meant, applies to the words of Paul (so, against the context, Chrysostom, Ammonius, Oecumenius, Camerarius, Castalio, Beza, Vatablus, Clarius, Erasmus Schmid, Heumann, and others); or, that φωνή is here a noise (thunder), but in Acts 22:9 an articulate voice (so erroneously, in opposition to Acts 9:4, Hammond, Elsner, Fabricius, ad Cod. Apocr. N. T., p. 442, Rosenmüller, Morus, Heinrichs); or, that ἤκουσαν in Acts 22:9 denotes the understanding of the voice (so, after Grotius and many older interpreters, in Wolf, Kuinoel, and Hackett), or the definite giving ear in reference to the speaker (Bengel, Baumgarten), which is at variance with the fact, that in both places there is the simple contradistinction of seeing and hearing; hence the appeal to John 12:28-29 is not suitable, and still less the comparison of Daniel 10:7.

Henry Alford

In ch. 22:9, οἱ δὲ σὺν ἐμοὶ ὄντες τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο [κ. ἔμφοβοι ἐγένοντο], τὴν δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν τοῦ λαλοῦντός μοι. Two accounts seemingly (and certainly, in the letter) discrepant; but exceedingly instructive when their spirit is compared,—the fact being this: that the companions of Saul saw and were struck to the ground by the light, but saw οὐδένα, no person:—that they stood (or ‘were fixed:’ > but I should acknowledge the discrepancy here, and recognize the more accurate detail of ch. 26:14, that they fell to the ground) mute, hearing τῆς φωνῆς, the sound of the voice, but not τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ λαλοῦντός μοι, the words spoken and their meaning. Compare John 12:29, note. (Only no stress must be laid on the difference between the gen. and acc. government of φωνή, nor indeed on the mere verbal difference of the two expressions;—but their spirit considered, in the possible reference which they might have to one and the same fact.> )

Two classes of readers only will stumble at this difference of the forms of narration; those who from enmity to the faith are striving to create or magnify discrepancies,—and those who, by the suicidal theory of verbal inspiration, are effectually doing the work of the former. The devout and intelligent student of Scripture will see in such examples a convincing proof of the simple truth of the narrative,—the absence of all endeavour to pare away apparent inconsistencies or revise them into conformity,—the bonâ fide work of holy truthful men, bearing each his testimony to things seen and heard under the guidance, not of the spirit of bondage, but of that Spirit of whom it is said, οὗ τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου, ἐλευθερία.

I should not too hastily determine that this account has not come from Saul himself, on account of the above differences: they are no more than might arise in narrations at different times by the same person.

Citing Alford and Meyer doesn’t imply that I agree with them. They are 19th century NT scholars of significant stature. Worth reading which is why you find them still cited in technical commentaries published in the third millennium.

4

I would take a semantic approach employing scenario analysis. What we have here is a theophany. A biblical theophany has some predictable features.

bright light
loud sound
voice
primary recipient
secondary observers

The distinction between the primary recipient and secondary observers is often significant. The primary recipient perceives the event differently, both the visual aspect and the audible aspect. Where the primary recipient hears a voice the others hear a sound or something like thunder. The distinction between the primary recipient and the observers can be found repeatedly as a feature of the theophany scenario. With a little imagination we can apply this in Acts 9:7 Acts 22:9.


Acts 9:7 οἱ δὲ ἄνδρες οἱ συνοδεύοντες αὐτῷ εἱστήκεισαν ἐνεοί, ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς μηδένα δὲ θεωροῦντες

ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς admits to several different meanings. The nature or level of perception by the secondary observers is left open. Both the verb and the noun semantic domains are broad. What we know for sure is the secondary observers perceived some sort of sound. We don’t know if they perceived the sound as human speech. We don’t know if they understood what was being said or just heard a human voice without understanding. All these variations in the level of perception are found with secondary observers in biblical theophany scenarios.

Acts 22:9 οἱ δὲ σὺν ἐμοὶ ὄντες τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο τὴν δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν τοῦ λαλοῦντός μοι.

Here we are told specifically that the secondary observers did not perceive “human” speech, τοῦ λαλοῦντός μοι. That doesn’t directly contradict what we find in Acts 9:7 which says they heard a sound but didn’t see anyone/anything.

OBVIOUS objection:

Acts 9:4 καὶ πεσὼν ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν ἤκουσεν φωνὴν λέγουσαν αὐτῷ· Σαοὺλ Σαούλ, τί με διώκεις;

Acts 9:7 οἱ δὲ ἄνδρες οἱ συνοδεύοντες αὐτῷ εἱστήκεισαν ἐνεοί, ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς μηδένα δὲ θεωροῦντες

The co-text of Acts 9:7 requires that φωνῆς in ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς be coreferential with φωνὴν in Acts 9:4 ἤκουσεν φωνὴν λέγουσαν αὐτῷ.

The translations I consulted assume it is coreferential. But does that really imply that the secondary observers perceived τῆς φωνῆς in the same manner as Paul? This comes down to a distinction between sense and reference. The referent may stay the same while the specificity may shift. There was a sound Paul perceived as a human voice. The secondary observers perceived the same sound (reference) but not in the same way (sense). I don’t think the co-referential objection is bombproof.

Postscript:

This proposal is not motivated by the desire to reconciled all problems with verbal plenary inspiration (e.g., Chicago Statement). I leave all of that to more intelligent folks like Peter J. Williams at Tyndale House Cambridge. Williams is into that sort of thing. I am not.