How did Acts 15 differ from Galatians 2?

Answer
Galatians was written by Paul himself and documents some of the events in Paul's ministry. In chapter 1, Paul claims that he received his gospel from no man, but by revelation from God, and that he immediately went to preach to the gentiles. In chapter 2, Paul claimed to have championed the right of gentile converts to remain uncircumcised and described Peter as the apostle to the circumcised - in fact not well disposed towards the gentiles. Paul seems unsure of the role of Peter and James in the Jerusalem church.

Acts of the Apostles was written some decades later by an anonymous author, although attributed in the second century to Paul's companion, Luke.In this document, Paul must be quite familiar with the roles of Peter and James, in the Jerusalem church.

Acts quite definitely attributes to Peter the decision to preach to the gentiles. Now, Acts 15 gives Peter the credit for accepting uncircumcised gentiles, with Paul not even expressing an opinion either way. It also portrays Paul as petulant and quarrelsome, in that he refused to take John Mark on a journey, causing a split between Paul on the one hand, and Barnabas and Mark on the other.

Arguably a feature of Acts of the Apostle is that it draws many comparisons between Paul and Peter, but always shows Peter in the better light. Acts downplays some of the claims made by Paul in his own epistles. It seems that the author of Actswished to ensure that credit for the expansion of Christianity among the gentile population should not go to Paul.

It may be that the differences result from a subtle attempt to rewrite the history of the early Christian Church.