Saul, Saul, which was it?

I mentioned the contradictions in Paul's conversion stories here, but it seems that there is yet another major contradiction that either calls Galatians or Acts into question.

In Galatians, a largely undisputed epistle of Paul, he says that he did not straight away go to Jerusalem to see the other Apostles after his conversion.

But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) (Galatians 1:15-20 RSV)

But then the account in Acts say the exact opposite. After he left Damascus the first time he went straight to Jerusalem and eventually mixed freely with the Apostles.

And when he had come to Jerusalem he attempted to join the disciples; and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, (Acts 9:26-28 RSV)

This contradiction matters as Paul is making a serious point in Galatians which testifies to his right to claim Apostleship. Paul claims to have been called directly by God. His Apostleship was not given by other Apostles and he did not confer with them. If the Acts account is true then Paul's argument here in Galatians is undermined. He even goes so far to assure us that he isn't lying.

Saul, Saul, why getteth thee thou story wrong?

What is up with Christians and the story of Paul's conversion? Why do they throw this story up as 'evidence' or 'proof' of the Christian religion? As a Christian I always thought the story of Paul's conversion was relevant in that it was the conversion account of the most influential Apostle for the later Church, but proof or evidence? Why would a non-believer be moved by the account of an Apostle's conversion? I never used it in my witnessing as I could just hear non-believers saying, "So? How do we even know that is a true story?" or "Who cares? Who's he?"

Yet for many Christians this story holds water for some reason. Evangelists would sometimes preach the story and even get a response at the altar-call. I never understood that. As I ponder it I think that maybe it is the drama of it. The hard-ass persecutor gets zapped and becomes the hard-ass Apostle. I guess that much of it makes a good story. Perhaps there are some archetypes in there that resonate with us. Like Darth Vader's deathbed conversion at the end of Return of the Jedi, we all love it when bad guys turn good.

The story of Paul's conversion is told 3 times in the book of Acts (9; 22; 26). And yep, you guessed it, the stories don't match up. The accounts are not only different but in some places, irreconcilable.

After the light hits Paul and Jesus talks to Paul the stories conflict.

Act 9:7

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Act 22:9

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

OK, so there we have the guys with Paul hearing the voice and then not hearing the voice. So which one is it? It can't be both.

Act 9:4, 7, 8

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?...And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless... And Saul arose from the earth

Act 22:7

And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

Act 26:14

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

And here we have Acts 9 & 22 saying it was only Paul who fell and then chapter 9 even saying that that the other men were standing, but chapter 26 says they all fell. Which is it? It can't be both. Either Paul fell alone, or they all fell together.

Go and read the NIV to see how the Evangelicals involved in that translation have amended this apparent error. They have changed the word 'hear' in Acts 22:9 to 'understand' which is something earlier and later translations including the KJV and RSV do not do for good reason. The Greek word for 'hear' in verse 9 simply shouldn't be translated as 'understand' (see here).

One guy fell, they all fell. One guy heard a voice they all heard heard a voice. How did I ever believe God had a hand in that book?