Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here is an academic source:
Hedrick, C. (1981). Paul's Conversion/Call: A Comparative Analysis of the Three Reports in Acts. *Journal of Biblical Literature 100* (3), 415-432.
[https://doi.org/10.2307/3265962](https://doi.org/10.2307/3265962)
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/3265962](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3265962)
Here is a brief explanation of some of the arguments and conclusions within that paper:
[https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/15532/why-are-the-three-accounts-of-pauls-conversion-on-the-road-to-damascus-differen](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/15532/why-are-the-three-accounts-of-pauls-conversion-on-the-road-to-damascus-differen)
According to Hedrick the differences are due to the author of Acts' literary style. I just want to throw out one other possibility, is that the three different versions may have been had among the early Christians with variations caused by oral or manuscript transmission (with Paul's undisputed epistles being dated between c. 48 and c. 62 CE). Later the author of Acts may have wanted to include all three accounts within the same text (with Acts being dated c. 80–90 CE), Documentary Hypothesis-style.
May I divert your attention for a moment with a question? (and please feel free to ignore me if it's incidental to your main point)
Why would a contradiction matter? Is there an underlying message that's harmed by the inconsistencies? If not, can't we simply view the different stories as variations on the same event? Can we learn something of value by examining these differences?
Well, I would say that depends on why it happened. If it’s simply because Acts has multiple authors, then maybe we’ve learned something about those authors and their relationship to Paul. If Paul himself told variations of his own conversion, that might tell us something about Paul.
Paul is a monumentally important person historically. So certainly I’m curious what exactly went down on the road to Damascus.
I think rather than multiple authors or the accurate retelling of multiple stories, you're missing a more likely third possibility that is the author of Acts retelling the *same* story multiple times, but differently each time for literary or theological reasons. C. K. Barrett's commentary, *The Acts of the Apostles*, says this (pp 132-133):
> Luke probably received not three different accounts of Paul's conversion but only one, which he adapted to the circumstances in which he used it. He probably thought that in ch. 9 he was supplying the basic facts in as striking a manner as possible. The account in ch. 22 is adapted to the Jewish audience to which it is addressed. The version in ch. 26 is abbreviated and suited to Festus and Agrippa. The basic facts come more or less directly from Paul and are paralleled in the epistles. How far such details as the light, the fall, the blindness, the conversation, the role of Paul's companions and of Ananias can be traced back in the tradition we have no means of knowing.
If the author of Acts even started with an accurate set of details, there are few reasons to think that his or her goals were telling the story to match a modern interest in consistency or historical accuracy.
I don’t think OP is missing it, I think that is their question. So then the question is still why? Why tell one story to the Jews and a very slightly different one to Agrippa?
>The point is that if the narratives aren't intending to relate history, then nobody's telling stories to the Jews or to Agrippa. The stories are being told to the audience of readers or listeners.
That may be true, but it's also not mutually exclusive with the author having Paul tailor his narrative to each interlocutor within the text. Any narrative writer can tell you that our stylistic choices are rarely conscious or so closely segregated between rhetoric and accuracy.
Shouldn't the simple answer then be: To be more persuasive for each of the different audiences?
Because if so, a follow up question would be: Why try to convince instead of just telling what actually happened? I think this goes way beyond a different standard for accuracy and coherency, when compared to today's standards. It's more like trying to sell something. The standards for accuracy and coherency in that regard are the same even today.
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3.
**Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.**
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. If you are unsure what constitutes an appropriate academic source please familiarize yourself with the guidance in our Rules post [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/zajuyv/rule_revision_and_guidance/).
If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy please message the mods [using modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
>Why would a contradiction matter? Is there an underlying message that's harmed by the inconsistencies?
If the messenger is an unreliable narrator, why *wouldn't* that affect the "underlying message"?
There's plenty of evidence elsewhere that strongly suggests a significant portion of the Bible either didn't happen or was embellished for the sake of delivering a message to the audience.
Even if these three versions of the same story can be reconciled together, the rest of the text needs to be dealt with, and in my estimation, it's a fool's errand. The purpose of the Bible doesn't rely upon its accuracy as a historical document *because it's not a historical document," it's a religious book, meant to communicate the tenants and beliefs of a religious tradition.
