The Acts of the Apostles ("Acts"), 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. Historical reliability does not require a source to be inerrant or void of agendas since there are sources such as Josephus, which is not inerrant and has agendas, and is still considered generally reliable.
Archaeological inscriptions and other independent sources show that Acts contains some accurate details of 1st-century society with regard to the titles of officials, administrative divisions, town assemblies, and rules of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Acts is considered a historical narrative and second volume to Luke, while Paul's epistles are considered to be letters written primarily on the topics of doctrine and ethics. In terms of biographies of Paul, scholars generally prefer Paul's account over that in Acts, though recent scholarship has challenged the idea that the Paul of Acts and the letters share little resemblance. However, Roman historians have generally taken the basic historicity of Acts as granted.
Composition
Narrative Luke–Acts is a two-part historical account traditionally ascribed to Luke the Evangelist, who was believed to be a follower of Paul. Critical opinion on the traditional attribution to Luke the Physician was roughly evenly divided at the end of the 20th century. The author of Luke–Acts noted that there were many accounts in circulation at the time of his writing. He stated that he had investigated "everything from the beginning" and using his contact with the "eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word" to write an account better than his predecessors. 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 Hellenic historiography.Grant, Robert M., "A Historical Introduction to the New Testament" (Harper and Row, 1963) Phillips, Thomas E. "The Genre of Acts: Moving Toward a Consensus?" Currents in Biblical Research 4 365 – 396."Hengel classifies Acts as a "historical monograph," as accurate as the work of any other ancient historian. Cadbury thinks the author is closest to being a historian, but writes on a popular level. Others compare the author to the ancient historian Thucydides, particularly in the matter of composed speeches that strive for verisimilitude. L. Donelson characterizes the author as a cult historian who travels from place to place gathering traditions, setting down the origin of the sect. Pervo observes that even scholars such as Haenchen who rate the author as highly unreliable nevertheless classify him as a historian.", Setzer, "Jewish responses to early Christians: history and polemics, 30–150 C.E." (1994). Fortress Press.
Use of sources It has been claimed that Luke used the writings of Josephus (specifically Antiquities of the Jews) as a historical source.‘This theory was maintained by F. C. Burkitt (The Gospel History and its Transmission, 1911, pp. 105–110), following the arguments of Krenkel’s Josephus und Lucas (1894).’, Guthrie, ‘New Testament Introduction’, p. 363 (4th rev. ed. 1996). Tyndale Press.'Clearly Luke makes significant use of the LXX in both the gospels and Acts. In addition it is often alleged that he made use of the writings of Josephus and the letters of Paul. The use of the LXX is not debatable, but the influence of Josephus and Paul has been and is subjected to considerable debate.', Tyson, 'Marcion and Luke-Acts: a defining struggle', p. 14 (2006).University of California Press. The majority of scholars reject both this claim and the claim that Josephus borrowed from Acts,‘Neither position has much of a following today, because of the significant differences between the two works in their accounts of the same events.’, Mason, ‘Josephus and the New Testament’, p. 185 (1992). Baker Publishing Group.'After examining the texts myself, I must conclude with the majority of scholars that it is impossible to establish the dependence of Luke-Acts on the Antiquitates.', Sterling, 'Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography', Supplements to Novum Testamentum, pp. 365–366 (1992). Brill.'Most scholars today deny any dependence one way or the other, and we think this judgment is correct.', Heyler, 'Exploring Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament Students', p. 362 (2002). InterVarsity Press. arguing instead that Luke and Josephus drew on common traditions and historical sources.'Sterling concludes that, while it is impossible to establish a literary dependence of Luke-Acts on the writings of Josephus, it is reasonable to affirm that both authors not only had access to similar historical traditions but also shared the same historiographical techniques and perspectives.', Verheyden, 'The Unity of Luke-Acts', p. 678 (1990). Peeters Publishing.'It seems probable that Luke and Josephus wrote independently of one another; for each could certainly have had access to sources and information, which he then employed according to his own perspectives. A characteristic conglomerate of details, which in part agree, in part reflect great similarity, but also in part, appear dissimilar and to stem from different provenances, accords with this analysis.', Schreckenberg & Schubert, 'Jewish Historiography and Iconography in Early and Medieval Christian Literature', Compendia Rerum Iudicarum Ad Novum Testamentum, volume 2, p. 51 (1992). Uitgeverij Van Gorcum.'The relationship between Luke and Josephus has produced an abundant literature, which has attempted to show the literary dependence of one on the other. I do not believe that any such dependence can be proved.', Marguerat, 'The First Christian Historian: writing the "Acts of the Apostles"', p. 79 (2002). Cambridge University Press.'Arguments for the dependence of passages in Acts on Josephus (especially the reference to Theudas in Acts v. 37) are equally unconvincing. The fact is, as Schurer has said: "Either Luke had not read Josephus, or he had forgotten all about what he had read"', Geldenhuys, 'Commentary on the Gospel of Luke', p. 31 (1950).Tyndale Press.'After examining the texts myself, I must conclude with the majority of scholars that it is impossible to establish the dependence of Luke-Acts on the Antiquitates. What is clear is that Luke-Acts and Josephus shared some common traditions about the recent history of Palestine.', Sterling, 'Historiography and Self-Definition: Josephus, Luke-Acts, and Apologetic Historiography', Supplements to Novum Testamentum, pp. 365–366 (1992). Brill.'When we consider both the differences and the agreement in many details of the information in the two accounts, [of the death of Herod Agrippa I] it is surely better to suppose the existence of a common source on which Luke and Josephus independently drew.', Klauck & McNeil, 'Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: the world of the Acts of the Apostles', p. 43 (2003). Continuum International Publishing Group.
