Paul, known as Saul of Tarsus, meets Jesus for the first time on the way to Damascus. His Damascus road experience includes seeing a bright light, falling to the ground, and hearing a heavenly voice telling him that he has been persecuting Jesus by persecuting those who follow Jesus. Actually, there are three different versions of this encounter in Acts. In Acts 9 the author of Acts, traditionally Luke, provides the first narrative. In Acts 22 Paul’s own testimony is recorded of this event before a hostile crowd in Jerusalem. In Acts 26 he once again gives his testimony, this time before King Herod Agrippa II, his sister Bernice, and procurator Festus.
Each retelling of Paul’s Damascus experience is different in details than the other two. Despite the differences, the three accounts provide us with a general sketch of Paul’s first encounter with Jesus. Paul’s Damascus experience provides us with recollections about the apostle of an actual event that forever changed his life.
Luke’s sources probably include oral traditions about Paul remembered, and these ancient traditions tended to be flexible when it came to details. If Luke’s information came from eyewitness testimonies (Luke 1:1–4; Act 1:1–3), one of those witnesses might be Paul himself. Already in second-century traditions (e.g., Irenaeus Heresies, 3.14.1), Luke is named as the author of Acts, and he happens to be one of Paul’s travelling colleagues (Colossians 4:14; Philemon 24; 2 Timothy 4:11). The “we” passages in Acts 16:10–17, 20:5–21:18, and 27:1–28:16 support such a relationship.*
Let’s look more closely at the three different versions of Paul’s Damascus experience in Acts 9:1–7, 22:5–11, and 26:12–18.
Similarities and Differences between Paul’s Damascus Experiences in Acts 9, 22, and 26
Although these lists are not exhaustive, they provide a good gist of similarities and differences.
Similarities:
- Paul was authorized by religious authorities to arrest Christians in Damascus
- Paul saw a light and heard a voice on the way to Damascus
- He fell to the ground
- The voice said, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
- Paul replies, “Who are you lord?”
- The voice responds, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.”
- Paul is called to witness both to Jews and the gentile nations
- Paul is told to arise and he proceeds to the city
- Paul is temporarily blinded by the event (Acts 9, 22)
- Paul is led by the hand by his companions to Damascus (Acts 9, 22)
- In Damascus, Paul subsequently meets Ananias who heals his blindness (Acts 9, 22)
- Paul is baptized (and this probably assumes also being filled with the Spirit, mentioned once, too) (Acts 9, 22)
Distinctions/one-time mentions:
- I am Jesus “the Nazarene” who you are persecuting (Acts 22:8)
- Jesus spoke in Hebrew to Paul (Acts 26:14)
- Jesus adds, “It is hard to kick against the goads” (26:14); inferior mss support this reading also in Acts 9.
- Paul asks the Lord what he should do (22:10)
- The men with Paul saw no one (9:7)/ the men saw light (22:9)/ a light shined around Paul and the men (26:13).
- The men “stood speechless” (9:7)/ but “all” “fell down to the ground” (26:14)
- The men were hearing the voice (9:7)/ the men did not hear the voice of the one speaking to Paul (22:9)
- More details are given regarding Paul’s calling in Acts 26:16–18
- Paul did not eat and drink for three days (9:9)
- The Lord calls Ananias to seek out Paul (9:10–16)
- The story about Ananias diminishes in Paul’s retelling (Acts 22) and is missing in his second (Acts 26)
- Scales fall from Paul’s eyes when he is healed (9:18)
- Paul’s sins are to be washed away (22:16)
- Paul is to call on the name of the Lord (22:16)
- Paul has some food (9:19).
Explanations Regarding the Differences
Among the differences include whether Paul’s call to testify to Jews and gentile nations came through Ananias (Acts 9:15–16) or Jesus (Acts 22:13–16; 26:16–18). There is no reason why it could not be both. One possibility is that originally Ananias told Paul, but the Lord already revealed Paul’s calling to him, whether on the road to Damascus, or (more plausibly in my opinion) during his three days of blindness and fasting once in the city of Damascus (Acts 9). Also, three years later, when falling into a trance in Jerusalem, the Lord himself confirmed Paul’s calling to the nations (Acts 22:17–21).
