Acts should be thought of as the second part of Luke’s history that started with the gospel bearing his name. There are no dates given for its composition, but it’s a clue that it never mentions the destruction of the Jewish Temple (70 A.D.) or the deaths of Peter and Paul (the mid-60s A.D.), so there’s a good chance that it was written earlier than that. Then, consider that Luke is earlier than Acts and Mark is earlier than Luke. So we can guess that the gospels were written close to the time of Jesus, meaning there was little time for myths to develop.

Acts is the story of the explosive growth of the early church, which grew  from a local body in Jerusalem to a world religion in thirty years. Like his other book, Luke has penned a historically accurate account that incorporates stories, letters, and speeches. Historians who have examined Acts say Luke is a first-rate historian who got lots of things correct–sailing and ship information, political structures,Jewish laws, . . .  He succeeds in the difficult task of combining history with theology—he defends the new faith, gives principles to guide the church, and illustrates courage in the face of persecution. He demonstrates the talents of a good storyteller when he spaces his speeches, includes only carefully selected details, and creates a sense of rapid movement. It’s not a complete history (someone said it should be called “Some of the Acts of Some of the Apostles”), but it gives us a sense of the excitement that surrounded the early church as it moved out into the world.