the non-historicality of the Acts of the Apostles (or how all these texts manage not to synch as well as they should)

The historicity of the New Testament documents has traditionally been established by “internal evidence” i.e. references within the text to historical figures of the presumed period of the narrative.  This has been cross-referenced against “external evidence” like Josephus single reference to Jesus, or Tacitus’ and Suetonius’ single references to “Christos” and Chrestus.”  Because, of course, no one would ever insert references into historical texts to support the legitimacy of something for which there is no other extant evidence.  No.  That would never happen.

The historicity of the Pauline letters is established because the letters themselves are nominally addressed to communities that are referenced in the Acts of the Apostles, the second book of Luke/Acts.  The Acts of the Apostles is prefaced by a superscription that reminds the reader that the narrative is addressed to someone named “Theophilus” (God-lover).  This superscription links  Kata Lukan to the Acts.   The new book presents some interesting divergences from the previous texts:  where the Pharisees had been adversaries in the gospels, the Sadducees are the adversaries in the book of Acts.  Indeed, in 5:34-40, a Pharisee is speaking in support of the apostles to what is intended to be a Council of Jews:

But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while. And he said to them, “Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!”

In this speech, we find reference to two previous uprisings which may or may not be the First Jewish War and the Kitos revolt.  This suggests that the present circumstance may be the bar Cochba revolt.

In chapter 6, we find a reference to “the Hellenists,” which is presumed to refer to Judeans who had assimilated into the Greco-Roman populace.  The term did not appear in the gospels.

In chapter 7, we find Stephen the Apostle, making a lovely and lengthy speech that is a quick romp through Judean history, including the promise of Abraham and the giving of the law to Moses.  The speech sounds remarkably like Philo.

In chapter 9 Saul (who is not yet Paul) has his revelation:   

But Saul increased all the more in strength, and confounded the Jews who lived in Damascus by proving that Jesus was the Christ.

When many days had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him, but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night in order to kill him, but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.

This concurs with the narrative of 2 Corinthians.  But which came first?  It would seem that one of the two redactors was working with the narrative in front of him.

In Chapter 11, we are told that Peter went to Jerusalem and the “circumcision party” criticized him.  We find a reference to the “circumcision party” in Galatians 2:12 with a narrative that tells Paul’s version of events.  Acts gives Peter’s account.  In Peter’s version, he claims the same justification for not keeping kosher that we found in Mark 7:1-30.

In Chapter 13:5-10, we find what may be a negative Greco-Roman reference to bar Cochba:
 

When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John to assist them. When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they came upon a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet named Bar-Jesus. He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. But Elymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) opposed them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him and said, “You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?  

Midway through Chapter 16, having noted that Paul went to Galatia, the style changes abruptly from a third person narration to a first persona narration, with no explanation of why or how this has occurred.  Then the style reverts to a third person narrative.

In 18:1-6 we are told:

After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. 

Suetonius says that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome because they were making disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus.  Acts says Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome, and apparently the Jews of Rome had not yet made the acquaintance of “Chrestus.”  How, then is it possible that the Roman historian (who was Hadrian’s personal secretary) knows more about the cult than its own historians, particularly when the cultic historian has made it clear that no “Christian” has yet proselytized Rome?

So it is that we look at texts with an eye to seeing when they might have been written so that we can assess when they might have been redacted to achieve a common accord.  It would seem that the texts were, indeed, redacted so that they would have a recognizable and somewhat consistent narrative.  However it also seems that the redactor(s) did not pay a great deal of attention when they were reconciling the various documents.