The extended calling in Acts 26:16–18 may conflate information of the two visions, or if not, it perhaps conflates Paul’s Damascus experience (both on the road and once in Damascus) with things that Ananias told him.
Another factor has to do with the Luke’s desire to disclose information about the Damascus experience progressively with some information disclosed in Acts 9, more details in Acts 22, and yet more in Acts 26, which functions as a climax for Paul’s testimony.
The intensity of the scene increases with each version. Notice the intensity of persecution (Acts 9:1; 22:4; 26:9–11), the growing brightness of the light (Acts 9:3; 22:6; 26:13), and Paul’s response more marked (Acts 9:7; 22:7; 26:14). Regarding Paul’s calling, Jesus’s instructions first stress Paul to wait for a response (Acts 9:6), but then more is told to Paul in Acts 22:10, and even more in Acts 26:16–18. Luke thus creates suspense, curiosity, and reversal of expectations when signaling Paul’s call to the nations (see Steve Walton, “Paul in Acts,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, 2023:779–91).
Variations in the Details
Some interpreters suggest that Luke may have been careless or contradictory with some of the details, especially in relation to the others that were travelling with Paul. But Luke claims to have done respectable research with his sources, which come from eyewitness testimony in Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1–3.
Could it be that some of his sources or witnesses provided him with conflicting information? If so, why did he not try to harmonize the text better? Naturally, different rhetorical aims, contexts, and perhaps theological concerns play into such interpretations. Likewise, Luke is narrating Acts 9, whereas he has Paul giving his own testimony in Acts 22 and 26.
Luke should not be judged as though he were a modern historian. He is an ancient author writing an ancient historical work about the early communities in Christ with an aim of showing how the gospel spread from Jerusalem to Rome (Acts 1:8).
It is clear that ancient historians were not as obsessed as modern ones are regarding minute details and proper documentation. They were more willing to improvise the histories they present. They do so creatively and rhetorically so as to provide a good, entertaining read. This is clear from the amazing stories we find in Herodotus’s History, the improvised speeches in Thucydides’s Peloponnesian War, the intriguing biographies of noble Greeks and Romans by Plutarch, and Josephus’s history of the Jewish people in Antiquities, large portions of which resemble what we find in the Bible (he uses it as a primary source). Luke resembles more the style of these works than modern histories and biographies.
Paul’s Travelling Companions During the Experience
Ironically, the most difficult discrepancies in Paul’s Damascus experience are perhaps to Luke the least important tidbits of information. They have to do not with what Paul heard or experienced, but with what his other travelling companions saw and heard. If we bracket out their experience, nothing much is lost in the testimony of Paul’s own experience other than these witnesses being present for the encounter. They also help lead Paul, now blind, into Damascus. Perhaps their insignificant role is the reason why Luke does not bother to clarify the differences between what pertains to them in the texts. They are, comparatively speaking, not very important in the story. Either that or Luke may not have thought their report was problematic. After all, he did not write Acts thinking that readers and scholars 2,000 years later would be scrutinizing his every word!**
Paul fell to the ground but the men stood speechless (Acts 9:4, 7)/ We all fell to the ground (Acts 26:14)
This discrepancy may be due to Luke having two or three different sources of information about the event. Then again, it is quite possible that all the companions initially fell to the ground at the bright light, but then the men got up and stood still while Saul remained on the ground as Christ kept speaking to him (see F. F. Bruce, Acts NICOT, 1986:197). The notion that these witnesses “stood speechless” implies that they were fearful, confused, awe struck, or dumbfounded at what was happening. Compare this with prophetic epiphanies, where fearful sights or sounds are sensed without full comprehension of what is taking place (Deut 4:12; Dan 10:7).
They saw no one (Acts 9:7)/ They saw the light (Acts 22:9)
Here the devil is in the details. Seeing no one*** and seeing a light are two different things. The men saw the light but did not see the person of Jesus. This distinction is important—their not seeing any person implies that Paul did see someone. He did not merely see “light” and that’s all. He saw the Lord Jesus, as is clarified in Acts 9:27 and 22:14, and in Paul’s own letters (cf. 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8–10).
It also is strongly implied in the third version of Acts 26:14, that the reason the men fell down was because of the bright light in 26:13. Why else would they fall? We have a double witness, then, that they saw a bright light, and that this should be distinguished from seeing no person in that light.
