Why are there three conflicting accounts of Saul's conversion in Acts of the Apostles?

Answer 1

A: The most famous story about St Paul is of his conversion on the road to Damascus, when he was blinded by a light and heard a heavenly voice. Acts has three mutually incompatible versions, that theologists and scholars have struggled to reconcile. In the first two cases, Paul (Saul) went immediately to Damascus and, since he was blinded by the light, the disciple Ananius miraculously cured him and gave him baptism. In the third case, it is strongly implied that he went first to Damascus, but a sojourn in Arabia need not be ruled out.

• At 9:3-8, Paul was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in the city. His men did not see the light, but heard the voice. They remained standing.
• At 22:6-11, Paul told the people he was blinded by a light and fell down, then heard Jesus, who again told Paul that he would be told what to do when he was in Damascus. This time, his men saw the light but, unlike Paul, were not blinded, and did not hear the voice.
• At 26.13-19, Paul told Agrippa that he saw a brilliant light and heard Jesus, who gave him his mission, but did not command him to go to Damascus. He fell down, but there is no mention of blindness, nor is there any mention of the men seeing or hearing anything, although for some reason they also fell down. He told those at Damascus and Jerusalem about his conversion experience.

So, the light appeared only to Paul in the version at Acts 9:3-8 and probably at Acts 26.13-19, but appeared to both Paul and his men at Acts 22:6-11. Paul alone heard the voice at Acts 22:6-11 and probably at Acts 26.13-19, but both Paul and his men heard the voice at Acts 9:3-8. Paul's own account of his conversion says nothing of a blinding light or a voice from heaven.
This is an account that comes only from Acts, with no hint of it in Paul's own writings. Paul gave us his own account of his conversion in Galatians 1:15-17: "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia and returned again unto Damascus."

Since Paul was writing to those who knew him, he had no reason to lie, and in fact any show of dissembling on his part could have fatally undermined his credibility. On the other hand, Acts of the Apostles was written early in the second century, long after the death of Paul and of any witnesses. The author, traditionally known as Luke, could safely write whatever he chose, without fear of contradiction. Paul had said that he conferred with no one and learnt his gospel by revelation, not from man, but for theological reasons Luke wanted to show that he was dependent on the disciples for everything. So, Paul had to be made vulnerable and dependent on the disciples; he had to be made to go direct to Damascus to be cured of his blindness, and therefore be indebted to the disciples, and to learn the gospel in Damascus. Both books attributed to Luke frequently use repetition to emphasise a point and achieve acceptance by the reader, and he seems to have found that three slightly different versions of a theme achieved the result. If challenged, Luke could say that the third, most different account, was what the naturally rather vain Paul said happened but that the first two, although a little different from each other, were what really happened.