Several scholars, such as Richard Heard, have criticised Luke's use of his source materials. Heard has written that, "in his narrative in the early part of Acts he seems to be stringing together, as best he may, a number of different stories and narratives, some of which appear, by the time they reached him, to have been seriously distorted in the telling."Heard, Richard (1950). An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Harper & Brothers. p. 138
Textual traditions Like most New Testament books, there are significant differences among the earliest surviving manuscripts of Acts. In the case of Acts, the differences between the surviving manuscripts are especially substantial. Arguably the two earliest versions of manuscripts are the Western text-type (as represented by the Codex Bezae) and the Alexandrian text-type (as represented by the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus which was not seen in Europe until 1859). The version of Acts preserved in the Western manuscripts contains about 6.2–8.5% more content than the Alexandrian version of Acts (depending on the definition of a variant).
Modern scholars contend that the shorter Alexandrian text is closer to the original, and the longer Western text is the result of later insertion of additional material into the text.
A third class of manuscripts, known as the Byzantine text-type, is often considered to have developed after the Western and Alexandrian types. While differing from both of the other types, the Byzantine type has more similarity to the Alexandrian than to the Western type. The extant manuscripts of this type date from the 5th century or later; however, papyrus fragments show that this text-type may date as early as the Alexandrian or Western text-types. The Byzantine text-type served as the basis for the 16th century Textus Receptus, produced by Erasmus, the second Greek-language printed edition of the New Testament. The Textus Receptus, in turn, served as the basis for the New Testament in the English-language King James Bible. Today, the Byzantine text-type is the subject of renewed interest as the possible original form of the text from which the Western and Alexandrian text-types were derived.
Historicity The debate on the historicity of Acts became most vehement between 1895 and 1915."In the period approximately 1895–1915 there was a far reaching, multi-facted, high-level debate over the historicity of Acts.", Hemer & Gempf, "The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History", p.3 (1990). Mohr Siebeck. Ferdinand Christian Baur viewed it as unreliable, and mostly an effort to reconcile Gentile and Jewish forms of Christianity. Adolf von Harnack in particular was known for being very critical of the accuracy of Acts, though his allegations of its inaccuracies have been described as "exaggerated hypercriticism" by some."It is difficult to acquit Harnack here of an exaggerated hypercriticism. He constructed a lengthy list of inaccuracies (Harnack, Acts pp. 203–31), but most of the entries are bizarrely trivial:", Hemer & Gempf, "The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History", p. 7 (1990). Mohr Siebeck. Leading scholar and archaeologist of the time period, William Mitchell Ramsay, considered Acts to be remarkably reliable as a historical document. Attitudes towards the historicity of Acts have ranged widely across scholarship in different countries."British scholarship has been relatively positive about Acts' historicity, from Lightfoot and Ramsay to W.L. Knox and Bruce. German scholarship has, for the most part, evaluated negatively the historical worth of Acts, from Baur and his school to Dibelius, Conzelmann, and Haenchen. North American scholars show a range of opinion. Mattill and Gasque align with the British approach to Acts. Cadbury and Lake take a moderate line and to some degree sidestep the question of accurate historicity.", Setzer, "Jewish responses to early Christians: history and polemics, 30–150 C.E.", p. 94 (1994). Fortress Press.
According to Heidi J. Hornik and Mikeal C. Parsons on biographical information on Paul, "Acts must be carefully sifted and mined for historical information." In terms of biographies of Paul, scholars generally prefer Paul's account over that in Acts, though recent scholarship has challenged the idea that the Paul of Acts and the letters share little resemblance. However, Roman historians have generally taken the basic historicity of Acts as granted.
In terms of general historiography, scholars of antiquity generally see Acts as containing historical information even by standards used to evaluate hellenistic historiography.
Passages consistent with the historical background