Did Paul stay in Damascus immediately after his conversion, or did he go to Arabia?
Posted on Jan.28, 2009. Filed in Acts, Galatians. Average rating: 6.3 / 10 (Rate It).
Paul’s actions following his dramatic conversion from persecutor of the Church to follower of Jesus are recorded in both Acts and Galatians. The two accounts differ, however, as to where Paul went following his conversion.
According to Paul’s own account in Galatians, following his conversion he went at once to Arabia:
But when God, who had set me apart before I was born and called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him among the Gentiles, I did not confer with any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterwards I returned to Damascus. [Galatians 1:15-17 (NRSV)]
According to Acts, however, following his conversion Paul (then called Saul) remained in Damascus proclaiming the gospel to the Jews:
For several days he was with the disciples in Damascus, and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, ‘He is the Son of God.’ All who heard him were amazed and said, ‘Is not this the man who made havoc among those who invoked this name? And has he not come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?’ Saul became increasingly more powerful and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Messiah. After some time had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night so that they might kill him; but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket. [Acts 9:19b-25 (NRSV)]
So did Paul stay in Damascus immediately after his conversion, or did he go to Arabia? If he stayed in Damascus, then Galatians 1:17 contains an error. If he went to Arabia, then Acts 9:20 contains an error.
N.B. All posts are written in a style sympathetic to the claim of Biblical error, even in cases where the author ("Errancy") disagrees with the claim. See the About page for the site's philosophy.
15 Comments Ratings
Inerrantist Responses
To suggest a response to this claim of error, please use the comments section below.
Rate this Claim of Error
How serious a problem for inerrancy do you think this is?
Average rating: 6.3 / 10
You must be logged in to rate errors.
January 29th, 2009 on 10:56 pm
I see you’re using the NRSV – but some translations (e.g. the ESV) don’t say “I went at once into Arabia” but simply “I went away into Arabia”.
This would substantially weaken the contradiction, though we’re still left with the problem that Paul says “I did not confer with any human being” whereas Acts has him “immediately” start preaching…
(Perhaps preaching doesn’t count as “conferring”?)
By the way, am I leaving too many comments on this site?
January 29th, 2009 on 11:54 pm
I decided to make my own page on this, which might interest you:
http://www.errancy.org/arabia.html
My final conclusion was that this isn’t as strong as it initially seems.
January 30th, 2009 on 8:17 am
> I see you’re using the NRSV – but some translations (e.g. the ESV) don’t say “I went at once into Arabia” but simply “I went away into Arabia”.
Yes, I pretty much always use the NRSV. There are some cases where other translations would serve my purposes here better (e.g. 1 Samuel 18:27, as I’ll explain in my next post), but I prefer to stick to one translation and then explain the issues rather than jump from one translation to another.
Re “at once” in Galations 1:16-17: In the Greek, Paul says, “At once I didn’t do X, nor did I do Y, but I did Z.” The ESV reads “at once” as part of the first list item (so Paul is taken to mean “I didn’t do X at once, nor did I do Y, but I did Z”); the NRSV takes “at once” as referring to the one thing on the list that Paul actually did (so Paul is taken to mean “I didn’t do X, nor did I do Y, but I did Z at once”). I think that reasonable minds may differ on this one, but that even in the ESV Paul implies that he went into Arabia pretty much straight away.
That said, I think there’s a case for a contradiction here even without the words “at once”. In Galatians, Paul gives the time that he went into Arabia as, “when God… reveal[ed] his Son to me”, suggesting that he left Damascus soon after his conversion. Acts says that Paul “became increasingly more powerful” in Damascus, and that he fled “after some time had passed”, both suggesting the passage of some time before Paul left. The case is significantly weaker without “at once”, but there’s still a case to be made.
> Perhaps preaching doesn’t count as “conferring”?
I’d say it doesn’t. In context, “conferring” seems to mean consulting church leaders on what doctrine he should preach. Preaching needn’t involve that.
> By the way, am I leaving too many comments on this site?
Absolutely not! I’m finding your input very helpful (you’ve affected my opinion more than once). Please keep letting me know what you think.
January 30th, 2009 on 10:10 am
Presumably an inerrantist has to fit the trip to Arabia into the events of Acts 9:19-25? Since the description of his time in Damascus is rather vague, I think this could be done without too much of a stretch…
(And one might say that, when one is referring to events that happened years ago, “at once” only means “fairly soon after”…)
January 30th, 2009 on 10:53 am
Yes, if you take the ESV reading then the two accounts can probably be harmonised (there’ll still be a tension, but no contradiction).
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. :)
January 30th, 2009 on 1:28 pm
Heh. Perhaps I’m being too generous. Regardless of where the word “immediately” goes, I think you’re right that Paul is saying he “immediately” went to Arabia.
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?
January 30th, 2009 on 2:07 pm
I studied NT Greek about a decade ago, but am now very rusty. I have a go, but certainly don’t claim to have any expertise.
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.
January 30th, 2009 on 5:14 pm
Hmm. Your translation above (“At once I didn’t do X, nor did I do Y, but I did Z”) makes me think the ESV isn’t quite right.
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. :)
January 30th, 2009 on 5:34 pm
However… having said that, I now wonder if it’s possible to read a time-lapse in the middle of Acts 9:19:
“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.
January 30th, 2009 on 5:58 pm
Argh, I’ve been stupid. If there’s a big gap in the time-line then Acts doesn’t make much sense when it says “immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues”…