In my view, it is more helpful to think of Luke's story as apologetic historiography (some of which Pervo would include as popular history), but apologetic historiography in a biblical style.
Tyson Professor emeritus of Religious Studies Southern Methodist University April 2011 The range of proposed dates for Acts is quite wide, from c. Within this range of dates, three are prominent in the scholarly literature: an early, an intermediate, and a late date.
The destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple by Roman armies in 70 CE is not mentioned in Acts but is probably alluded to in Luke -24.
90 CE, since the author seems to be ignorant about Paul's letters, which were not collected and circulated before that date.
Late daters of Acts agree with intermediate daters in questioning its historical value.
But the chief significance of a late date for Acts takes us far beyond claims and denials of historical reliability.
Scholars who favor this early date have no difficulty in identifying the author as "Luke," said to be a companion of Paul in Col ; 2 Tim ; Phlm .
Second, compelling arguments can be made that the author of Acts was acquainted with some materials written by Josephus, who completed his in 93-94 CE.
Third, recent studies have revised the judgment that the author of Acts was unaware of the Pauline letters.
The significance of an early date for Acts lies in the apparent advantage it gives to the historian of this period.
If the author was a companion of Paul, who accompanied him on some of his travels, then those sections of Acts that deal with Paul may be regarded as eye-witness reports about him and his life.
In defense of an intermediate date, it may be observed that the period 80-90 CE was a time when the Jesus movement had spread both geographically and ethnically.