It is a common misstep made by many atheists to think that if a particular piece of evidence fails to logically entail a conclusion, then that same piece of evidence also fails to support the said conclusion. However, this is poor epistemology. A piece of evidence may be confirmatory of a conclusion without establishing it.
All of the contradictions Ehrman alleges between Acts and Paul’s letters are the result of over-readings, tendentious interpretations, and arguments from silence. The forcefulness that Ehrman ascribes to those, combined with his dismissal of the difficult details Luke gets right concerning geography and other matters as “completely irrelevant” is astounding, and really reveals his unscholarly bias against the New Testament.
Black argues that the testimony of the patristics (which supports Matthean priority) is often not factored in to the scholarly assessment of the synoptic problem. Indeed, he observes, “Today the academic guild, both in Europe and North America, assumes that the patristic evidence is basically legendary and unreliable,” (p. 32).