Godless (41 page)
I play professional piano. Although I sometimes use electronic keyboards in jazz bands, I much prefer the acoustic piano, especially for solo work. Nothing matches the beauty of physically produced tones resonating in a real piano of quality wood. The overtones mix in the air like no computer can duplicate.
The word acoustic comes from the Greek word
akouo
, meaning “to hear.” Pronounced “ah-KOO-oh” by modern Greeks, it means to hear physically, acoustically. Both Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 use that word
. Akouo
does not mean “understand.” New Testament Greek possesses other words for “understand.” The main one is
suniemi
, which is “to understand in the sense of putting things together.” (The word means “to send together.”) There are also
noeo
, from the word for “mind”;
ginosko
, which means “to know”; and others. These verbs have noun counterparts: for example,
sunesis
(“understanding”), related to
suniemi
. The word
akouo
has no noun counterpart that works as a synonym for “understanding.”
akouo
, meaning “to hear.” Pronounced “ah-KOO-oh” by modern Greeks, it means to hear physically, acoustically. Both Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 use that word
. Akouo
does not mean “understand.” New Testament Greek possesses other words for “understand.” The main one is
suniemi
, which is “to understand in the sense of putting things together.” (The word means “to send together.”) There are also
noeo
, from the word for “mind”;
ginosko
, which means “to know”; and others. These verbs have noun counterparts: for example,
sunesis
(“understanding”), related to
suniemi
. The word
akouo
has no noun counterpart that works as a synonym for “understanding.”
This does not mean, however, that “hear” cannot be rendered loosely as “understand” in some special cases. We do it in English in the informal phrase, “I hear you.” We also use “see” sometimes in this manner: “Do you see what I mean?” A word for a physical sense can sometimes be used poetically to refer to a mental process, but the only way to know this is by context. It can’t be done with grammar alone.
Akouo
always means “hear” at the literal level, but it might sometimes figuratively be perceived as “understand,” depending on its usage in a particular passage.
Akouo
always means “hear” at the literal level, but it might sometimes figuratively be perceived as “understand,” depending on its usage in a particular passage.
There is only one instance where the King James Version (KJV) translates
akouo
as “understand.” First Corinthians 14:2: “For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth (
akouo
) him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.” The New International Version (NIV) puts it this way: “Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.” It seems, in context, that “understand” can be used here because, although there is obviously some physical hearing involved, there is an ambiguity about how a “mystery” spoken by a “spirit” could be physically perceived.
akouo
as “understand.” First Corinthians 14:2: “For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth (
akouo
) him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.” The New International Version (NIV) puts it this way: “Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit.” It seems, in context, that “understand” can be used here because, although there is obviously some physical hearing involved, there is an ambiguity about how a “mystery” spoken by a “spirit” could be physically perceived.
The Greek in Acts 22:9 is:
ten de phonen ouk ekousan.
(“The voice they did not hear.”
Ekousan
is aorist [past tense] of
akouo
, 3rd person plural). The KJV and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) say that the men did not “hear” the voice, but the NIV and Living Bible (LB, a paraphrase, not a translation), both produced by evangelicals, say that the men did not “understand” the voice, removing the appearance of a contradiction. On what grounds do the NIV and LB use such a translation? The narrative passage is not poetic. In fact, in the parallel Acts 9:7, telling the same story, the NIV and LB do use “hear,” from the verb
akouo
with the same object. There is nothing in the context of either Acts 9:7 or Acts 22:9 to warrant an informal or poetic translation of
akouo
.
ten de phonen ouk ekousan.
(“The voice they did not hear.”
Ekousan
is aorist [past tense] of
akouo
, 3rd person plural). The KJV and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) say that the men did not “hear” the voice, but the NIV and Living Bible (LB, a paraphrase, not a translation), both produced by evangelicals, say that the men did not “understand” the voice, removing the appearance of a contradiction. On what grounds do the NIV and LB use such a translation? The narrative passage is not poetic. In fact, in the parallel Acts 9:7, telling the same story, the NIV and LB do use “hear,” from the verb
akouo
with the same object. There is nothing in the context of either Acts 9:7 or Acts 22:9 to warrant an informal or poetic translation of
akouo
.
