Bede : When he had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples. Let us not believe that he came to the apostles in Jerusalem immediately after being baptized, but as he himself wrote to the Galatians, first he went to Arabia and then returned again to Damascus. Then after three years, coming to Jerusalem, he saw Peter and stayed with him for fifteen days. But he did not see any other of the apostles, except James the brother of the Lord. And then, as Luke also follows, he came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Whether he endured the plots in Damascus the first or second time is not easily evident. For it can also be understood the second time since it is said that after many days were fulfilled, the Jews made a plot to kill him. Therefore, it seems that Luke omits Arabia because he did not preach there, according to what he himself later said to King Agrippa: because I preached first in Damascus, and in Jerusalem, and throughout all the region of Judea, and to the Gentiles. — Commentary on Acts Bede : When he had come to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples. In this verse, in Greek, the name Paul is applied: "When Paul had come to Jerusalem," not because at that time he was yet called so, before he converted Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus, to the faith of Christ, but he is now called by anticipation in this way, the blessed Luke speaking opportunely: to indicate beforehand that he was to be called Paul, when he first came to Jerusalem after his conversion, and was said to be joined to the apostles, so that where a little earlier he had exited as a proud persecutor of the Church, he now entered as a humble protector of the Church. For since in Latin "paulum" means "little," rightly did he prefer to be called Paul, who did not cease to remain humble amid the greatest works of virtue. Nor is it to be thought that Paul or Peter are Hebrew words, but rather Latin or Greek words, since it is certain Hebrews do not have the letter p in any way. — Retractions on Acts John Chrysostom : One may well be much at a loss here to understand how it is that, whereas in the Epistle to the Galatians Paul says, "I went not to Jerusalem," but "into Arabia" and "to Damascus," and, "After three years I went up to Jerusalem," and "to see Peter" (Gal. i. 17), here the writer says the contrary. There, Paul says, "And none of the Apostles saw I;" but here, it is said Barnabas "brought him to the Apostles." Well, then, either Paul means, "I went not up with intent to refer or attach myself to them" - for what saith he? "I referred not myself, neither went I to Jerusalem to those who were Apostles before me:" or else, that the laying await for him in Damascus was after his return from Arabia; or else, again, that the visit to Jerusalem was after he came from Arabia. Certainly of his own accord he went not to the Apostles, but "assayed to join himself unto the disciples" - as being a teacher, not a disciple - "I went not," he says, "for this purpose, that I should go to those who were Apostles before me: certainly, I learnt nothing from them." Or, he does not speak of this visit, but passes it by, so that the order is, "I went into Arabia, then I came to Damascus, then to Jerusalem, then to Syria:" or else, again, that he went up to Jerusalem, then was sent to Damascus, then to Arabia, then again to Damascus, then to Caesarea. Also, the visit "after fourteen years," probably, was when he brought up the alms to the brethren together with Barnabas (Gal. ii. 1): or else he means a different occasion (Acts xi. 30). For the Historian for conciseness, often omits incidents, and condenses the times. Observe how unambitious the writer is, and how he does not even relate that vision, but passes it by. "He assayed," it says, "to join himself to the disciples. And they were afraid of him." By this again is shown the ardor of Paul's character: not only from the mouth of Ananias, and of those who wondered at him there, but also of those in Jerusalem: "they believed not that he was a disciple:" for truly that was beyond all human expectation. He was no longer a wild beast, but a man mild and gentle! And observe how he does not go to the Apostles, such is his forbearance, but to the disciples, as being a disciple. He was not thought worthy of credit. "But Barnabas" - "Son of Consolation" is his appellation, whence also he makes himself easy of access to the man: for "he was a kind man" (ch. xi. 24), exceedingly, and this is proved both by the present instance, and in the affair of John Mark - "having taken him, brought him to the Apostles, and related to them how he had seen the Lord in the way." It is likely that at Damascus also he had heard all about him: whence he was not afraid but the others were, for he was a man whose glance inspired fear. — Homily on Acts 21 John Chrysostom : "Assayed," it says, "to join himself to the disciples." He did not come up to them unabashed, but with a subdued manner. "Disciples" they were all called at that time by reason of their great virtue, for there was the likeness of the disciples plainly to be seen. — Homily on Acts 21 John Chrysostom : "He assayed," it says, "to join himself to the disciples. And they were afraid of him." By this again is shown the ardor of Paul's character: not only from the mouth of Ananias, and of those who wondered at him there, but also of those in Jerusalem: "they believed not that he was a disciple:" for truly that was beyond all human expectation. He was no longer a wild beast, but a man mild and gentle! And observe how he does not go to the Apostles, such is his forbearance, but to the disciples, as being a disciple. He was not thought worthy of credit. — Homily on Acts 21 Oecumenius : It is worth questioning here how, on the one hand, in the Epistle to the Galatians he says that I did not go up to Jerusalem, but to Arabia and Damascus, and after three years to Jerusalem, and that he saw Peter and that he saw none of the other apostles. (Gal. 1:16-17) Yet here, on the other hand, he says that Barnabas led him to the apostles. Now when he says in the Epistle to the Galatians that he did not go up, he means that he did not go up to talk. For he says, "I did not talk with them nor did I go up to Jerusalem." If this is not what he means, it is clear that the plot in Damascus did not occur immediately after his believing, but after his return from Arabia three years later. If this is also not the meaning, then although he did not go to the apostles he tried to attach himself to the disciples, tempering himself as a teacher rather than as a disciple. But Barnabas brings him to the apostles and relates what he had seen and how bold he was. For this reason he says that he went, to go to the apostles before me; I went away; at any rate I learned nothing from them. He took this ascent so as to be therefore, that he went away into Arabia, then he came to Damascus, then to Jerusalem, then to Syria. Or if not this in that order, that again he went up to Jerusalem, then was sent to Damascus, then to Arabia, then again to Damascus, then to Caesarea. And then after fourteen years he went up again to Jerusalem, perhaps when he brought the brothers along with Barnabas. If not this, the author gives another reckoning of the time. For the historian Luke also shortens many things and gathers together many periods. But it seems to me that Barnabas was from the first a friend to him, a man of such fair and exceedingly kind character; therefore also he was called son of consolation by name; therefore he became approachable to the man. [CHRYSOSTOM] — Commentary on Acts