Acts 9:7 (Now the men who were traveling with him stood there speechless, because they heard the voice but saw no one.)

22:9 “Those who were with me saw the light, but did not understand the voice of the one who was speaking to me.”

Acts 9:7 appears to be saying that Paul’s companions heard but did not see, whereas according to Acts 22:9 they saw but did not hear.

This apparent discrepancy is discussed as a ‘test case’ in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Zondervan).

1. A clear contradiction?

James McGrath regards this as a clear contradiction, and goes so far as to accuse inerrantists who seek to harmonise the two texts of dishonesty.

Peter Enns (Five Views) resists all attempts to harmonise these two statements.  He points, rather, to Luke’s method as an ancient histriographer, and to his possible purpose in reporting the incident in two slightly different ways.  In the present passage, Luke may wish to present Paul as an accredited prophet like Ezekiel (Eze 1:28) and Daniel (Dan 10:5-14).  There was not such a need with regard to Luke’s account in Acts 9, and this may explain the different ways of reporting the same incident.

Enns warns against a presupposition of inerrancy:

‘To insist here, on (questionable) theological grounds, that one must see these accounts as noncontradictory in order to preserve the nonnegotiable doctrine of inerrancy, despite the words in front of us, is to tell lay readers that they cannot trust their own reading skills, and could thereby raise genuine concerns about the intellectual bias of inerrantists.’

2. Trivial and inconsequential?

Some commentators (such as Witherington III) regard the discrepancy as trivial.

Michael Bird (in Five Views) thinks that Luke (or Luke’s Paul) was not particularly interested in absolute precision:

‘I doubt that either Luke or his readers were quite so befuddled with such details, as ancient historians were more concerned with reporting the gist of events than with describing the minutiae with pinpoint precision. Ancient historians were storytellers, not modern journalists, so naturally they were given to creativity in their narratives and filled in the gaps on details where necessary. The function of Scripture here is to communicate the unexpected and arresting nature of Paul’s conversion and calling. What is more, readers should accept that God called Paul to do this new work among the Gentiles. Luke’s narration is flexible on the details simply because the genre in which he was writing allowed him to be so without any discredit to his reputation for reliability. The use of such genres in biblical revelation indicates that the truthfulness of reve- lation is not tied to incidental details.’

John R. Franke (Five Views) also considers the discrepancy to be relatively minor and insignificant.  He mentions several ways of resolving the discrepancy, without commiting himself to any of them.  One way of resolving them would be to say that:

‘in the first, the narrator tells us what really happened, while in the second, Paul tells the story from his perspective, and he is wrong.’

But, for Franke:

a commitment to inerrancy would require that Paul be quoted accurately, but not that his memory was infallible.

Alternatively,

‘It may…be that Saul’s companions had different experiences, and the text is providing alternative perspectives. Indeed, we can imagine any number of possible responses that could make sense of these two accounts in such a way that they would not need to be viewed as contradictory or mutually exclusive.’

3. Minor variations, consistent with Luke’s over-arching story?

If Acts 1:8 sets the scene for the story that Luke will tell in Acts, then, According to Vanhoozer (Five Views):

‘A case can be made that the three accounts of Paul’s encounter on the road to Damascus serve the purpose of enhancing Paul’s stature as a witness to the gospel “to the ends of the earth.” The change in wording (“they heard,” “they did not hear”) serves Luke’s purpose by progressively reducing the role of the companions, eventually excluding them altogether from the revelatory event, which turns out to be not merely a theophany but a commissioning service.  Paul alone is a witness to this christophany; Paul alone will serve as Christ’s witness. This literary repetition with a difference is Luke’s way of ensuring that Paul’s companions decrease so that Paul’s stature as a witness to the Lord will increase. In sum: the companions’ hearing in Acts 9 confirms the reality of the christophany; their not hearing in Acts 22 shows that the divine commissioning is intended for Paul alone.’

4. Resolvable by attending to the language?

Bede:

‘The earlier story of this vision relates that his companions stood “stunned, hearing indeed the voice but seeing no one.” Hence it can be inferred that they heard the sound of a garbled voice, but they did not hear the distinct words.’

Peterson (Pillar New Testament Commentary) thinks that there is a difference in meaning between the expressions used in the two passages.   In Acts 9:7, they ‘heard the sound’ (akouontes men tēs phōnēs), and in the present verse they ‘did not understand the voice of him who was speaking’ (tēn de phōnēn ouk ēkousan tou lalountos):

‘However, both narratives are stressing that Paul’s companions shared to some extent in the experience, while not enjoying the full revelation granted to Paul.’

A translation note in the NET Bible points to Gal 4:21, where ‘hear the law’ stands, by metonymy, for ‘understand the law’.  According to BDAG, the same figure of speech might apply here in Acts 22:9.

Mohler (Five Views) is eager to protect his doctrine of inerrancy at all costs.  He urges us to:

‘remember that Luke is the inspired author of the book of Acts and that he was fully aware of the different aspects of the event as recorded in Acts 9 and Acts 22. The very fact that he left us with both accounts is evidence that he saw no contradiction and intended his readers to see none.’

In my opinion, Mohler’s statement works even if we do not regard Luke as ‘inspired’, but merely a reasonably intelligent and careful human author.

Mohler’s proposed solution, ‘from the view- point of the Bible’s plenary inspiration and inerrancy’ is to recognise ‘the difference of aspect in the texts and Luke’s very careful use of language’:

‘In Acts 9:7, Paul’s associates are said to hear the voice but to see no one. In Acts 22:9, they see the light but do not understand the voice. Given the point of both passages, these texts are perfectly comple- mentary. Putting the two texts together, both affirm that Paul, and Paul alone, saw Christ and both heard and understood his voice. Paul’s associates heard the voice without understanding and saw the light with- out seeing the appearance of Christ. In both passages, the point is that Paul, and Paul alone, received the content of the vision and the theo- phany of Christ. Paul’s associates witnessed the supernatural character of the event, seeing light and hearing a voice, but they neither saw Christ nor understood his words.’

Mohler quotes Bock:

‘It is overinterpretation to suggest that Acts 9:7 says that they did not see the light whereas here [Acts 22:9] it says they did. All that is said here is that they did not see anyone. For those with Saul, there was neither an appearance nor revelation. The point is that the others knew something happened and that Saul did not have a merely inner, psychological experience. Those with Paul, however, did not know exactly what took place.’

Conclusion

I am not competent to adjudicate on linguistic grounds.  However, the last-mentioned approach seems to me to have much to commend it.