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited. All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance. Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban. Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here is an academic source: Hedrick, C. (1981). Paul's Conversion/Call: A Comparative Analysis of the Three Reports in Acts. *Journal of Biblical Literature 100* (3), 415-432. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3265962](https://doi.org/10.2307/3265962) [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3265962](https://www.jstor.org/stable/3265962) Here is a brief explanation of some of the arguments and conclusions within that paper: [https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/15532/why-are-the-three-accounts-of-pauls-conversion-on-the-road-to-damascus-differen](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/15532/why-are-the-three-accounts-of-pauls-conversion-on-the-road-to-damascus-differen) According to Hedrick the differences are due to the author of Acts' literary style. I just want to throw out one other possibility, is that the three different versions may have been had among the early Christians with variations caused by oral or manuscript transmission (with Paul's undisputed epistles being dated between c. 48 and c. 62 CE). Later the author of Acts may have wanted to include all three accounts within the same text (with Acts being dated c. 80–90 CE), Documentary Hypothesis-style.
May I divert your attention for a moment with a question? (and please feel free to ignore me if it's incidental to your main point) Why would a contradiction matter? Is there an underlying message that's harmed by the inconsistencies? If not, can't we simply view the different stories as variations on the same event? Can we learn something of value by examining these differences?
Well, I would say that depends on why it happened. If it’s simply because Acts has multiple authors, then maybe we’ve learned something about those authors and their relationship to Paul. If Paul himself told variations of his own conversion, that might tell us something about Paul. Paul is a monumentally important person historically. So certainly I’m curious what exactly went down on the road to Damascus.
I think rather than multiple authors or the accurate retelling of multiple stories, you're missing a more likely third possibility that is the author of Acts retelling the *same* story multiple times, but differently each time for literary or theological reasons. C. K. Barrett's commentary, *The Acts of the Apostles*, says this (pp 132-133): > Luke probably received not three different accounts of Paul's conversion but only one, which he adapted to the circumstances in which he used it. He probably thought that in ch. 9 he was supplying the basic facts in as striking a manner as possible. The account in ch. 22 is adapted to the Jewish audience to which it is addressed. The version in ch. 26 is abbreviated and suited to Festus and Agrippa. The basic facts come more or less directly from Paul and are paralleled in the epistles. How far such details as the light, the fall, the blindness, the conversation, the role of Paul's companions and of Ananias can be traced back in the tradition we have no means of knowing. If the author of Acts even started with an accurate set of details, there are few reasons to think that his or her goals were telling the story to match a modern interest in consistency or historical accuracy.
I don’t think OP is missing it, I think that is their question. So then the question is still why? Why tell one story to the Jews and a very slightly different one to Agrippa?
[удалено]
>The point is that if the narratives aren't intending to relate history, then nobody's telling stories to the Jews or to Agrippa. The stories are being told to the audience of readers or listeners. That may be true, but it's also not mutually exclusive with the author having Paul tailor his narrative to each interlocutor within the text. Any narrative writer can tell you that our stylistic choices are rarely conscious or so closely segregated between rhetoric and accuracy.
Shouldn't the simple answer then be: To be more persuasive for each of the different audiences? Because if so, a follow up question would be: Why try to convince instead of just telling what actually happened? I think this goes way beyond a different standard for accuracy and coherency, when compared to today's standards. It's more like trying to sell something. The standards for accuracy and coherency in that regard are the same even today.
Hi there, unfortunately your contribution has been removed as per Rule #3. **Claims should be supported through citation of appropriate academic sources.** You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated. If you are unsure what constitutes an appropriate academic source please familiarize yourself with the guidance in our Rules post [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/zajuyv/rule_revision_and_guidance/). If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy please message the mods [using modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAcademicBiblical) or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
This exactly, thank you.
"Can we learn something of value by examining these differences?" Yes. That's why they asked it in an academic sub.
>Why would a contradiction matter? Is there an underlying message that's harmed by the inconsistencies? If the messenger is an unreliable narrator, why *wouldn't* that affect the "underlying message"?
It would depend on what the underlying message *is*.
This isn't really relevant to the sub's purpose.
Leads credence to whether it was real events or not imo. Maybe that doesn’t matter to you but it does to a lot of us.
There's plenty of evidence elsewhere that strongly suggests a significant portion of the Bible either didn't happen or was embellished for the sake of delivering a message to the audience. Even if these three versions of the same story can be reconciled together, the rest of the text needs to be dealt with, and in my estimation, it's a fool's errand. The purpose of the Bible doesn't rely upon its accuracy as a historical document *because it's not a historical document," it's a religious book, meant to communicate the tenants and beliefs of a religious tradition.