I don't have a copy of Bruce to check his view. But my references
indicate that akouo may mean, among several nuances, either simply to
hear or to understand. If in Acts 9 it means the former and in Acts 22
the latter, there is no problem. For the benefit of those who insist that
there be only one translation for each scriptural word, consider the
person who hears something late at night: "I hear somebody talking
outside, but I don't know what he's saying." Alternatively, the response
to a description or explanation of a situation: "I hear you." This latter
goes beyond understanding to agreement, something else sometimes
indicated by the Greek verb.
There is another difference in the two passages. The first says they did
not see the speaker; the second, they saw the light. Looks to me as
though there were physical phenomena that produced effects via the
On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 12:56:13 -0600 (MDT) gordon brown
> I don't know whether or not this is one of the solutions proposed by
> F. F.
> Bruce, but it has been pointed out that the accounts in Acts 9 and
> Acts 22
> differ in the case of the word for voice--accusative vs. genitive.
> Gordon Brown
> Department of Mathematics
> University of Colorado
> Boulder, CO 80309-0395
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, george murphy wrote:
> > "George Andrews Jr." wrote:
> > > Hi Dave;
> > >
> > > David F Siemens wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 14 Sep 2000 08:57:30 -0400 "George Andrews Jr."
> > > > <email@example.com> writes:
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The fact that those accompanying Paul did not also hear
> > > > > voice is my
> > > > > point. It was all in Paul's mind.
> > > > >
> > > > Sorry, George, but you need to read your Bible more carefully.
> Acts 9:7
> > > > says those with Saul heard a voice. So, if it was all in
> Saul's head, it
> > > > was also in the heads of those accompanying him.
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > >
> > > Thanks for the correction. I thought they just heard sound. But
> I agree
> > > with your conclusion that is was also in the heads of the
> others. Again,
> > > where else would it be. However, unless I am mistaken again, I
> am afraid
> > > you may be missing my point concerning a theistic interpretation
> of the
> > > experiments. When I say it was in Paul's and his companion's
> minds, I am
> > > not arguing that the source wasn't God. I am saying that
> > > experiences must be in the mind so experimental stimulation
> shouldn't worry
> > > us.
> > >
> > The situation is not as simple as Dave suggested. Acts
> 9:7 does say
> > that the men with him heard the voice, but Acts 22:9 says that
> they "saw the
> > light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to
> me," while
> > 26:13-18 says nothing about the experience of those with Paul
> except that they
> > fell to the ground.
> > Of course solutions have been proposed, such as the two
> discussed by
> > F.F. Bruce, _The Acts of the Apostles_, (Eerdmans, 1952) p.199.
> According to
> > neither of these did they distinguish the _words_ apoken to Paul.
> Or it might
> > be simply 9:7 describes correctly what happened & that 22:9
> reports correctly
> > what Paul said had happened, but that he was wrong - though this
> seems a
> > stretch.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 16 2000 - 17:50:02 EDT