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 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 being very critical of the accuracy of Acts, though his allegations of its inaccuracies have been described as ""exaggerated hypercriticism"" by some. 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, Church History of Eusebius of the 4th century, and Luke–Acts, a two-part historiography, sometimes ascribed to Luke who was believed to be a follower of Paul.A key contested issue is the historicity of the depiction of Paul in Acts. 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 fairly accurate and corroborated by archaeology, and in general agreement with the Pauline epistles.