There are a few places in the New Testament where
akouo
(hear) and
suniemi
(understand) are paired and contrasted as synonyms, but the connection is explicit. In Matthew 13:13, Jesus reportedly said: “Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing (
akouo
) they hear (
akouo
) not, neither do they understand (
suniemi
).” If the second occurrence of
akouo
means “understand,” all by itself, then it would not have been necessary for Luke to add, “neither do they understand.” This underscores the fact that grammar is not enough to determine when
akouo
might be translated loosely.
akouo
(hear) and
suniemi
(understand) are paired and contrasted as synonyms, but the connection is explicit. In Matthew 13:13, Jesus reportedly said: “Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing (
akouo
) they hear (
akouo
) not, neither do they understand (
suniemi
).” If the second occurrence of
akouo
means “understand,” all by itself, then it would not have been necessary for Luke to add, “neither do they understand.” This underscores the fact that grammar is not enough to determine when
akouo
might be translated loosely.
The NIV and the LB wish us to think that Paul’s men “heard (Acts 9:7) but did not understand (Acts 22:9)” the voice. But “hear” and “understand” are coupled together all through the New Testament as a contrast of two different words. Matthew 13:23 says, “But he that received good seed into the good ground is he that heareth (
akouo
) the word, and understandeth (
suniemi
) it.” Matthew 15:10: “Hear (
akouo
) and understand (
suniemi
).” Mark 4:12: “and hearing they may hear (
akouo
), and not understand (
suniemi
).” Notice that Mark did not use
ouk akouo
(not hear) when he wanted to say “not understand.” For similar constructions see also Matthew 13:15, Matthew 13:19, Mark 7:14, Luke 8:10, Acts 28:26,27 and Romans 15:21. Since such pairing and contrasting of the two different words “hear” and “understand” is so common in New Testament Greek, why didn’t Luke take advantage of it in order to make his meaning clear in this instance?
akouo
) the word, and understandeth (
suniemi
) it.” Matthew 15:10: “Hear (
akouo
) and understand (
suniemi
).” Mark 4:12: “and hearing they may hear (
akouo
), and not understand (
suniemi
).” Notice that Mark did not use
ouk akouo
(not hear) when he wanted to say “not understand.” For similar constructions see also Matthew 13:15, Matthew 13:19, Mark 7:14, Luke 8:10, Acts 28:26,27 and Romans 15:21. Since such pairing and contrasting of the two different words “hear” and “understand” is so common in New Testament Greek, why didn’t Luke take advantage of it in order to make his meaning clear in this instance?
There is nothing in Acts 22:9—nothing grammatical, contextual or explicit—to indicated that
akouo
should be translated anything other than “hear.” In fact, the same words (often the very same phrase:
ouk ekousan
) occur throughout the New Testament, but neither the NIV nor the LB use “not understand” in those places. Look at Matthew 13:17 (NIV): “Many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear (
ouk ekousan
) it.” If Acts 22:9 should be translated as “not understand,” why not here? In fact, Matthew 13:17 is one instance where
akouo
might justifiably be loosely translated “understand” (though this would spoil the poetry), but the opportunity is not taken, maybe because there is no discrepancy to disguise. We should not take this as permission, however, to consider that Luke was using a similar literary device because 13 chapters separate Acts 9:7 and 22:9. It would only work if the words were closely paired poetically, in the same passage or sentence.
akouo
should be translated anything other than “hear.” In fact, the same words (often the very same phrase:
ouk ekousan
) occur throughout the New Testament, but neither the NIV nor the LB use “not understand” in those places. Look at Matthew 13:17 (NIV): “Many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear (
ouk ekousan
) it.” If Acts 22:9 should be translated as “not understand,” why not here? In fact, Matthew 13:17 is one instance where
akouo
might justifiably be loosely translated “understand” (though this would spoil the poetry), but the opportunity is not taken, maybe because there is no discrepancy to disguise. We should not take this as permission, however, to consider that Luke was using a similar literary device because 13 chapters separate Acts 9:7 and 22:9. It would only work if the words were closely paired poetically, in the same passage or sentence.
