Christian Holy Bible known as Acts, many people who read Acts may feel or be inclined to believe that it is a book of historical record and fact. However, there are many theologians and scholars that do not look at the book this way and this report shall look at the work of Powell and Boring when it comes to this fact. There are many in the Christian faith that assert that the Holy Bible should be taken "as is" in terms of what it says and so forth but there are others that put forth a great amount of caution when it comes to this idea and they have specific examples when it comes to the same. While many Christians may be inclined to take the book of Acts at its word, there are many reasons why this is less than wise.

Analysis

Straight off the top, Powell is quick to say that Luke, the author of Acts, never intended to portray or write the Book of Acts as history. Rather, there are scholars like Richard Pervo that suggest that the primary intention of the book is to "entertain and to edify." However, there are many other scholars that assert that Luke absolutely wants to be taken seriously as a historian. When it comes to the latter, there are various verses such as in Luke 1 and Acts I that given the notion that Luke is trying to act as if everything in those books is to be taken as historical fact rather than entertainment or some other form of writing. However, Powell is quick to point out that "Acts is not a work of history in the modern sense" (Powell, 1991). Indeed, Powell is quick to point out that Luke does not identify the sources of the material that he prints and he maintains a critical distance from the subject matter that is being stated. If indeed Luke's intent was to use sources to prove that what he was saying was legitimate and absolute fact, he did not do a very good job of doing so. However, roughly two thousand years have passed since the time period that the book pertains to and there are, by extension, some honest questions that have to be asked about how this matters....
...

Indeed, what stood as "history" back then may be different (if not a lot different) than what would be normal nowadays. Going a bit further, there is the exploration of what "standards" were in place at the time. Two examples pointed to when it comes to those standards were the Dionysius of Halicarnassus and an essay by Lucian of Samosate. For his part Dionysius says that the characters portrayed in historical texts should be given a "lofty status." Even so, both of the authors just mentioned were very specific when it came to how historical works and texts should be structured and portrayed. For example, both assert that information that is not central to the story should not be included. Indeed, they note that material should be written with "rapidity" rather than dallying with details that are not mundane to the recitation that is being levied towards the reader (Powell).
As far as how Acts is portrayed and written, there are indeed some things and details in Acts that are "unparalleled. In other words, this would mean that there is material that is neither confirmed nor contradicted by other material. Indeed, a lot of the incidental material about people like Matthias, Aeneas, Tabitha, Agabus, Rhoda and so forth are all examples of this. However, the hugest example of unparalleled materials has to be that about Saul/Paul. His transformation being a rather evil man to a man of Christ throughout the Bible is a very pivotal part of the book and a lot of the verbiage about him is not disproven in the Bible or any other literature about the same. Beyond that, there is a lot of material in the Bible that is indeed confirmed by other sources. While noting that the book of Acts is a "propaganda narrative," historian Adrian Sherwin-White admits that there are a lot of matters and details in the Book of Acts that are seemingly true when comparing and contrasting to the words and details found in historical texts outside of the Bible. For example, the identities given for…