Facts!!?? .. hmmmm .. nah .. Acts, will do fine .. (light sarcasm) ..
Sources
Main article: Source criticism
Acts 15:22–24 from the 7th-century Codex Laudianus in the Bodleian Library, written in parallel columns of Latin and Greek.
The author of Acts likely relied upon other sources, as well as oral tradition, in constructing his account of the early church and Paul's ministry. Evidence for this is found in the prologue to the Gospel of Luke, wherein the author alludes to his sources by writing, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word." Some scholars theorize that the "we" passages in Acts are just such "handed down" quotations from some earlier source who accompanied Paul on his travels.
It is generally believed[by whom?] that the author of Acts did not have access to a collection of Paul's letters. One piece of evidence suggesting this is that, although half of Acts centers on Paul, Acts never directly quotes from the Pauline epistles nor does it even mention Paul writing letters. Discrepancies between the Pauline epistles and Acts[which?] further supports the conclusion that the author of Acts did not have access to those epistles when composing Acts.
Other theories about Acts' sources are more controversial. Some historians believe that Acts borrows phraseology and plot elements from Euripides' play The Bacchae. Some feel that the text of Acts shows evidence of having used the Jewish historian Josephus as a source (in which case it would have to have been written sometime after 94 AD).[8] For example, R. I. Pervo dates Acts to the first quarter of the 2nd century.
Historical accuracy
Main article: Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles
The question of authorship is largely bound up with the one of the historical value of the contents. A key contested issue is the historicity of Luke's depiction of Paul. According to the majority viewpoint, Acts describes Paul differently from how he describes himself, both factually and theologically. Acts differs with Paul's letter 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 traditional 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. .. more .. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
