Acts vs Galatians

[Marque100]

I recently saw a video clip showing this apparent contradiction between Acts (Luke) & Galatians (Paul):

In Acts 9:10-30 Paul, after leaving Damascus some days after his conversion, goes directly to Jerusalem and meets with the apostles.

vs

In Galatians 1:15-18 after Paul had his vision of Jesus and came to believe in him, Paul says he did NOT go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles.

Anyone noticed this before, any explanation for it?
Thanks,
M.

[Tsaphah]

I recently saw a video clip showing this apparent contradiction between Acts (Luke) & Galatians (Paul):

In Acts 9:10-30 Paul, after leaving Damascus some days after his conversion, goes directly to Jerusalem and meets with the apostles.

vs

In Galatians 1:15-18 after Paul had his vision of Jesus and came to believe in him, Paul says he did NOT go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles.

Anyone noticed this before, any explanation for it?
Thanks,
M.

The main verses to be discussed are Acts 9:26 and Galatians 1:17. This is where there appears to be a contradiction. But, is there one here? If we read Acts 9:26, it says, “On arriving in Jerusalem he made efforts to join himself to the disciples; but they were all afraid of him, because they did not believe he was a disciple.” How long after Saul/Paul left Damascus, and arrived in Jerusalem, is not stated. It goes on to say that the disciples were afraid of Saul/Paul and did not believe he was a disciple.

In his letter to the Galatians, Saul/Paul writes, “Neither did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles previous to me, but I went off into Arabia, and I came back again to Damascus. Then three years later I went up to visit Cephas, and I stayed with him fifteen days.” The time periods are not given, other than what Saul/Paul states in Galatians. The time he spent preaching in Damascus is not stated. It quite possibly could have been that three year period.

There is no contradiction here, as the first account in Acts was written by Luke. How do we know this? Acts 1:1 and Luke 1:3 both name Theophilus as the person to whom the letters are written. The letter to the Galatians was personally written, or dictated by Saul/Paul. (Gal 1:1-2) There is the possibility that this is two different accounts, at different times. Many biblical scholars agree that Luke was the original writer of the book of Luke and Acts. It also may be that Luke was the stenographer/writer of some of the letters to the congregations, by Saul/Paul. (Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:11; Phm 1:24)

This so called contradiction is merely a moot point to be argued by the untaught and unsteady who only look for discrepancies, to disprove the bible being the word of God. (2 Pet 3:16) They are unreasoning and hold no hope as all followers of Christ Jesus do.

Tsaphah

[Marque100]

Thanks a lot; Even though it's not much of an issue, I always like to be able to give an answer to these things - I was a bit unsure of this one.

M.

[watchman]

Wow. Thanks TSA., for the answer, too. There are some pretty sharp pencils here in the Worker's pouch.

e-w

[Molly]

Hi All-

There isn't a big problem with the two accounts as Tsaphah explained.

Both accounts were written to Theophilus. Acts follows the gospel of Luke much like part 2 to a story, no doubt written in the manner as the gospel. Luke explains as Luke 1:1-4:

"Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally."

It is reasonable to assume that Luke wrote to Theophilus with the same "logical order" in Acts as he did in his gospel account. In his "tracing all things" some details that may have surfaced may not have seemed important enough to relate. Or, he may not have been aware of certain details that Paul knew.

What it does show is that Paul says he went to Arabia for 3 years after he saw the vision. Then he went to Jerusalem.

Molly

[Molly]

Hello Again-

While the 3 year period is easily resolved, that doesn't mean that there aren't some problems with Luke's version of events. There is another couple statements Luke makes that are a little harder to resolve.

Please not that the Matthew, Mark and John gospels indicate that the disciples were to head on down to Galilee where they would see the risen Christ. (Matt. 28:7; Mark 16:7) That they went is confirmed at Matthew 28:16 and John 21:1.

Luke on the other hand Luke indicates that they were to remain in Jerusalem until they were "clothed with power from on high." (Luke 24:26-49)

So, did they go to Galilee or remain in Jerusalem until they received holy spirit?

In Matthew 28:16 the account reads: "However, the eleven disciples went into Galilee to the mountain where Jesus had arranged for them." And there is where he ascended into heaven.

At Luke 24:50,51 the account reads: "But he led them out as far as Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 As he was blessing them he was parted from them and began to be borne up to heaven." Luke has them remaining in Jerusalem and going to Bethany for the ascension.

So, did the disciples go to Galilee or stay in Jerusalem? Was Jesus borne up into heaven near Galilee or at Bethany?

If the disciples were in Galilee, where did they receive holy spirit? That's a long trip from Galilee to Jerusalem after just having gone from Jerusalem down to Galilee.

Resolve that one!

Molly

[Utuna]

Dear all,

Here are some translations of footnotes from two Bibles (Osty, Semeur) I have at my disposal :

Bible du Semeur

Acts9:23

After a time : That time, which encompasses Paul's stay at Damas and in Arabia, lasted 3 years long (Ga1:17-18 and footnote v.18).

Gal1:18

Three years later : either after his conversion (v.16) or after he came back from Damas (v.17). According to the way years were counted in that time, those three years could be no more than one year and a half. That period may correspond to the "after a time" in Acts9:23.

Section note

Not only the apostle's assertions but also the facts prove that Paul's apostolate does not stem from "Jerusalem" or from the other apostles but from Christ alone. For after his conversion, Paul didn't go to Jerusalem in order to be appointed as apostle. Thus, why should the Judaizers demand that the Galatians be subservient to Jerusalem ?

Bible d'Osty

Acts9:22

Luke, who is always prone to shorten or simplify (v.27; 17:14-16; 18:5; 22:17; etc.) leaves out Paul's stay in Arabia, of which we have knowledge through Ga1:17.

Acts9:26

The Galatian's epistle develops further what is only implied in Luke's synthesized account; it's only three years after his conversion that Paul "went to Jerusalem" (Gal1:18).

Gal1:18

Then three years later : that is, according to the usual chronology, in 35CE. - "I went to Jerusalem", cf Acts9:26-30. - "to meet Kephas", the Greek word implies a study, an exploration, a thorough inquiry.

Gal2:1

Then after fourteen years : after his conversion, that is in 46CE, Paul "went again to Jerusalem", that is the travel mentioned in Acts11:30; 12:25. Most of the translators consider that it is, on the contrary, the travel described in Acts15:1-29. From our perspective, they are wrong because the two accounts are not only very different but Paul who wanted to prove that he was in full accordance with the Jerusalem's Church didn't have to omit even one of his travel to the Holy City.


---------------------------------------------------


I hope it helps. I'll try to find other comments elsewhere. It's not a discrepancy in the biblical account, it's just that Luke omitted a few details that would have enabled us to have more precisions about Paul's numerous travels.

--------------------------------------------------------------
"Le sectarisme des jugements pauvres lui tenait quelquefois lieu de volonté" - Hervé Bazin
"J'ai pétri de la boue et j'en ai fait de l'or" - Charles Baudelaire
"S'il m'a été donné de voir un peu plus loin que les autres, c'est que je me tenais sur les épaules de géants" - Isaac Newton