sarea, he was converted by the Hellenists, and
stayed to help their mission. He went further than this: hearing
apparently of the success of Paul at Tarsus he sent for him and
co-opted him into the service of the Church at Antioch. It is worth
noting in passing that the complete absence {62} of any details as to
Paul's work in Tarsus, and the silence concerning his movements from
the time he left Jerusalem soon after his conversion, proves that this
part of Acts is an Antiochean rather than a Pauline tradition.

Soon after this more missionaries arrived from Jerusalem. They do not
appear to have been active propagandists, but brought with them a sad
story of approaching destitution in the famine which was at hand. The
Church at Antioch rose to the necessity and sent Paul and Barnabas with
relief.[3] Acts tells us nothing more of what happened, but that soon
after Paul and Barnabas, having returned to Antioch, started on the
"First Missionary Journey."[4] On their return, however, a mission of
protest against their methods arrived from Jerusalem. Paul, Barnabas,
and some others went up to Jerusalem; a meeting of the representatives
of the two churches was held, and an amicable agreement which was in
the main a triumph for Antioch was arrived at.[5]

This appears to be Paul's third visit to Jerusalem after his
conversion; but this raises difficulties, and has led to considerable
critical investigation and not a little controversy. It had always
been supposed that this visit of Paul to Jerusalem was identical with
that described in the second chapter of Galatians, but in that chapter
Paul, calling God to witness that he is not lying, makes a statement
which loses all its point if it was not his second visit. Various {63}
attempts to explain this difficulty have been made. One solution of
the problem is that the visit to Jerusalem described in Galatians ii.
is not identical with that of Acts xv., but is an episode connected
with the visit in the time of the famine relief, which the writer of
Acts had either not known or thought it unnecessary to recount.[6]
According to this theory the visit described in Acts xv. took place
after the visit in Galatians had been written. But this theory does
not answer the difficulty that the apostolic decrees are not mentioned
in the Epistles to the Corinthians, and that it is incredible that they
could have been overlooked by Paul if the account in Acts xv. were
wholly correct.