Look at Mark 8:18 (NIV): “Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?” The phrase “fail to hear” is
ouk akouete:
“You do not hear.” Again, if Acts 22:9 should be “not understand,” then why not here? Other examples are John 5:37: “You have neither heard his voice nor seen his form”; and Romans 10:18: “Did they not hear (
ouk ekousan,
identical with Acts 22:9)?” (See also Mark 6:11, Luke 10:24, Luke 16:31, John 10:8, Acts 9:12 and Romans 15:21.) Why is the NIV not consistent? Why does it use “understand”
only
in Acts 22:9?
ouk akouete:
“You do not hear.” Again, if Acts 22:9 should be “not understand,” then why not here? Other examples are John 5:37: “You have neither heard his voice nor seen his form”; and Romans 10:18: “Did they not hear (
ouk ekousan,
identical with Acts 22:9)?” (See also Mark 6:11, Luke 10:24, Luke 16:31, John 10:8, Acts 9:12 and Romans 15:21.) Why is the NIV not consistent? Why does it use “understand”
only
in Acts 22:9?
If Luke had wanted Acts 22:9 to mean “not understand,” he should have said so, either explicitly (with
suniemi
or some other verb for understand) or contextually. If he had wanted to contrast the two meanings, why didn’t he follow the New Testament practice of pairing
akouo
and
suniemi
?
suniemi
or some other verb for understand) or contextually. If he had wanted to contrast the two meanings, why didn’t he follow the New Testament practice of pairing
akouo
and
suniemi
?
I once brought up this contradiction on an Arizona radio show where I was debating James White, a self-styled Christian apologist. White immediately retorted that since
phone
(“voice,” pronounced “Pho-NEE” by modern Greeks) is in two different cases in these verses, it was meant to be understood differently: “voice” in one instance but “sound” in the other. He is right about the two different cases, but he is wrong about what this means. Greek scholars who have more than a superficial knowledge of the language would never use this argument.
phone
(“voice,” pronounced “Pho-NEE” by modern Greeks) is in two different cases in these verses, it was meant to be understood differently: “voice” in one instance but “sound” in the other. He is right about the two different cases, but he is wrong about what this means. Greek scholars who have more than a superficial knowledge of the language would never use this argument.
Acts 9:7 has
tes phones
and Acts 22:9 has
ten phonen
for “the voice.” The first is in the genitive case, and the second is in the accusative. Although the KJV and the NRSV use “voice” in both verses, the evangelical NIV and LB translate
phones
as “sound” in Acts 9:7 and
phonen
as “voice” in Acts 22:9. They appear to be suggesting that the genitive case should change the meaning of “voice.” A number of Christian apologists, such as Gleason Archer, have used this argument. But they are wrong. In this instance, the genitive case does not change the meaning of the word in any way.
tes phones
and Acts 22:9 has
ten phonen
for “the voice.” The first is in the genitive case, and the second is in the accusative. Although the KJV and the NRSV use “voice” in both verses, the evangelical NIV and LB translate
phones
as “sound” in Acts 9:7 and
phonen
as “voice” in Acts 22:9. They appear to be suggesting that the genitive case should change the meaning of “voice.” A number of Christian apologists, such as Gleason Archer, have used this argument. But they are wrong. In this instance, the genitive case does not change the meaning of the word in any way.
