The Historical Accuracy of Luke-Acts
_-_James_Tissot.jpg)
Many of these perceived difficulties are lessened when we recall the purpose of Luke’s accounts. In composing his volumes, Luke did not intend to record a comprehensive history, but, rather, to provide an accurate historical account to meet the needs of people to develop faith (Luke 1:4). Luke acknowledged his use of sources (Luke 1:2), which he investigated thoroughly in order to compose an orderly account (Luke 1:3). Where it is possible to verify Luke’s use of sources, we find that the Gospel writer followed them meticulously. Furthermore, Luke was precise concerning the titles of officials and municipalities in various towns (Acts 13:12; Acts 17:6; Acts18:12; Acts 19:31,35), details that reveal the writer’s commitment to accuracy.”—Based on the New International Version Archaeological Study Bible article “The Historical Value of Luke-Acts”
Where did the accepted New Testament books come from? The process of determining which texts would comprise the Biblical canon (the standard of authoritative and normative teaching for the church) is asserted to have taken place over several centuries. Beginning in the first century CE., Christian communities recognized the authority of texts that they gathered into collections for circulation and use in public worship. Second Peter already suggests a familiarity with the letters of Paul, and goes so far as to place them on par with the Hebrew Scriptures (3:16). Evidence reveals that during public worship Christians in the earliest centuries read from the texts that would become the New Testament, just as they did from the Hebrew Scriptures (