Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles

The historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, the principal historical source for the Apostolic Age, is of interest for biblical scholars and historians of Early Christianity as part of the debate over the Historicity_of_the_Bible.

Archaeological inscriptions and other independent sources show that Acts contains accurate details of 1st century society, specifically with regard to titles of officials, administrative divisions, town assemblies, and rules of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem.

A key contested issue however is the historicity of the depiction of Paul in Acts. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, Acts describes Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically. Acts differs with Paul's letters on important issues, such as the Law, Paul's own apostleship, and his relation to the Jerusalem church. Scholars generally prefer Paul's account over that in Acts. However, some prominent scholars and historians view the book of Acts as being fairly accurate and corroborated by archaeology, and in general agreement with the Pauline epistles.

Luke–Acts is a two-part historical account traditionally ascribed to Luke who was believed to be a follower of Paul. The author of Luke-Acts noted that there were many accounts in circulation at the time of his writing, saying that these were eye-witness testimonies. He stated that he had investigated "everything from the beginning" and was editing the material into one account from the birth of Jesus to his own time. Like other historians of his time, he defined his actions by stating that the reader can rely on the "certainty" of the facts given. However, most scholars understand Luke-Acts to be in the tradition of Greek historiography.

...
Wikipedia