The conversion of Paul is an extremely perplexing fact of history for skeptics.  Paul was an ardent opponent of Christianity and had everything to gain by destroying its claims. He persecuted the early Christians with zeal and thought he was serving God. When someone must confess such a drastic error in embarrassing detail, it is not likely they are fabricating their testimony. Accordingly, the testimony of a hostile witness is considered extremely convincing in a court of law. For these reasons skeptics have concocted fanciful theories such as Paul suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy[1] or conversion disorder.[2] Yet these desperate attempts do not account for the evidence of Jesus’ empty tomb or the eye witness testimony of the disciples or the appearance to and conversion of the once skeptical brother James. Paul was not in the frame of mind to hallucinate the risen Jesus and he does not fit the medical profile of someone who is likely to experience conversion psychosis.  For this reason skeptics seek to nitpick at the details in Acts to derive contradictions.

I have charted the three accounts of Paul’s conversion and color coded the key parallel phrases as a means to demonstrate the basic consistency of the accounts.  Paramount is to note the context of each passage. The first (Acts 9:1–19) is told by the narrator Luke. The second version (22:3-16) is told in Paul’s own words after he was arrested at the temple and taken to the barracks. The third is Paul’s testimony before King Agrippa. Accordingly the first has detail Paul would be unaware of like Ananias’ commission from God. The second and third have more detail in the message from Jesus to Paul reflecting the first person. From my arrangement and color coding it is readily apparent that the basic account is the same and that the minor discrepancies are merely the normal variations found when someone recalls an important event. They also reflect the contextual emphasis based on the setting.

The coherence is much more significant than the minor variations.  It is consistent that Paul was persecuting the Christians and in that duty he was approaching Damascus when he was suddenly enveloped by a blinding bright light. He heard a voice but his traveling companions only heard a sound. Skeptics make much of the fact that 9:7 says they heard the voice but 22:9 reads that, “they heard not the voice” in the old King James.[3] This is merely a case of an unfortunate translation choice on the part of the KJV.  While the Greek term, ἀκούω, can be rendered “hear”, it is also is used for “understand” or “comprehend” as in the case of Mark 4:33.[4] Modern translations reflect this rendering. While the atheist Dan Barker has criticized this as unjustifiable[5], the alleged contradiction seems drastically overstated because it is entirely possible to hear and not understand. Furthermore, in the third account (Acts 26:8–19), Paul supplies an additional detail that the voice spoke in Hebrew. Perhaps it is as simple as the fact his companions did not comprehend Hebrew?

The details that are consistent are far more significant. Paul fell to the ground and heard Jesus asking him why he was persecuting Him. While the third account to Agrippa presents a general summary of Paul’s commission, the other two give more detail. Jesus told him to travel onto Damascus where he would be told what to do. Blinded, he was led to the city by his companions where he fasted for three days. The first account provides the details about Ananias, who God had convinced to encourage and heal Paul. Paul was healed, converted and baptized and began to preach in Damascus.  According to his writing in Galatians, Paul then spent some time in alone in the Arabian Desert. I suspect he studied the Old Testament prophecies like Isaiah 53 and developed his theology. He also may have received additional revelation from the Lord during that time.[6] The results are self-evident in his composition of nearly half the New Testament.

Let’s say I am on a jury hearing your case. If your mother says you are a wonderful person and can be trusted, I still would have my doubts. However, if someone who dislikes you testified that you were honest, I would be inclined to think you trustworthy. The conversion of an enemy is powerful evidence. Even more, what could be more convincing than the complete turn around of an educated and skillful opponent with nothing to gain? Paul had everything to lose by converting yet the historical record is clear and undisputed. Paul went from persecutor to preacher of the Gospel. The only adequate explanation is that he met the risen Lord.

Follow @logosapologia