Tough Questions Answered: Do the Three Accounts of Paul’s Conversion in Acts Contradict Each Other?

This is my response to an article by "Tough Questions Answered", entitled

Do the Three Accounts of Paul’s Conversion in Acts Contradict Each Other?

Posted: 26 Jul 2017 06:00 AM PDT

The conversion of Saul/Paul is so important to the author of the Book of Acts that he presents the story three times (Acts 9, 22, 26).

Or there were several different versions of that story, which the author sought to harmonize.

Each version is different, and this fact has led some critics to say that the accounts are contradictory. But is that necessarily the case?

Contradictions don't have to be the case "necessarily".  Historiography is an art, not a science, and contradictions can be properly inferred from circumstantial evidence, its why juries often choose to disbelieve an alibi witness.  It is not true that the alleged contradiction has to be proven with absolute certitude, since no position about an ancient historical matter, where not corroborated by other disciplines, can be proven with absolute historical certitude anyway.  If certainty isn't needed to harmonize, certainty also isn't needed to show contradiction.

First, we must note that there are several common elements in the three versions:

    Saul is on his way to Damascus to gather up Christians.

    He sees an intense light.

    The Lord asks why Saul is persecuting him.

    Saul asks who the speaker is.

    Jesus reveals that it is he.

What are the differences? Darrel Bock, in The Gospels and Acts (The Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible) , writes:

    The biggest differences in the accounts have to do with whether the men traveling with Saul see the light and hear nothing (22:9) or stand speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one (9:7). . . . Another difference is that Ananias does not appear at all in the Acts 26 account. . . . Another key difference between the accounts is that Saul does not mention his call to reach the Gentiles in the account given in Acts 9, whereas he shares this detail in Acts 22 and 26.

Bock then argues that each of these differences can be reconciled.

About the different experiences of the men traveling with Saul,

    The elements at play here can be reconciled (Witherington 1998, 312– 13),

 But just because the wording "can" be harmonized, doesn't mean the wording really is in harmony.  Defense attorneys often succeed in persuading juries that a perceived contradiction in their client's testimony can be harmonized, but that hardly demonstrates that the testimony was truly harmonious.

as for instance in the following way: The men hear a sound, but it is not intelligible to them;

The very idea that a person could speak to you loud enough to be heard by your traveling companions who all speak the same language, but they could not "understand" what was being said, is total bullshit.  We see the same dreck in John 12:29.  The extreme likelihood that this story is fable, outweighs whatever benefits you think are gained by harmonizing them.  You may as well show you can harmonize several different accounts of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Gee, a lot of good that would do!

they also see a light but not Jesus himself.

Once again, the dependence of the story upon miracles reduces the significance of showing harmony in the accounts. Sure is funny that, if the story be true, we hear nothing in history about those traveling companions converting, which they likely would have, had they believe Paul's interpretation of the experience was valid.

Only Saul sees someone in the light and is able to discern a speaking voice in the sound. Saul’s companions experience something less than the full event, which means that the appearance is neither an entirely private vision nor a fully disclosed public event. It is a public event whose details are for one man alone, Saul of Tarsus.

Which is precisely why the account is unbelievable, rendering pointless any effort to show the different accounts of it can be harmonized. 

John Polhill, in Acts, vol. 26, The New American Commentary , agrees with Bock:

    Paul’s traveling companions served as authenticators that what happened to Paul was an objective event, not merely a rumbling of his inner psyche.

Paul's traveling companions aren't doing the talking.  This is LUKE REPORTING what they said, as such it is hearsay, and must be evaluated as hearsay, not as if it was their own first-hand account.  And Luke's willingness to whitewash church history dishonestly just to make Paul look better (Acts 15, Jesus never requiring Gentiles to be circumcised would be the natural answer to the Judaizer question, but the apsotles instead avoid Jesus like Paul did, and like Paul, cite to the OT and their subjective ministry experiences to answer the Judaizers...yeah right!) doesn't motivate one to trust his hearsay reports where they clearly are intended to popularize Paul.

They heard a sound, but they did not see the vision of Jesus. Acts 22:9 says that they saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke with Paul. The two accounts are not contradictory but underline the same event. Paul’s companions heard a sound and saw a light. They could verify that an objective heavenly manifestation took place. They did not participate in the heavenly communication, however, neither seeing the vision of Jesus nor hearing the words spoken to Paul. The revelation was solely to Paul.

Once again, assuming your harmonization scenario works as well as you think it does, the argument against miracles and Luke's historical dishonesty render pointless any attempt to harmonize different accounts of edifying fiction.

Regarding Ananias being left out of Acts 26, Bock writes, “This may be in part because the book has already mentioned him in detail twice, in Acts 9 and 22. Luke chooses not to be redundant on this detail, and so he provides a telescoped account.”

If a "may" can justify you to declare a successful harmonization, why can't "may" justify a skeptic to declare a successful showing of contradiction?  Is there some law of the universe that says speculation can only be successfully invoked by fundamentalist Christians hell-bent on defending biblical inerrancy?

Regarding Saul not mentioning his call to the Gentiles in Acts 9, “Ananias notes in 9:15 that Saul would be called to a Gentile mission, so we probably have another example of telescoping. Another possibility is that Luke chose not to note this detail in his third-person narrative because the Gentile mission had not yet taken place, but this argument is somewhat weakened by the mention of the mission to Ananias. In any case, Saul’s not mentioning his Gentile mission in Acts 9 is simply an outcome of Luke’s literary choice, the exact reason for which is not clear.”

Which means the possible reason that the accounts are lies remains on the table, which sufficiently refutes the inerrantists who think the possibility of lying is off the table.