Arator : Paul, speaking of his deeds, says that his companions saw the light there some time ago, yet that they did not drink in the voice with their ears; but then, at the time when he fell blind, his companions are said also to have heard the voice. Thus the work of the narrator varies. But there is no doubt that it is necessary for both [passages] to harmonize; for then [according to Luke] they are said to have heard, to have received the sound, now [in Paul's own words] undoubtedly not to have heard. This will be a simple way of explanation: the voice is justly denied to have spoken since it was indistinct, nor is a thing believed to be given by speech when a person receiving it does not store it up in his understanding. He is stimulated so little on account of his doubting ear, and ambiguous noise strikes only the air. They are said at the same time thus to have heard, thus not to have heard. The one standpoint is of noise, the other standpoint is of true speech, and a single circumstance bears and bears again a twofold meaning. — ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 2 Bede : They did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. Above, the story narrates about this vision that his companions stood stupefied, hearing indeed the voice, but seeing no one. Hence it is inferred that they heard the sound of a confused voice, but not the distinction of words. — Commentary on Acts Bede : And those who were with me indeed saw the light. And in Greek it is added more: And they were afraid. — Retractions on Acts Jerome : [Daniel 10:7] "And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me saw it not; but an exceeding great terror fell upon them, and they fled away and hid themselves." The Apostle Paul had a similar experience in the Book of Acts, in that while the others could see nothing, he alone beheld the vision (Acts 22:6-9). — St. Jerome, Commentary on Daniel, CHAPTER TEN John Chrysostom : "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." But in another place he says, "Hearing the voice, but seeing no man." It is not at variance: no, there were two voices, that of Paul and the Lord's voice: in that place, the writer means Paul's voice; as in fact Paul here adds, "The voice of Him that spake unto me. Seeing no man:" he does not say, that they did not see the light: but, "no man," that is, "none speaking." And good reason that it should be so, since it behooved him alone to have that voice vouchsafed unto him. For if indeed they also had heard it, the miracle would not have been so great. Since persons of grosser minds are persuaded more by sight, those saw the light, and were afraid. In fact, neither did the light take so much effect on them, as it did on him: for it even blinded his eyes: by that which befel him, God gave them also an opportunity of recovering their sight, if they had the mind. It seems to me at least, that their not believing was providentially ordered, that they might be unexceptionable witnesses. — Homily on Acts 47