In the last century a consensus was established among the majority of New Testament scholars that the account of Paul in Acts is unhistorical and thus unreliable. As a result the material about Paul's life and ministry provided in Acts has hardly been used in Pauline studies. Chae challenges this consensus, and competently demonstrates, by painstakingly comparingLuke's account on Paul with Paul's own letters, that Luke's portrayal of Paul is highly reliable,and thus the Paul described in Acts is the historical Paul himself. This important study establishes that, in the light of the high credibility of Luke's portrayal of Paul, more allowance needs to be given to the book of Acts in Paul studies for our better understanding of the apostle and of his theology.