In many inflected languages, such as Greek, there is a flexibility of case usage (declension of nouns) with some verbs. Some verbs take their direct objects in more than just the accusative case. This is explicitly true of
akouo
, which can take either the accusative or the genitive with no change in meaning. If the apologists are right and the genitive cases does change the meaning here, then this would create dozens of contradictions elsewhere in the New Testament where such flexibility of case is common.
akouo
, which can take either the accusative or the genitive with no change in meaning. If the apologists are right and the genitive cases does change the meaning here, then this would create dozens of contradictions elsewhere in the New Testament where such flexibility of case is common.
For example, the writers of Matthew and Luke both relate Jesus’ parable of the wise man who built his house upon a rock. Matthew 7:24 quotes Jesus: “[W]hosoever heareth these sayings (
tous logous
) of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man.” Luke 6:47, telling the
same
story, quotes Jesus: “Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings (
ton logon
), and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like.” Both writers related the same speech, so it could not have meant two different things, but they used different cases for the object of
akouo
. Matthew used the accusative and Luke used the genitive. This is not a contradiction. There is a tiny inexactness about what declension Jesus might actually have used when he spoke these words in history (if he indeed spoke them in Greek, or spoke them at all), but there is no discrepancy. Matthew and Luke, each reconstructing the scene from memory (or perhaps from notes, from someone else’s memory or translating from Aramaic), can be allowed some personal leeway in their choice of declensions. The New Testament Greek allows for such looseness. It is clear that the accusative and genitive case render exactly the same meaning following the word
akouo
.
tous logous
) of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man.” Luke 6:47, telling the
same
story, quotes Jesus: “Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings (
ton logon
), and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like.” Both writers related the same speech, so it could not have meant two different things, but they used different cases for the object of
akouo
. Matthew used the accusative and Luke used the genitive. This is not a contradiction. There is a tiny inexactness about what declension Jesus might actually have used when he spoke these words in history (if he indeed spoke them in Greek, or spoke them at all), but there is no discrepancy. Matthew and Luke, each reconstructing the scene from memory (or perhaps from notes, from someone else’s memory or translating from Aramaic), can be allowed some personal leeway in their choice of declensions. The New Testament Greek allows for such looseness. It is clear that the accusative and genitive case render exactly the same meaning following the word
akouo
.
Another example is when Matthew and Mark each report the appearance of Jesus before the high priest. Matthew 26:65 quotes the high priest: “Behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy (
blasphemian
).” Mark 14:64 tells the same story
,
quoting the high priest: “Ye have heard the blasphemy (
blasphemias
).” The writer of Matthew used the accusative for the object of
akouo
and the writer of Mark used the genitive. Again, there is no contradiction—just impreciseness about what actual word was spoken by the high priest. I suppose it is possible that one of the writers made a mistake, but since the case usage is flexible, translators don’t even need to be charitable. They can simply assume there is no discrepancy.
blasphemian
).” Mark 14:64 tells the same story
,
quoting the high priest: “Ye have heard the blasphemy (
blasphemias
).” The writer of Matthew used the accusative for the object of
akouo
and the writer of Mark used the genitive. Again, there is no contradiction—just impreciseness about what actual word was spoken by the high priest. I suppose it is possible that one of the writers made a mistake, but since the case usage is flexible, translators don’t even need to be charitable. They can simply assume there is no discrepancy.
Closer to home is Acts 9:4, Acts 22:7 and Acts 26:14, the story of Saul’s conversion itself. (It is told three different times.) Acts 9:4: “And he fell to the earth and heard a voice (
phonen
) saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” Acts 22:7: “And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice (
phones
) saying unto me.” Acts 26:14: “And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice (
phonen
) speaking unto me.” Notice the different cases. Paul himself, telling the
same
story in the same context, uses two different cases. They cannot have meant two different things. In fact, the NIV and the LB agree, translating both the accusative and the genitive as “voice” in all three instances. If the apologists are correct when they say that the difference in case produces different words in Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9, then the above example shows Paul contradicting himself. The apologists have shot themselves in the foot.
