Difference between revisions of "Joseph Smith's First Vision/Paul's accounts/Do Greek scholars solve the discrepancies in Paul's vision accounts"

Revision as of 01:17, 3 January 2009

Template:FirstVisionPortal This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.

Criticism

Joseph Smith left several accounts of his First Vision. None of these accounts is identical with any other. As the main page discusses, some critics wish to argue that Joseph's vision accounts are mutually contradictory, and thus that there was no vision.

Latter-day Saints often point out that the Bible's accounts of Paul's vision on the road to Damascus appear to be contradictory. Yet, the Church's sectarian critics accept Paul's account as true despite the Bible containing apparently frank contradictions in its accounts. While accepting or explaining away these discrepancies, the critics nevertheless refuse to give Joseph Smith the same latitude. Members of the Church have long pointed out that this is a clear double standard, designed to bias the audience against Joseph from the beginning.

Perhaps because of the force of this argument, some critics have begun to argue that no contradiction exists between the versions of Paul's vision. For example, Richard Abanes wrote that contradictions in the stories of Paul's vision were

"long ago resolved by scholars analyzing the Greek texts. The discrepancies in Paul's account involve modern ignorance of the Greek wording used."^[1]

In support of this claim, Abanes cites W.E. Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 544.

Source(s) of the Criticism

• Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 42, 43 (sidebar). ( Index of claims )

Response

The two verses usually at issue are Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9:

The debate

The debate centers on the word translated "hearing" or "heard" in these verses:

Abanes' source

The work cited by Abanes is not a recent work of Greek scholarship—it was first published in 1940.^[2] In the reference for ἀκούω, we read:

...the usual word denoting "to hear," is used (a) intransitively, e.g., Matt. 11:15; Mark 4;23; (b) transitively when the object is expressed, sometimes in the accusative case, sometimes in the genitive. Thus in Acts 9:7, "hearing the voice," the noun "voice" is in the partitive genitive case [i.e., hearing (something) of], whereas in Acts 22:9, "they heard not the voice," the construction is with the accusative. This removes the idea of any contradiction. The former indicates a "hearing" of the sound, the latter indicates the meaning or message of the voice (this they did not hear). "The former denotes the sensational perception, the latter (the accusative case) the thing perceived" (Cremer).

Abanes' claim

Thus, by this source, Abanes hopes to argue that there can be "no idea of any contradiction":

More up-to-date scholarship?

We have seen Abanes appeal to a source that was nearly sixty years old at the time of his writing. Have modern Greek scholars anything to add to our discussion?

Daniel Wallace (a non-LDS, conservative Christian scholar) wrote of this same issue:

...There seems to be a contradiction between this account [Acts 9:7] of Paul's conversion and his account of it in Acts 22, for there he says, "those who were with me..did not hear the voice..." However, in Acts 22:9 the verb ἀκούω takes an accusative direct object. On these two passages, Robertson states: '...it is perfectly proper to appeal to the distinction in the cases in the apparent contradiction....The accusative case (case of extent) accents the intellectual apprehension of the sound, while the genitive (specifying case) calls attention to the sound of the voice without accenting the sense.'...

The NIV [a conservative Bible translation, the New International Version] seems to follow this line of reasoning....[thus the differences in case] can be appealed to to harmonize these two accounts...."(italics in original) ^[3]

Thus, Wallace is here dealing with the exact verses under discussion, and notes the exact argument which Abanes makes. Does he agree? Let us see:

On the other hand, it is doubtful that this is where the difference lay between the two cases used with akkkk in Hellenistic Greek: the N[ew] T[estament] (incluidng the more literary writers) is filled with examples of ἀκούω + genitive indicating understanding...^[4]as well as instances of ἀκούω + accusative where little or no comprehension takes place{{ref|wallace.2b}...The exceptions, in fact, are seemingly more numerous than the rule!

Thus, regardless of how one works through the accounts of Paul's conversion, an appeal to different cases probably ought not form any part of the solution.(italics and 'bold italics in original; red color added)^[5]

Thus, the New Testament itself does not agree with Abanes' reading. Far from supporting him, Greek scholarship argues against his solution—the Bible has more examples where his supposed "rule" is broken than when it is followed. It would seem that this approach has been developed primarily by ultraconservatives who wish to maintain the idea of biblical inerrancy.

Various translations

Conclusion

 ^{[needs work]}

Endnotes

1. [note]  Richard Abanes, Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism (Harvest House Publishers: 2005). 42, 43 (sidebar). ( Index of claims )
2. [note]  W.E. Vine's M.A., Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (1940). off-site
3. [note]  Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan, 1997), 133. off-site
4. [note]  Wallace gives as examples which contradict Abanes' model:
5. [note] Wallace gives as examples which contradict Abanes' model:
6. [note]  Wallace, Beyond the Basics, 133–134. off-site

Further reading

FAIR wiki articles

Template:FirstVisionWiki

FAIR web site

Template:FirstVisionFAIR

External links

Template:FirstVisionLinks

Printed material

Template:FirstVisionPrint