Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles

From Textus Receptus

The historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, the primary source for the Apostolic Age, is a major issue for biblical scholars and historians of Early Christianity, with the debate on the historicity of Acts becoming most vehement between 1895 and 1915. German theologian Adolf von Harnack in particular was known for his strong criticism of Acts, though his allegations of inaccuracies have been described as "exaggerated hypercriticism" by modern scholarship. Attitudes towards the historicity of Acts range widely across scholarship in different countries.

Three early writings that mention Jesus and the Origins of Christianity are the Antiquities of the Jews by the Roman-Jewish historian Josephus (which only briefly mentions Jesus), the Church History of Eusebius of the 4th century, and Luke–Acts, a two-part historiography by Luke who was believed to be a follower of Paul.

A key contested issue is the historicity of Luke's depiction of Paul. According to the majority viewpoint, Acts described Paul differently from how Paul describes himself, both factually and theologically. Acts differed 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. Representing a more conservative view, however, some prominent scholars and historians view the book of Acts as being quite accurate and corroborated by archaeology, while agreeing with the Pauline epistles.