The Apostleship of Paul: Can we do without the Gospels and Acts?

Sometimes you will hear the sweeping statement that we can get the content of the disciples' preaching from the writings of the Apostle Paul. While I have no doubt that the writings of Paul are indeed consistent with the preaching of the other Apostles, I would raise a caution about trying to "do it all with Paul" without including the evidence of the Gospels and Acts. Acts provides crucial information about the dating of Paul's letters, the specifics of Paul's conversion experience, and the history of his interactions with the Jerusalem church. What happens if we "concede for the sake of the argument" that the author of Acts felt free at times to change the facts? Or consider Pauline theology on crucial matters like the Holy Spirit or the deity of Christ. Paul's independent spirit and his insistence that he has received information by direct revelation from Jesus, both amply attested in his letters, trigger an entirely legitimate desire to double check his theology on these matters from the teachings of the historical Jesus. Fortunately, the Gospels provide us with just such an independent check. Let's not be reckless in setting aside evidence due to a desire to "do it all with Paul" because, in critical scholarly circles, Paul is "in" while the Gospels are "out." Once again, be careful what you grant!