Welcome to “Ehrman Errs,” a blog series devoted to using our conversational AI to refute each alleged biblical contradiction that is posed in the article on Bart Ehrman’s website: 50 Contradictions in the Bible: The Biggest, Most Shocking Differences.
Today’s alleged contradiction:
#14 – Conflicting Accounts of Paul’s Journeys
The life of the apostle Paul provides another example of biblical contradiction when comparing his travel narrative in Galatians with that in the Acts of the Apostles. In Galatians 1:17-2:9, Paul emphasizes that, after his conversion, he did not go to Jerusalem immediately. Instead, he traveled to Arabia and then returned to Damascus. He states that he visited Jerusalem only three years later, staying for 15 days and meeting only Cephas (Peter) and James. He explicitly notes that he did not meet any other apostles at that time. Afterward, he went to Syria and Cilicia, and 14 years later, he returned to Jerusalem for the apostolic council, possibly corresponding to the events of Acts 15. In Acts 9, however, Paul’s movements after his conversion appear different.
According to this account, Paul stayed in Damascus for many days, preaching the gospel before fleeing due to a plot against his life. He then traveled to Jerusalem, where he met Barnabas and was introduced to the apostles, with no mention of his journey to Arabia. The text suggests he stayed in Jerusalem for a longer period, preaching openly before leaving for Caesarea and then Tarsus. Later, Barnabas brought him from Tarsus to Antioch, where Paul began his missionary work.
The two accounts differ significantly in timing, locations, and the people Paul met, creating challenges for harmonizing the narratives. In his Commentary, therefore, Joseph Fitzmyer rightly points out that Luke, [Fitzmyer believes that the name of the author of “Acts” is “Luke”] says nothing about Paul’s journey to Arabia or his return from there to Damascus (see Gal I: 17). Nor does he indicate that the “considerable time” (9:23) was actually “three years” (Gal 1:18).
How Does Ehrman Err?
Careful, contextual reading of both Galatians and Acts shows that the accounts are not contradictory, but complementary. Let’s examine the relevant passages and address the alleged discrepancies step by step.
1. Paul’s Account in Galatians
Paul writes:
“Nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again 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.”
— Galatians 1:17–19, ESV
Paul’s emphasis here is on his independence from the Jerusalem apostles after his conversion. He wants to show that his gospel came directly from Christ, not from human sources (Galatians 1:11–12).
2. Luke’s Account in Acts
Acts 9 records:
“For some days he was with the disciples at Damascus. And immediately he proclaimed Jesus in the synagogues… When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him… but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket. And when he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples.”
— Acts 9:19–26, ESV
Luke summarizes Paul’s time in Damascus as “many days,” then describes his escape and subsequent visit to Jerusalem.
3. Reconciling the Accounts
A. Silence is Not Contradiction
- Acts does not deny Paul went to Arabia; it simply omits it. Luke’s purpose is to provide a broad narrative of the early church, not a detailed autobiography of Paul. Omissions are not contradictions.
- Galatians provides more detail about the “many days” in Damascus. Paul’s trip to Arabia and return to Damascus happened during this period.
B. The “Many Days” = Three Years
- The phrase “when many days had passed” (Acts 9:23) is a general term that can easily encompass the three years Paul mentions in Galatians 1:18.
- Paul’s time in Arabia and Damascus fits within this “many days” before his first Jerusalem visit.
C. Who Did Paul Meet in Jerusalem?
- Paul says he met only Peter (Cephas) and James (Galatians 1:18–19).
- Acts 9:27 says Barnabas brought Paul to the apostles, but the text does not specify he met all of them. It is reasonable to understand that “apostles” here refers to those he actually met, namely Peter and James, as Paul himself testifies.
D. The Focus of Each Account
- Paul’s focus in Galatians: Defending the divine origin of his gospel by emphasizing his independence from Jerusalem.
- Luke’s focus in Acts: Summarizing the spread of the gospel and Paul’s acceptance by the church.
4. Supporting Biblical Principles
- Scripture is consistent, but different authors emphasize different details for their purposes.
“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.”
— 2 Timothy 3:16, ESV
- Historical details can be harmonized when read carefully.
“The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.”
— Psalm 119:160, ESV
- The early church recognized the importance of eyewitness testimony and careful reporting.
“Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us… it seemed good to me also… to write an orderly account for you.”
— Luke 1:1–3, ESV
5. Scholarly Support
As Sam Shamoun and others have pointed out, the “many days” in Acts 9:23 can easily include the three years Paul mentions in Galatians. The omission of Arabia in Acts is not a contradiction, but a matter of narrative focus (see above: “Luke may also not have even been aware of Paul’s journey to Arabia, or he may not have considered it of sufficient relevance to include.”).
Summary
There is no true contradiction between Galatians and Acts. Paul’s journey to Arabia occurred during the “many days” mentioned in Acts. Both accounts agree that Paul did not immediately go to Jerusalem after his conversion, and when he did, he met only Peter and James. The differences are due to the authors’ purposes and the level of detail provided, not to any error or contradiction.