Why are Peter and Paul so important in Acts of the Apostles?

A:Peter and Paul are known as the two most important apostles in the ealry Church, and on that basis a history of the Church ought to focus on Peter and Paul. Superficially, Acts seems to focus on Peter in the first section, then on Paul in the second. However, a more careful reading of Acts shows that the entire book really compares Peter and Paul, always favouring Peter is the greater apostle. Therefore Acts is not a history that happens to be dominated by Peter and Paul, but is a careful criticism of Paul. It seems that the author of Acts might have felt that Paul was too much venerated, to the detriment of the Church.

Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, said that after his conversion, he travelled to Arabia and only then went to Damascus (bypassing Jerusalem), which means that he was not blind or other wise disabled and helpless, as in Acts. He said that he received the gospel from no man but by revelation, whereas Acts has Paul taken blind and helpless to Damascus, where he was taught the gospel. Whereas Paul spoke of Barnabas as his loyal assistant, Acts makes Barnabas his mentor and instructor. Gradually, Paul's stature is diminished.

Paul never mentioned performing miracles, but decades later we find Acts attributing miracles to him, although Peter always performed a another, somewhat similar but greater miracle and did greater service for the Church.

So Peter and Paul were important in Acts of the Apostles because the book is really about them, or at least about Paul.