Mar 7, 2010
I recently submitted a book review to the Criswell Theological Review for a book entitled Paul, His Letters, and Acts. In the book the author Thomas Phillips tries to argue for two Pauls, the one in Paul’s epistles and the portrait of Paul in Acts. While such a case might be made, I think that Phillips would have done well to heed the following statement from David Peterson’s recent Acts commentary.
“Although there are many points of contact—and there is value in comparing the evidence of Acts with the letters where possible—Luke offers a different perspective on Paul's ministry. Some have taken this to mean that Luke was misinformed, or deliberately misleading, or presenting an ideal or legendary Paul. But it is important to remember the occasiona1 nature of Paul's letters, the limited scope of Luke’s description of Paul, and his own distinctive agenda in writing.”
David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2009), 19.