The Conversion of St Paul - Why the Discrepency?
By veganbliss
@veganbliss (3895)
Adelaide, Australia
July 12, 2010 2:05am CST
I found three very different accounts of St Paul's conversion in the Book of Acts the other day. The Holy Bible is supposed to be infallible, so I was wondering why, within the same book, are there three completely different accounts. Please read each verse carefully before you tell me what's going on here. I've tried reading different versions of the bible, but still it remains. Who can tell me why there are three different accounts of the same conversion, by the same author?
Version 1
Acts 9:3-17
"...[Saul] was approaching Damascus, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground & heard a voice saying to him,'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?'...The men who were traveling with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one. Saul got up from the ground, & though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand & brought him into Damascus. For three days he was without sight, & neither ate nor drank... there was a... disciple at Damascus named Ananias... laid his hands on Saul & said,"Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on your way here, has sent me so that you may regain your sight & be filled with the Holy Spirit."
Version 2
Acts 22:6-21
"While I was... approaching Damascus... a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me. I fell to the ground & heard a voice saying, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?... those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice... I could not see because of the brightness of the light... those with me... led me to Damascus... Ananias, who was a devout man according to the law & well spoken of by all the Jews living there... said... get up, be baptized, & have your sins washed away, calling on his name."
Version 3
Acts 26:12-18
"... I was traveling to Damascus... I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining around me & my companions. 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... the Lord answered,'I am Jesus whom you are persecuting... get up & stand on your feet..."
Which version shall I believe?
Saul alone fell to the ground; those with him stood speechless because they heard the voice but saw no one; Saul was without sight for three days; Ananias was a disciple who laid hands on Saul to restore his sight & fill him with the Holy Spirit.
Or
Saul alone fell to the ground; those with him saw the light but did not hear the voice; No mention of three days without sight or food; Ananias was "a devout man according to the Law & liked by the Jews"
Or
Everyone fell to the ground; a voice spoke in the Hebrew language; no blindness, no Ananias; no baptism; no restoration of sight; no "filled with the Holy Spirit"!
I also found this, just four chapters before the first version:
Acts 5:3
"'Ananias,' Peter asked, 'why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit?'"
2 responses
@Ezra710 (135)
• United States
12 Jul 10
Ever write the ocurrence of an event three separate times and write exactly the same way every time? How about give a speech on a certain subject to three different groups of people on different occasions and say every word exactly in the same order as the previous time. There is no discrepancy here. The author Luke, may have been an eye witness and heard Paul's speeches, then wrote them from his memory. Paul may have not told the experience of his conversion exactly the same way every time to Luke, or at his hearing before Felix. The important point is that the conversion of Paul is what led to the Gentiles receiving God's plan of Salvation. Though the accounts differ in accuracy, they are consistent, Paul's life was changed forever that day on the road to Damascus. In addition there are four major Gospels written by four different Apostles, with four different writing styles, telling us about one man, Jesus and the events that took place. You could examine them and may think that there are discrepancies, but there are none, just four different accounts of our Lord and Savior.
@veganbliss (3895)
• Adelaide, Australia
13 Jul 10
Good points. Thank you for your time & attention. You're right... I can't think of a time or place I've written an account exactly the same each time. Nor can I recall a time I've given a speech three times, even to the same audience, & failed to improve upon it or add more detail each successive time. I'd think it more than a little odd, however, if I alone were to write not one, but three accounts of the same event in quick succession or give three accounts of an event in the same speech, maybe even twenty minutes apart with such glaringly obvious discrepancies between each one. I've heard speeches that on the first hearing have only a little detail, but upon being given a second or third time, the same listener could swear that had the same detail been given to the speech in the first instance, it may even have made giving the speech a second or third time redundant. I'm not talking about being picky with minor details, word order or merely being more descriptive the next time around; the discrepancies I've highlighted many times in this discussion really do stick out like a sore thumb. I somehow doubt that Luke ever met St Paul. I doubt even more so that Luke was an eye-witness to any of the events he wrote about; the book of Acts being published quite some time after the events in Acts. I doubt that Luke wrote his books from memory, & I am definitely not for one second implying Luke is lying. Luke was a great Physician, well - learned & very well connected. He could have easily obtained a court record from the scribes or Governor Felix. So why three such strikingly different accounts of such an event - why not one? If he was in any doubt, he would have written as such or if writing from different sources there would be something to indicate this. Luke presents each account as cold, hard fact. Saul was actually a lawyer, by trade, & a very good one who had won cases & maybe never lost any. Can you imagine a Lawyer giving an account to Governor Felix... he'd want to get it right the very first time... or heads will roll! Roman law was the best in the world at the time & for a long time after that. Cross examining the men with Saul would have been a very common practice & one which Saul was skillful at using himself. As pointed out in previous comments, there are blatant & obvious inconsistencies to the point of direct & open contradiction between each account. This, as I've pointed out initially, is in stark contrast to, say Jesus Resurrection or Crucifixion where each account, as you correctly point out, is written by four different authors, from four different countries or regions, in four different writing styles, from four different periods of time & yet they are remarkably similar with no apparent conflict of information presented. Doesn't that strike you as being very odd, to put it lightly?
@coolcoder (2018)
• United States
12 Jul 10
Where's the discrepancy? It's the same account written from different viewpoints. Acts 22: 6-21 is written from Saul's/Paul's view. The others are penned by witnesses. I'm not sure where you're getting the conflict from, but it's not there when you really look and study and see what's going on.
@veganbliss (3895)
• Adelaide, Australia
13 Jul 10
Please study this a little more closely. Whether or not two of these versions came from the mouth of Saul / St Paul, Luke wrote all three of these accounts. Perhaps I can highlight the discrepancies in another way, which you may find easier reading.
The first two accounts are adamant that Saul alone fell to the ground, whereas the final account insists everyone fell to the ground. The first account further elaborates, saying those with him Stood.
In the first account, those with Saul heard the voice, but saw no one. In the second account those with him Saw the light, but did not Hear the voice. The third account goes into unmissable detail about the light & voice.
The first account mentions three days of blindness, no drink, no food. No mention of these "oh-so-minor" details in any of the other accounts.
The first account describes Ananias as a disciple who laid hands on Saul to restore his sight & fill him with the Holy Spirit. The second account describes Ananias as a "devout man according to the Law & liked by all the Jews". The third account mentions no Ananias, no baptism, no restoration of sight & no "filled with the Holy Spirit".
In my humble opinion, there are glaring, unmissable discrepancies between these three accounts. Even my own lack of attention to detail could not possibly miss giving out these extraordinary & life-changing details in an eye-witness situation. No conflict? I beg to differ. It's easy to miss when one doesn't really look & study & see what's going on.