phonen
) saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?” Acts 22:7: “And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice (
phones
) saying unto me.” Acts 26:14: “And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice (
phonen
) speaking unto me.” Notice the different cases. Paul himself, telling the
same
story in the same context, uses two different cases. They cannot have meant two different things. In fact, the NIV and the LB agree, translating both the accusative and the genitive as “voice” in all three instances. If the apologists are correct when they say that the difference in case produces different words in Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9, then the above example shows Paul contradicting himself. The apologists have shot themselves in the foot.
To be fair, there are places where
phone
can allowably be translated as “sound,” but context rather than case determines this.
Phone
is used 140 times in the New Testament. It is translated as “voice” 131 times in the KJV. The other nine times it is translated as “sound” or “noise,” but each of these is clearly figurative, referring to something that is not a person: “the noise (
phone
) of thunder,” “sound (
phone
) of wind,” “wings,” etc. Notice that although the KJV translates Revelation 6:1 as “sound of thunder” (
phone
, dative case), the NRSV, NIV and LB stick with “voice.” Here, where there actually
is
a poetic justification for using “sound,” and a different case from the accusative, it is not taken. I think the literal “voice of thunder,” a more interesting way of speaking, is more respectful of the poetic intention of the writer than “sound of thunder.” Neither thunder nor wind actually have a “voice.” But in Acts 9:7 there is no such poetic context. In fact, Luke goes out of his way to insist that it was a person: “hearing a voice, but seeing
no man.
” (My emphasis.) If Paul’s men thought they had heard an impersonal noise like thunder or wind, then it would not have been necessary to add the phrase “but seeing no man.”
phone
can allowably be translated as “sound,” but context rather than case determines this.
Phone
is used 140 times in the New Testament. It is translated as “voice” 131 times in the KJV. The other nine times it is translated as “sound” or “noise,” but each of these is clearly figurative, referring to something that is not a person: “the noise (
phone
) of thunder,” “sound (
phone
) of wind,” “wings,” etc. Notice that although the KJV translates Revelation 6:1 as “sound of thunder” (
phone
, dative case), the NRSV, NIV and LB stick with “voice.” Here, where there actually
is
a poetic justification for using “sound,” and a different case from the accusative, it is not taken. I think the literal “voice of thunder,” a more interesting way of speaking, is more respectful of the poetic intention of the writer than “sound of thunder.” Neither thunder nor wind actually have a “voice.” But in Acts 9:7 there is no such poetic context. In fact, Luke goes out of his way to insist that it was a person: “hearing a voice, but seeing
no man.
” (My emphasis.) If Paul’s men thought they had heard an impersonal noise like thunder or wind, then it would not have been necessary to add the phrase “but seeing no man.”
Why would the NIV and the LB use “sound” in Acts 9:7 instead of “voice”? There is no linguistic or contextual reason. It appears these evangelical translators are simply trying to paper over a discrepancy. The NIV and LB translators cannot claim a new, more advanced understanding of Greek. The NRSV was published
after
the NIV and LB, and it uses the literal “voice” in Acts 9:7. (From what I can tell, the NRSV seems to be the most popular translation among scholars.)
after
the NIV and LB, and it uses the literal “voice” in Acts 9:7. (From what I can tell, the NRSV seems to be the most popular translation among scholars.)
Other books
BlackMoonRising by Melody Lane
Brother Wind by Sue Harrison
The Dangerous Duke by Arabella Sheraton
Third Strike by Heather Brewer
Love & Deception (Agents in Love - Book 1) by Chantel Rhondeau
Under Strange Suns by Ken Lizzi
Playing with Fire by Emily Blake
The Blacksmith's Daughter: A Mystery of the American Revolution by Adair, Suzanne
Kiss the Girl by Susan Sey
The Winning Hand by Nora Roberts