They heard from the voice (9:7)/They did not hear the voice of the one speaking to me (26:9)
A comparison between the texts suggests that the voice comes from Jesus, obviously having to do with his speech. A first view simply lets the discrepancy stand without explanation; Luke is at fault here.
A second view is that Acts 26:14 provides the further detail that Jesus was speaking to Paul in Hebrew. If the men were Hellenistic Jews, it is quite possible that they could hear Jesus’s voice and yet not understand what is being spoken. Persecution, after all, began with the Hellenistic Jews in Jerusalem who contested Stephen, and Paul apparently one of them though as a Pharisee he would seem to know Hebrew (Acts 6–7).
A third, complementary interpretation with the second is given by Ben Witherington. He distinguishes between the accusative case phônên (22:9: φωνήν), which can mean hearing and understanding. The genitive case phônês (9:7: φωνῆς) is to simply hear the sound of someone or something. They didn’t understand what was said, or could not make out what was being said (Witherington, Acts, 1998:312–13).
A fourth view is that Luke means Paul’s voice in 9:7 and Paul means Jesus’s voice in 26:9 (Bruce, Acts, 197, who dislikes the accusative and genitive distinction of meaning above since it is not normative for the term).
A fifth view admits there were conflicting reports about what was heard (and perhaps seen). The travelling companions of Paul did not all experience the same thing. As seems to be common with witnesses who experience supernatural phenomena, their reports tend to be in conflict with one another. An example of this took place with the phenomenon of the “dancing sun” experienced by reportedly thousands of people in Portugal during the appearance of the Lady Fatima to three children in 1917. Their testimonies of the sun falling and changing colors were in conflict with others who claimed to have seen nothing. Conflicting reports may be the norm when unusual phenomena take place before groups of people.
In John’s Gospel a voice came from heaven speaking about Jesus as God’s son, which was interpreted differently by the people hearing it. Some claim to have heard it, others said it thundered (John 12:28–30). Even the risen Christ appearing before his disciples in Matthew’s Gospel includes the unusual tag, “but some doubted” (Matt 28:17).
Could the men have given conflicting experiences themselves, with some hearing something, others hearing nothing? If so, Luke may have given a voice to both views.
Conclusion
I believe that the triple tradition in Acts 9, 22, and 26 provides adequate historical confirmation that Paul’s initial calling**** took place during his early days on the road to and in Damascus. His prior life as a persecutor of the Christ-community and his Damascus experience are also confirmed in Paul’s own letters: Galatians 1:11–17; 1 Cor 9:1; 15:8–9; Phil 3:4–12; 2 Cor 4:6 [innuendo]; Rom 1:1; 1 Cor 1:17; cf. Eph 3:2–3; 1 Tim 1:12–16; 2 Tim 1:11–12. For more on Paul in Damascus, see 2 Cor 11:32-33 (cf. Acts 9:19b-25).
Notes
* Against scholars who contest the first-person plurals in Acts as referring to Paul’s colleague, Craig Keener, Acts (Baker Academic, 2014), 3:2350–74, provides a compelling rebuttal.
** Interestingly, this very text turns out to be the one from Scripture that five competing interpreters are required to explain in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. J. Merrick and S. M. Garrett (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013).
*** The Greek here is the masculine μηδείς: commonly, no one, nobody. It is not the neuter μηδέν: commonly, nothing (see Bauer, Danker, Ardnt, and Gingrich, Greek Lexicon, 3rd ed., 647).
**** Sometimes Paul uses the terms calling and (what we might understand as) conversion interchangeably (Rom 1:6–7; 8:30; 1 Cor 1:9; 7:17–24; Gal 1:6; etc). A more Pauline word for the latter would be a “turn” (e.g. 1 Thess 1:9-10: epistrepho). If one uses “conversion” for Paul’s own experience, this should be explained. Paul remained a Jew, though now one that followed Jesus as Messiah. “Christianity” did not exist as such at this time in the first century, though “Christian” was an emerging term. Even so, there was surely a “turn” and transformation for Paul through the Damascus event. He changed from a persecutor of Jesus-Messiah followers to a follower himself. He received baptism-initiation into the Jesus Christ community (1 Cor 12:13; cf. Acts 9:17-18; 22:16). He was now “in Christ” (Gal 2:20).