1. I did not consult with flesh and blood.
2. I did not go to the apostles in Jerusalem.
3. I went to Arabia.

That seems to imply that either “immediately” applies to all the items on the list or just the first. At first blush, the idea that it applies only to the last (as the NRSV and the NIV translate it) seems perverse.

I suppose one might argue that it can’t apply to the first two items on the grounds that you can’t immediately not do something except in a silly vacuous sense, such that Paul might as easily have said that he immediately did not write an epic poem or that he immediately did not milk a cow or anything else you like.

Such an argument probably does show that “immediately” cannot go with all the items on the list. If you try that you end up with this:

1′. Immediately, I did not consult with flesh and blood.
2′. Immediately, I did not go to the apostles in Jerusalem.
3′. Immediately, I went to Arabia.

When you put it this way, 1′ and 2′ don’t really make sense. But this falls short of showing that “immediately” must go with the last item.

If you assume that “immediately” goes only with the first item on the list, there is the possibility (presented with varying degrees of clarity by most translators) that the adverb “ou” (not) modifies the adverb “Eutheos”. That is, instead of “immediately, I did not”, you really have “I did not immediately”. So you have this:

1″. I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood.
2″. I did not got to the apostles in Jerusalem.
3″. I went to Arabia.

1″-3″ say nothing about what Paul immediately did. 1″ does say what he did not do immediately. But that’s all. On this reading there’s not even a hint of a conflict with the claim that he was in Damascus for a while before his trip to Arabia.

Re the possible time gap in Acts 9:19: There is an “Εγενετο δε” in there, an “it came to pass”, which I think suggests a gap in the narrative. You might be onto something.

“and after taking some food, he regained his strength. For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus”

I see from the NET Bible’s notes that it should really read:

“and after taking some food, he regained his strength. It happened that for several days he was with the disciples in Damascus”

Certainly this sounds to me like it could indicate a gap in the time-line… but that’s me reading it in English.

In more natural English, isn’t Paul saying “My immediate action was not X, nor Y, but rather Z”?

You’ve talked me into concluding this is in fact worse than I thought. :)

Looking at the other places that this word is used (Matthew 4:20, 4:22, 8:3, 13:5, 14:31, etc.) makes me think that Paul couldn’t have preached for a bit and then “immediately” left; in those verses that I’ve checked, “immediately” always describes the very next thing that people do.

I therefore think that the harmonisation relies on accepting an ESV-style reading of Galatians 1:16-17 (i.e. “immediately” doesn’t describe Paul leaving for Arabia), and a loose reading of “when God… reveal[ed] his Son to me… I went away into Arabia”. Taken together, they give enough wiggle-room to harmonise with Acts, leaving a tension but no explicit contradiction.

So the question is whether we can say that “immediately” is a bit vague and allows for some time preaching, or not.

How good’s your Greek? Do you think the word he uses could allow this?

You’ve talked me down on this. That’s an atheist persuading a Christian that two biblical texts probably don’t contradict each other; how strange. :)